There is a difference, hence why I said a "little difference" instead of "no different" or something to that effect. The problem is that the saved do not suffer this fate, in which case this is little different then God just killing the unsaved... regardless of whether the reason that person is considered unsaved is actually worthy of death. It also presents the question of why God bothers to wait until the afterlife when he can inflict that punishment at the moment with which that person passes the point of no return (or why he bothers at all when his omniscience renders him already coignizant of what that person will do, but I'll leave that aside for now since it sends us down the path to predestination).
Why are they necessary then?
Because...?
Purgatory is indeed a good step towards a incremental punishment but the fact that it still involves suffering is still morally problematic. Good and effective modern prison systems do not torture their inmates to reform them.
If paradise is experienced as suffering to those not reconciled to God (whatever that term means), then the fault is pretty clearly on God's part given that paradise is supposed to be a place free of suffering and his omnipotence easily gives him the means to ensure that. That's criminal negligence that is.
In fact, since we're on the subject of, I do need to inquire: do you believe people who achieve paradise have free will in paradise?
There is a whole lot here and I don't want to engage in spaghetti posting. Let me say that I think we are not communicating well because you are asking these questions from the perspective of treating receiving eternal life like a reward and the failure to receive it as a punishment, which is contrary to the position I explained before. Any questioned based on that assumption is one I won't have an answer for, because I think it is wrong.
I'm also not a universalist and have my own criticisms of their positions, but I did want to represent them fairly, because they represent a large and ancient group of Christian believers. I will point out that "suffering" is very rarely interpreted as physical pain by universalists, but as sadness or shame resulting from being in a state of sin in the presence of perfection and grace. And the reconciliation comes from giving up the elements of one's nature that are in conflict with the divine, like selfishness and hatred.
The idea that the soul is immortal and naturally has to exist forever unless it is actively destroyed is Neo-Platonist philosophy, and not something I believe. We are native to this universe where things die. God has opened the way to eternal life. He has done for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Gaining that eternal life requires synergos, literally working together, with God to transform our nature. We do this by partaking in Christ's eternal nature, which was made available to us by his incarnation, death, and resurrection in our world, and which is attained by the sacraments and by acts of holiness. God grants us all that we are able to receive, it is our work to be able to receive what He would give us. That is our cooperation in our salvation.
As to the question about free will, I don't pretend to understand what the nature of existence in the presence of God is like and wouldn't like to speculate.
Conversely, anything existing at all is the biggest paradox, whereupon I must think of the probelm of anything coming from nothing. And really, of anything existing at all. But distinct anthropic or intelligent beings being unmoved and out of time, yet distinct and shaped, just doesn't make sense at all, and hence I don't believe it's true, and even possible.
We are always limited when trying to describe God. There is a way of talking about God called apophasis, where you describe only things God is not, because God's positive traits are necessarily limited by using human terms. God is not finite, not old or young, not big or small. But to say God is good or God is truthful is going to necessarily fall short of accuracy, just because the human conceptions behind those words don't stretch far enough to cover the divine. So God is not particularly anthropic. (Although we certainly talk about Him that way for simplicity's sake. Even saying "He" is because there isn't a God-specific pronoun, not because God is a man, or a masculine spirit or something.)
Orthodox theologians describe God as truly unchanging. He is outside of time and possesses his entire nature at all times. He doesn't react to this thing and then that thing because all history is spread out before Him. His knowledge is complete, not because He has a birds eye view of creation, but because all potential and actual states of being are grounded within Him. He responds to us continuously in one way, with divine love. God has no need of anything outside Himself. He has no need of us. We and our worlds exist for their own sake, and his interaction with us is for our sake.
I am not trying to convince you to adopt this view, just to point out that the idea that God must be very, very strange and unlike us is something theologians and mystics have been grappling with since the beginning.
.
