It's not clear to me whether you've been banned,
T. E. Smith, but this is an interesting and worthwhile perspective. The problem with Universalism is that Jesus spoke pretty clearly about Hell - or at least the Gospels say he did, and Paul certainly did. I've argued with lots of Universalists, and they are the ultimate proof-texters - picking a couple of verses they like while ignoring or explaining away the many, many they don't. Some fairly serious theologians argue for Universalism, however.
I have, of course, heard all the apologetic justifications for the doctrine of Hell. They really aren't convincing or satisfying. I simply say, "If there is a Hell, whatever it is, we'll see in the end how it's worthy of the perfectly wise, perfectly just, perfectly holy and perfectly loving Creator in whom we trust." Right now, from my finite human perspective, I don't see how it's worthy.
Believing in Hell (or Universalism, for that matter) isn't one of my Christian essentials. So I'm content with the "we'll see in the end" approach. If I had to bet my life savings, I'd bet that something like Universalism, or at least a broader and more inclusive understanding of what it means to be saved, is closer to the truth.
