Unpacking Annihilationism with Bishop Bryan Ouellette and Fr. Chris Yates

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
And to say as to believe me looking at to say.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, whichever the case may be.
For all of you listening out there across the crazy
planet Earth. Welcome to Vestiges after Dark, and I am

(02:09):
your host, Bishop Brian will let it coming to you
lie from the deep woods of western Georgia on this
October twenty first, twenty twenty five. Well, a few weeks ago,
we introduced you to the unconventional doctrine of annihilationism. It's

(02:31):
an offshoot Christian theological perspective not widely accepted by the
general Church, and we went into some of the details
as to why. But I gave you the rundown last
time about what that theological perspective is and part of
why I have adopted it. Tonight we go into the

(02:52):
other side. We talked about why the church does not
teach this, and I'll teach you a little more about
why I do. Don't go away. That's tonight, I'm Vestiges
after Dark. Well, hello, everybody, Welcome to Vestiges after Dark.

(03:58):
Once again, I am your host, Bishop, and we'll let
with my co host Jamie Wolf, good evening ever go
and tonight we are going to, as I said, get
into more of this very interesting subject, which is essentially
Christianist scatology. That's what we'll be mostly talking about tonight,
and it seems to be a popular topic with all

(04:19):
of you, because already I'm seeing some bigger live numbers
than we usually see, which is good. I'm glad that
Christian theology still gets attention out there. Yeah, yeah, draws
a few in even over our more metaphysical subjects sometimes,
so that's really a good thing. I'm glad that you're
all here to spend tonight's discussion with us. And if

(04:41):
you're expecting a debate, you might be a little disappointed
because I'm not setting this up for a debate. You know, I,
as a bishop, I am committed to uphold the truth
of the Church, and I do you know, when it
comes down to the the fundamentals of what the Church teaches,

(05:04):
that's what I teach largely from the pulpit. But where
there are opportunities to expand on some of those traditional interpretations,
things that are not necessarily definitive statements ex cathedra or
that kind of thing, where there is room to philosophize,
we do talk about that and I do go down

(05:25):
that road. And that's one of the benefits of an independent,
esoteric Catholic church is that we can do that without
fear of consequences. You know, there's what are the consequences
that you learn something? I think those are good consequences.
So we're going to talk about the other side of
the coin. Now why does the church not teach it?
And I've gone over some of these A little bit

(05:46):
of this will be review. But we ran out of
time last week and that I mean last week last time,
and that is unfortunate for a subject that is as
involved and as complicated as this one. So we wanted
to continue this and we have an open night and

(06:07):
tonight's the night, okay, so buckle up, get your drinks
ready or your snacks. I think you'll find it to
be an enjoyable experience. At the very least you'll learn something, Okay.
So let's go ahead and dive right in here. Joining
us from Australia, we have Father Chris Gates. How you
doing tonight, Father, I'm.

Speaker 3 (06:27):
Doing well, thank you, and I'll put my most annihilation
annihilation is oh that's very nice. Yes, if you if
you swim off the coast of Sydney. That might well
happen to you.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
It's true, I've heard you know. I mean, if you
just take if you just take a walk to the
mailbox in Sydney, you might not make it back.

Speaker 3 (06:49):
I mean, well, you know the sort of the tales,
the tales of imminent death from everything in Australia, Well
they're kind of simultaneously exaggerated but also true. Yeah, it
does a very good job of keeping people away from Australia,
which is well.

Speaker 2 (07:07):
And see here in Georgia it's almost as bad, because
only the difference is that we don't have that hyper
exaggerated reputation that Australia has. But Georgia has pretty much
every poisonous thing that you could possibly have in the book.
I'm telling you. We there's a there's several miles from here,

(07:30):
there is a Walmart, and it's it's in a pretty
populated area. I mean, this is not the woods. Yeah.
And and this this woman U drove to that it's
I think Brandon and Brandon's here with us from Tennessee.
By the way, how you doing tonight, Brandon? Brandon? That
this was I believe the Walmart parking lot that you

