"You guys aren’t Christians.
Furthermore I have never said, “You guys aren’t Christian” I said, “we both can’t be Christian” There is a difference. Please read carefully and stop misrepresenting what I have said. God Bless! 
LOL! 
It’s actually acquired something of a technical definition in the computer age, along the lines of:
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark off such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
(Source: Urban Dictionary)
I don’t think I’m alone in seeing you fit much of this definition, Oxymoron.
God bless! 
Oh, okay cool. So you’re admitting that YOU are NOT a Christian? If we can’t both be Christians, and you’re not saying I’m not a Christian, that leaves only one possibility: you are implicitly admitting you’re not a Christian. 
God bless!
I am done with you sir. one we are off topic and two-you want to pick a fight which says more about your Christianity than mine. So if you please. Let’s end this.
May the Lord bless you too, Oxy!
-
It is the doctrine you espouse which I have deemed “unjust” – not God. God surely is, has been, and will be fully Just. I am in no place to determine if you are a Christian or not – that is between you and He. I hope my desire is for Christ … I hope yours is as well, and may the Lord lead us both into greater fellowship and unity with each other and with Him in the Spirit.
-
You may rest assured that I have not the slightest inclination to be a pastor or teacher in the church, nor do I have the slightest desire to argue that point one way or the other. But I am now entirely convinced you are a man.
-
Can you not see that I could send the same accusation back your way, with as much justification? How exactly does this further the discussion?
No matter what I said to this charge, you wouldn’t believe me, would you? I know your tribe … I was one of them once and not so very long ago! – so cold and heartless – so quick to condemn – so ready to claim my place among the saints! 
Was Moses moved by his feelings when he plead for God not to destroy the people? Was God moved by his feelings when He said, “Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he my darling child? For as often as I speak against him, I do remember him still. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him.”
You are correct that the things that “feel good” are not always good. “Feelings” can be fickle and untrustworthy and lead us wrong–especially if they are based on a selfish, uncaring nature. “Feelings” can include anger, pride, jealousy, and covetousness leading to strife and dissention, sinful attitudes and behavior.
But that does not mean a thing should be condemned on the basis of the fact that “feelings” affirm it. “Feelings” backed by wisdom and an attitude that seeks the good of the other are good. Thus we see that the fruits of the spirit are based on “good” feelings: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. If these qualities of care and concern for others are genuinely in us, our “feelings” will align with them.
It would be unwise to allow ourselves to be “led” strictly by our feelings, but that does not mean it is wrong to be moved by them, or wrong for our feelings to affirm our beliefs.
Sonia
I’ll give that (and the whole post) an AMEN!!
Oxy: Furthermore I have never said, “You guys aren’t Christian” I said, “we both can’t be Christian” There is a difference.
Tom: But the difference is inconsequential, and to try to disquise your belief that universalists cannot be Christians with this bit of sophistry is disingenuous (and unChristian 
). You obviously believe yourself to be a Christian. So what follows from this and from your believing that you and _____ (fill in the blank) can’t both be Christians, is that you believe ____ is not a Christian. Nobody has to misrepresent you to understand this much.
Oxy: That is a good first step in that you recognize there is a distinction between universalism and evangelicalism. Both cannot be Christian.
Tom: This is so interesting, it’s funny. First, it doesn’t follow that if two things are ‘distinct’ they cannot also be alike in some respects. Apples and oranges are ‘distinct’, but both are ‘fruit’. UR and evangelicalism may be distinct. Big deal. This doesn’t itself mean that they aren’t compatible in some respects, respects that make both compatible with being a Christian.
The relevant point is that UR and evangelicalism’s being *distinct *doesn’t itself mean they’re incompatible with each other, OR (if they are incompatible with each other) that both aren’t still compatible with being a Christian. Being a ‘democrat’ and being a ‘republican’ for example are distinct political worldviews. One can’t be both. But one may be a Christian and be either. Being ‘male’ and ‘female’ are normally distinct and incompatible states (never mind hermaphrodites for the moment), but a Christian may be either.
So for your claim to be true it would have to be the case that UR and evangelicalism are distinct on some point essential to being a Christian. That is, you have to show that every true Christian by definition of some belief essential to Christianity is an evangelical and thus by definition not a universalist. Good luck with that.
Evangelicals comprise a very wide range of theologies and distinct worldviews. What some groups do is attempt to lay exclusive claim to the name of evangelical so that unless one agrees on all the points thought to be essential, one is OUT. Oxy, you wield the evangelical sickle in such a way. Piper and Sproul and other hard core Calvinists do the same. They think open theists are heretics, for example. So open theists can’t be Christians let alone evangelicals. But other Christians that Piper thinks are evangelical (including those within his own denomination) don’t agree that open theists are apostates or non-evangelical. So in the end, Oxy, being counted as evangelical only matters to the universalist and the particular evangelical group with whom the universalist wishes to fellowship. And when it comes down to THAT, it’s about THOSE relationships anyhow, not whehter or not there are some evangelicals who disfellowship universalists. In the end there is no one overarching authority that speaks for ALL evangelicals, no constitution, no Pope, no general council that represents them all. It’s pretty much hit and miss.
But if it is in fact that case that EVERY evangelical group in the world would ostracize universalists as non-Christians or heretics, then that itself doesn’t mean universalists aren’t in fact Christians. It just means evangelicals won’t welcome them as such. But as it is, it doens’t at all look like you’re going to get that kind of universal ostracization of universalists by evangelicals, Oxy.
But anyhow, I’d be interested in your definition of evangelicalism, Oxy. Would you mind spelling it out for me?
Thanks,
Tom