You are not satisfied that it is a parable even! IF what you say is true, then it is the only parable Jesus ever taught that was about a nation instead of and individuals relationship with God. That is just redefining the scripture too much to be acceptable.
Don't you see what you are doing? You are taking a piece of scripture and redefining it as a parable. Once you have convinced yourself that it is a parable then you continue to redefine the meaning of the parable to make into something that fits with your preconceived belief.
he last line of your post, "in regards to the 'chasm', well.....it could make sense that those in a hell would want to get out - but not much to believe that its there to stop people from crossing over from Heaven also!" has got to be a joke. Look at the passage. Abraham says quite plainly that it is a chasm that cannot be crossed. How can you believe that something that is described as impossible to cross can be crossed? Seriously, how can you take some that says a chasm cannot be crossed and say it really means it can be crossed by those who want to cross it badly enough.
If the rich man and the poor man are metephores, they are not metaphors for nations, they are metaphors for those whos treasure is on earth (rich men) and those whos treasures are in heaven (poor men). Logos's explination is no better. He willing twists the meaning of this passage to fit Universalist theology as well.
Er....i didnt say that this 'chasm' was possible to be crossed, I said it would hardly make sense to believe that anyone from Heaven would WANT to cross a chasm to get into hell, If i recall Abraham says its there to stop people from going from either hell to heaven or vice versa even if they wanted to, if you are happy to believe this to be a litreral story CM then its your call, i'm certainly not - and would have difficulty in doing so whether I was a universalist or not.....