(07:53):
parked at once when you came out this way, and
you had a bunch of cars and this this this
poor lady, she she she's just going into Walmart to
pick up whatever one gets at Walmart and she steps
out of her car and this snake comes out from
underneath it and bites her. She ended up in the
hospital for three days as the results of this. And

(08:16):
this was just a random snake, A poisonous snake. A
copperhead was a copperhead just you know, yeah, oh yeah,
I mean, it's it's it's like, you know, and you
wouldn't think that being in the Atlanta metro area, you know,
and going to Walmart, you'd have to worry about getting
bit by a snake as soon as you step outside

(08:38):
of your car in the parking lot. But that's what
happens here in Georgia. So so we don't have the
we don't have the reputation, but we certainly have the dangers. Yeah,
you might want not might might not want to leave
your car there.

Speaker 4 (08:54):
In the future behind the QT Brandon.

Speaker 2 (08:58):
I hate to say it. I hate to say the
chances of that happening are much greater at the church
than at that Walmart aguess because the church is in
the woods. The church is in the woods, so.

Speaker 5 (09:09):
Perhaps brother, I've seen pictures of what you have in Australia,
Father Chris, I will not be visiting anytime soon.

Speaker 3 (09:19):
Well, I think that's why Bishop Brian didn't feel any
need to warn me about venomous creatures, because it's like,
you know who wrote the book on it here.

Speaker 2 (09:27):
I mean, what could I possibly offer that you don't not? Really?

Speaker 3 (09:30):
No, Well, I mean, the most venous snake in the
world is the inland taipan or fearce snake, and they
measure venom by how many mice it would kill. One
in venomation of an inland taipan would kill a quarter
of a million mice cheese, and it would kill a
man in about seven minutes.

Speaker 4 (09:48):
I always thought it was the was it fertilance or fertilance.

Speaker 2 (09:54):
Or we've got Homo sapiens here that will kill you unless.

Speaker 6 (09:58):
Well, yeah, true, But the snake, that's actually a snake
not to be feared because apart from the fact it
lives pretty much where no one lives is right in
the red center in the main across Australia.

Speaker 3 (10:19):
It's also a fairly timid snake, you know, Like I mean,
one theory about why it's so venomous is because there's
so little life there that if they do manage to
find any creature that they can eat, then it needs
to not get away. So, but the most dangerous snake
in Australia is the is the eastern brown snake, also
known as the common brown snake. And that's that's the

(10:40):
that's the word that she give you chills. So they
are very, very populous, and they live in all the
most populated areas of Australia. And like you've said with
your Walmart story, you know, they love nothing more than
climbing into an engine block of a car because it's warm,
you know, overnight and so and they do find their
ways into cars. And I remember going on a camping

(11:01):
trip because I first moved to sort of regional Australia
when I moved here, and obviously these animals are far
more common, and I was going on a camping trip
up to Gloucester, not Gloucester in England, Gloucester in New
South Wales. And I fortunately I borrowed my friends landrove
a defender because I ran over an Eastern Brown Snake.

Speaker 7 (11:22):
By the way.

Speaker 3 (11:24):
Oh yeah, yeah, oh yeah. I used to drive me
in the police in England. But there's a there's a
little little proton ahead of me. And this it was enormous,
this in Brown Snake. It went over both sides of
the road. It was that big. And this proton had
to sort of find a way around it because it
didn't dare drive over the top of it. But and

(11:45):
I just saw it kind of go around it, so
I didn't see the snake at all. And then I
saw that drive off, and then I saw it and
just went straight over it. And of course the first
thing you do is look in the rear view mirrors
to say has it disappeared or is it?

Speaker 2 (12:02):
You know, I was. We we have a at my house.
We have a spot pool fairly, you know, a large
one that is on the second floor, the second level
of the home, so it's not ground level, it's up
you know, one story. And a couple of weeks ago,

(12:23):
I went out there to check the chemical balance of
the pool. I do that every so many days, just
make sure it doesn't need anything. Sometimes when it rains
or something, it offsets the alkalinity or changes the pH level,
so I have to make modifications, like little subtle ones.
And sure enough it was a snake skin just sitting

(12:44):
there right by the pool. So it had managed to
come up, climb up to the second floor, and I
guess maybe it was looking for water. It wasn't in
the pool, thank god, So I don't know what it
came up for, but it wasn't there when we left.

