Kinda says it all but I just wanted to say how pleasant it is to experience theological freedom amongst and with-in a universalist
context compared to the ever so subtle [in some cases] pressure of theological conformity with-in almost any traditional form of Christianity or denomination , the freedom of expression is liberating 
but I guess in-line with my post on
āāwhat is truthāā just how far can this freedom go ? the sometimes silence brings me to the realisation that it doesnāt necessarily
equate to agreement ! but none the less as the title of the group suggests āāthe evangelical universalistāā ,there must be some theological boundaries, but given that evangelicalism has [shall we say] some issues just where does that leave us ?
for as well as posing some questions I wanted to say how enjoyable it is to interact in this manner !
Hi. Right there with you on this. Once upon a time I thought it was up to me to āfigure this all outā and I thought I had! 
I was orthodox all the way, never questioned any of it. When I found UR everything I thought I knew was demolished. 
So, I feverishly began to figure out UR. Studying, reading everything I could get my hands on, etc. I had a good understanding but never again could I allow myself to think I had it figured out. Since then, I realized it just CANāT be about that. About having a perfect understanding of scripture to know God. It began to dawn on me that I was on to seeing the difference between knowing God with my mind VS my spirit and it was good. He is so far out there beyond our minds ability to comprehend and oddly, this has been an invaluable comfort to me. It made it all about Him and not about me.
Iāve underwent a couple of major theological shifts in my life; the result of which being I realize that I/we (whoever the āweā is) can be absolutely wrong. This gives me a tremendous freedom to accept people where they are at, regardless of what they believe. They might be right and I might be wrong. Iāll gladly share what Iāve come to believe and why, but Iāll also gladly listen to others, what theyāve come to believe and why.
As you note, sadly, most churches limit their fellowship to only those who share their same beliefs, allowing for no differences. This limits their/our growth tremendously I believe. People are afraid of what is different. Iāve found though that the more my trust is in God, the less fear I have being wrong.
Jesus said, āBlessed are the poor in spirit, those hungry for righteousness, those who are broken-heartedā¦ā This is privation, great need - not those who have no need! If we think we have it all figured out, are "right"eous, āfullā of the Spirit, then, well, we have no āneedā and will not seek out being filled.
The place of blessing is in brokeness and privation, great need! Those who are truly poor in spirit find that other poor are very comfortable around them. This is why āsinnersā were so comfortable around Jesus, because He was truly poor in spirit, though filled with the Spirit.
@ Sherman: Good points. I notice how nice and attentive and gracious I am when I KNOW I donāt know something. Could be anything at all, like me listening to someone talk about a place Iāve never beenā¦Iām all ears. BUT, when I KNOW SOMETHING?! I have very little time or patience for what YOU have to say! 
My favorite, hands down scripture: āLet him who is wise become a fool that he may be wise.ā I posted a response to your comment on my introductionā¦Check it out, it was specifically for you.
I kind of liked conformity better. Sometimes it is nice to have someone else tell you what to do and validate your activities. I always lacked that in my life, which was mostly do-everything-yourself, and generally going against the flow for various reasons, or simply due to cultural and philosophical differences. Settling down to something predictable and approved didnāt really seem like a bad thing.
The freedom does leave us scrambling for answers, which is why I try to simplify things as much as possible for myself. I want to get down to the level of the common man, the āinfantā, where Jesus just says āletās goā and I go. There is certainly value in examining what is written in the Bible, but there were Christians who were so without even it. Even if you do have the book, it should remain open dialogue. Christianity is not about a book or a set of rules. You canāt force anyone to follow it correctly, nor will you succeed making an insular community. Furthermore, nobody knows how to follow it correctly. There is only the two commandments everyone can visibly agree on, the rest is up to the examination of every given individual, against his experience and conscience, between him and God. If a group of such individuals decides to create a church with a specific rule set, I believe that is their right before God until it begins to encroach on others, in which case pressure and a sort of war would occur. But that is human reality and is inevitable.
A-MEN BIRD! I love the Bible, itās valuable, has itās place. However, it SHOWS THE WAY, itās not the destination! I do think many protestants worship it whether they acknowledge that or not. My pastor thinks that if you arenāt reading it everyday, you are out of fellowship with God. As if GOD NEEDS THE BIBLE to communicate with us and as if we better cram our brains full of Bible all the time because itās gonna run right out if you donāt! If we really believed His spirit was in us, WHAT ELSE COULD WE POSSIBLY NEED? And if itās all about reading and memorizing and scholarship, then itās about human ability and God would surely be a ārespector of personsā. I know Christians that read 10 chapters a day, listen to teaching tapes everyday and always have āChristianā music going in the house. Itās like they are psyching themselves out! CHILL! HEāS HERE! Heās ALWAYS HERE! YAY!
And I believe in one more controversial thing: he was always here.
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, āKnow the Lord,ā
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
Yes. I hear Christians all the time say God has nothing to do with them before they āacceptedā Him. Thatās crazy, crazy, CRAZY to me! I should be DEAD all the stupid stuff I was doingā¦DEAD. When I did āacceptā Him (so to speak) it wasnāt like, āHey I think Iāll try and get to know this God characterā, it was more: āOkay, Godā¦Okayā. Because, as you saidā¦He was ALWAYS here, and Iāve ALWAYS known that.
The more one realizes how much salvation is completely a work of God, by grace, through no merit of our own, the more one will lean towards accepting the sovereignty of God as a doctrinal foundation. And if one also accepts as a doctrinal foundation that God loves all humanity, yes even all creation, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is universal reconciliation. If one rejects universal reconciliation, then one must either reject the concepts of God being sovereign or God loving all, God being love.
In the parable of the sower, I believe that the hard ground represents ātraditionā. Hard ground is ground that is packed down so hard from being pressed down by traffic for a long time, that seed has absolutely no chance of penetrating the ground to grow. In like manner, the doctrine of Hell has been taught so long and so hard that many people cannot even consider the possibility that Jesus really is the savior of all humanity, not just some of humanity. You can show them scripture after scripture that affirms the salvation of all and they will refuse to entertain for a moment even the possibility that such passages mean what they say. Hard ground sheds both seed and water; and in order for it to become fertile again it must be busted up, deep busting!
firstly sorry Iāve been unable to respond back as Iāve moved from one side of Australia to the other !, and have limited access to a computer 
[picture steam coming out of the ears also] [at this point in time] and while I agree with the responces I would also suggest that having an approach of āāI could be wrongāā is admirable I also see a problem with this approach ! as in when can you ever āātake a standāā 