Speaker 8 (12:58):
It.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
It was just left it snake skin behind.

Speaker 3 (13:01):
It's more disturbing when there's a skin.

Speaker 2 (13:04):
Yeah, I know, it's like where did it go?

Speaker 8 (13:05):
Right?

Speaker 2 (13:05):
Where did it go? You know? And he eats everything.
He thinks everything's uh, you know. His job is to
police the entire property and we think he he ate.
Well it is, but he goes after like sometimes venomous things.
And I think one time he actually ate something that
was veminist and made him very sick. We were on

(13:27):
the air when that happened.

Speaker 4 (13:27):
It was probably a scorpion, it was.

Speaker 2 (13:29):
It probably was.

Speaker 4 (13:31):
You had to have meat takeover.

Speaker 2 (13:33):
There was a few It was a few seasons ago.
You might remember where I had to step away and
we had the Bigfoot guy. Yeah, it was when we
had the Bigfoot episode. It was it was actually Tracy
calling me and and trying to work out what we
needed to do. We did eventually take him to the
vet and he was fine the next day. In fact,

(13:53):
he was fine when we got back from the vet. So,
and he's not a friendly cat to people that do
not know him. He's not even friendly to people that
he does know, so they they couldn't even touch him.
He would attack them anytime they'd come near him. But

(14:16):
because of their policy at this particular it's an emergency vet,
their policy that the the owners couldn't be back there
with him, so they had to use these thick gloves
to work on them.

Speaker 4 (14:29):
Yeahs, I've seen them. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (14:32):
The good news is a cat will be a snake
every day of the week because their reactions are ten
times as fast as a snake, which is pretty amazing.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
Really.

Speaker 2 (14:40):
Yeah, oh yeah, he's pretty good. I mean he gets it,
he gets vermin, but sometimes he ends up eating the
things that he should eat. That's the problem. He's got
a little better about it though.

Speaker 1 (14:50):
Now.

Speaker 2 (14:50):
It's like if he finds like a big spider or something,
he'll kill it. He'll bring it up and drop it
at my feet and say, here you go. He doesn't
like eat it anymore. So, thank goodness.

Speaker 4 (15:00):
Last time I tried to show off for you, it took
me to the vet.

Speaker 2 (15:05):
He was like, I'm not doing that again. I'm not
doing that again.

Speaker 3 (15:10):
I don't know why that thermometer.

Speaker 2 (15:12):
That's right. Yeah, all right, let's get started with questions
from the well, let's do questions from the other first. Well,
we'll get to annihilationism an hour two.

Speaker 3 (15:22):
And then can I just give you say quickly before
before the question. Yeah, sure, completely agree with what you
just said. This is not you and I have an
argument about these things. This is about exploring an issue
so that we can see it from different angles. And
and then we'll get into it an hour two. But
the first thing I'll say is with any subject that
I approach, I always look for arguments on every side

(15:45):
of it that are possible. And I'm also, by the way,
willing to have my mind changed by the experience. That's
what that's what study is, you know. So rather than
go into a prefixed idea this is it only look
for things that support my idea. That's not what you
do so and it's not what any sensible person should do.
So this is about an exploration of the ideas, and

(16:06):
I've come up with lots of ideas in favor of
annihilationism as well.

Speaker 2 (16:11):
So well, I think, yeah, well we'll talk about we'll
talk about that, we'll go into more expansion of last
time's episode. You know what was it two episodes ago?
I think, thanks, sir, you know, we'll go we'll go
into more of all of the perspective. But I felt
like we didn't get into enough of why the church
doesn't teach it, So I really want to kind of
focus at least for the first half hour the first

(16:35):
thirty minutes of the second hour on that.

Speaker 3 (16:37):
Well, and also I also figured that as soon as
you start getting into annihilationism, you realize that it's basically
the entire span of Christian theology starts to get opened
up by this. So that's that would explain why you
couldn't do it in a short show, and we're not
going to exhaust it today.

Speaker 2 (16:53):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (16:54):
The idea is just to get some of these ideas
out there and people can do their own research, you
know more.

Speaker 4 (17:01):
Well, Russ assured, gentlemen, when you guys get sporty, there
are several of us prepared with popcorn.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
Okay, I'll keep my I'll keep my finger on the
mute button so you can chomp away. How about that.

Speaker 4 (17:15):
I'll excuse myself. Will I will be an amor because
I don't have a dog in this fight as far
as I'll have anything, any input, So I'll be a
listener tonight.

Speaker 2 (17:23):
Well, I mean, and there's different reasons for why, you know,
we have our respective positions, and and and it'll be
it'll be definitely an enlightening point. But yes, I want
to emphasize, as Father Christians said, this is not a fight.
It's not a battle, it's not a debate. It is
an expansion of thought, which is really what this church

(17:43):
is founded upon. That's really what established it. It was
a group of people, a conglomerate of people from all
walks of life. Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics, Independent Catholics, Pagans, Gnostics.
They were all involved in the forming of the Holy
nikolay and Catholic Church for the singular mission of the

(18:08):
expansion of philosophical thought and diversity. Had your own council,
we did, yeah, and they signed my episcopacy and never
let me forget it. Let me tell you that, all right,
let's get started with the question from the ether. What
do you got for tonight? Brandon?

Speaker 5 (18:24):
Yeah, so we'll do the questions first and then we'll
get to like the Council of Zoom or whatever.

Speaker 8 (18:29):
There you go.

Speaker 2 (18:29):
We do need a new council. I think it's time.

Speaker 5 (18:33):
So the first question come from Adria. I know birds
can represent loved ones, like a cardinal or a robin,
but what about a blue jay? I was on my way,
I was on my way another round of pet sitting
when a blue jay flew over a cornfield in front
of my windshield. On my way back home turning left
on our main highway was another one near the ice

(18:54):
cream shop.

Speaker 3 (18:56):
So do cam birds represent loved ones?

Speaker 2 (18:59):
I mean, I don't think no. I wouldn't say they
represent loved ones. I know that that birds can can.
They're known as messenger spirits in a way. They will
sometimes be representative in certain traditions of being able to
pass messages between the realm of the living and the dead.

(19:20):
It's not really species specific so much. I think all
birds can take on that that duty, at least in
these and these uh, these more shamanic based traditions, And
you find it sometimes in even the West with pagan
pagan carryovers that you know, became part of the culture
and just never left us. You know, they're they're they're

(19:42):
bringers of omens. Sometimes they can represent that, uh, but overall,
it's more superstition than it is any kind of absolute fact,
you know, other than the fact that I have experienced
under certain circumstances conducting certain types of rituals where we

(20:02):
are interacting with the dead in order to help move
them on or help a client that's being disturbed by
something that is on living inside their home. Where birds
do actively participate in these rituals, We've experienced that, Jamie.
I mean, you've studied a lot of shamanism and Native
American traditions. Can you contribute anything to that.

Speaker 4 (20:24):
Not specifically the blue jay, but birds in general. Just
like you said, most indigenous tribes believe their messengers where
they bring omens, kind of like with the blackbirds.

Speaker 2 (20:35):
Yeah, the crow.

Speaker 4 (20:37):
I would say that bluebirds being so bright and they
are beautiful animals. It's kind of like we had a
thing in law enforcement where if you put out a
bolo on a certain vehicle, that's when you're going to
see every one of those vehicles go by you and
you're going to thank the bad guy's car is every
single vehicle around you. So when you're when you notice

(20:57):
something and you think about it, you'll start seeing it everywhere,
if you understand what I'm saying. And blue jays also
tend to fly in groups, so.

Speaker 3 (21:09):
It's rare that I would offer something on this kind
of subject.

Speaker 7 (21:14):
I actually have another thought, which is that everybody, well sorry,
everybody in England knows the song There'll be Bluebirds over
the whitelist of Dover right became this sort of Second
World War anthem, of course Murican song because bluebirds in England,
so it was important.

Speaker 3 (21:36):
This notion. But I just wondered whether there's a sort
of a and related to what you just said, Jamie,
there's a sort of form element to it as well,
because like, certainly the tenor of that song is you've
got you know, the Battle of Britain, and you've got
you know, Nazism being a serious threat to conquering Europe.

(21:59):
Oh yeah, and so and then you have this. It's
a real it's a real song of hope, hope and
pride and the idea of peace ahead. You know, White
Cliffs sign of peace and all this. So I just
wonder whether that may con to what these things come
to symbolize to people.

Speaker 4 (22:19):
Right, And a lot of it's dream work. If you
would have seen several blue jays in a dream, I
probably have a more detailed interpretation. But seen it out
in nature, you know it. It's probably just one of
the things where you you saw one and then you
see a whole bunch more.

Speaker 2 (22:35):
I mean, it can it can sometimes just be a
synchronous synchronicity, you know, of sorts. It doesn't necessarily have
to mean something. I mean, remember, paradolia is more than
just seeing faces in random images. It's paradilia is also
just how your brain works. It's always looking for patterns

(22:57):
to try to make sense of something. It's weird superstition
comes from is that the brain is so good at
trying to identify patterns that it will find patterns even
when there aren't any, or construct a pattern around what
it finds to be a meaningful coincidence. And so not
even everything follows the love of synchronicity, it can sometimes

(23:19):
just be true coincidence that behaves as though it's something
more meaningful than it is. I sort of subscribe to
the model that you know, the only meaning that we
have in life is the attainment of salvation. Everything else
is just random noise. So I think the random noise sometimes,
because creation is intelligent, sometimes comes together in ways that

(23:43):
our brains relate and say, wow, that was strange, that
was weird that these things happened at the same time,
and thus you have a coincidence. But it doesn't necessarily
mean anything profound. It just means that your brain's working,
which is I guess a good omen. Right, It's a
good omen if you're reins working. So that's my answer

(24:03):
to that one.

Speaker 9 (24:06):
So the second question is regarding the New Age idea
of this divine council or this welcome committee that people
see after death. Wouldn't this be a product of the Bardo?

Speaker 2 (24:22):
I mean, okay, so metaphysically speaking, I would absolutely say
that it is. Yes. I do not believe at all
that there is this great council of spiritual beings that
greets us after death and is overlooking our soul's development.
I don't accept that New Age concept. I know a

(24:46):
lot of people do. I do not. I don't find
any evidence for it in any actual religious tradition. Honestly,
there are spiritual forces, of course at work within our lives,
and you know, these have been more or less identified
as angelic type of beings that are again messengers of

(25:10):
God and assist in certain circumstances with carrying out His
will where necessary. But overall, you know, this this notion
in theosophy, and it comes from theosophy, and which is
where the New Age gets everything. This notion in Theosophy
that you know, we pick our parents, and we choose

(25:31):
our struggles, and we pick a lifetime, and you know,
we keep coming back to learn these lessons. And I
don't accept that. It's just not even the religions that
teach reincarnation do not teach this. This is a fabrication,
largely manifested through Madame Blovatski and her Theosophical movement, which

(25:54):
became the birth point, you could say, the cornerstone of
the New Age. I don't find.

Speaker 3 (26:02):
Any full Catholic church and all of.

Speaker 2 (26:04):
That, Yeah, I mean there's some of that in there too,
and you know, we have our own we actually I
have actually an Apostolic lineage through there too, So you know,
I'm very familiar with them, and they do you know
they do? They take on sort of like Christian ideas,
but then it's all filtered through the lens of theosophy.

(26:25):
There are some Gnostic churches that sort of branched out
and adopted some of these ideas. So yeah, I mean,
people could say that about what I'm about to say.
My answer to this is is also unconventional, But I
do you know, look, and this is kind of relevant
to tonight's discussion on annihilationism. So it's kind of a

(26:46):
good question for tonight's show because part of what has
influenced my perspective on the subject, and this is kind
of an eschatological question in a way. Part of what
influence me to really take annihilationism seriously is that there
are feel and we'll talk about them either in the

(27:09):
second or third hours. There are philosophical contradictions that exist
within the conventional teaching of the Church that are not
reconcilable with the current information the church gives us. I mean, really,
the only thing you can do is to just simply
say this is what it is because the Church says so,
and I can't accept that on face value. You have

(27:32):
to give me more than that. I'm willing to you know,
I believe in Holy Spirit's inspiration. I believe that the
Magisterium is inspired. But when you start saying that you
believe it because we say so, well, you're going to
have to give me the grounds for it. And the
grounds fall apart when you actually look for them. And
what's interesting is that the parts that and I've said

(27:53):
this before, and this is not the only example of this,
there's other places in the theology that this is true.
When you find something that doesn't make sense in the
Christian theological worldview, oftentimes it is answered in the Eastern
religions they actually have a model for it. Christianity does not.

(28:16):
They do, so then the question comes, are they compatible?
Can you take something from the East from Eastern thought
and say, well, since they talk about this and the
West does not, can we bring them together. Is there
anything that contradicts these two models? And in my mind
there isn't. So get yourself a piece of paper right now,

(28:38):
all of anybody that's really interested in really trying to
understand this. I was talking about this last well on
Saturday evening with Brandon and April, who I think is
also in the in the chat. Right now, if you
want to show it. Well, I'm going to give you.
I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna give everybody, I think

(28:58):
maybe maybe their own drawing that they can make, which
hopefully will clarify the scribble that I gave you.

Speaker 5 (29:05):
But the don't translate your writing into English.

Speaker 2 (29:09):
Oh that's good. You can't believe it could do it.
That's impressive. I mean that means it's really intelligent. Okay.
So get a piece of paper and write down what
I'm what I'm going to tell you, and this will
hopefully give you a model for understanding how you can
take what the Church teaches in the West and what

(29:30):
religions like Hinduism and Buddhism teach in the East, and
how parts that are missing from one can fill in
the blanks for the other. Okay, And so in this
piece of paper, make three columns. Okay. In the column
in the middle you just leave blank for a minute.
On the right, you're going to put creation. On the left,

(29:51):
you're going to put nothingness. Everything in the universe is creation.
Everything the entire universe is creation. Creation can be defined
as everything that exists. And then on the left column,
the column that's nothingness that's everything that does not exist.

(30:12):
You could say that this is the realm of potentials.
Maybe this is the realm of which God could draw
from if he so chose to make something or bring
something into reality. Certainly we must have existed in some
form of nothingness before our creation, but it was potential
and there was always the will to do it, perhaps
because God's eternal and there's no time, so you know,

(30:34):
kind of like in a way, we've always existed, which
kind of explains the immortality of the soul thing that
we're going to get into later tonight. Okay, that's actually
how I define where that's coming from. Okay, I don't
think it's actually like this the same thing that the
Church teaches or what Plato taught, but I think that
there's the grounds for on the basis that, well, since
we've always been thought of, we've kind of always existed,

(30:56):
on the basis that God always intended to have us,
and eternal being that intends something means that it always is.
So that's an interesting problem of infinity that we can
get into later. But nothingness is just potential or nothing, Okay,
And in the middle delusion that's the fallen universe. That's

(31:17):
the part that we live in. Okay, we call it
delusion because we don't see things as they are. Even
Scripture says that when we attain to salvation, we will
see God as he is, because currently we don't. We
see through a glass darkly, you know. So it's kind
of like we're not getting the whole picture. We don't

(31:37):
have a good comprehension. We're not capable. Our brains are
limited and finite, and so we can only understand so much.
So therefore most of our perspectives are illusory and full
of delusion beliefs. This is where our idols come from,
you know, maybe elevating the Bible to status above God.
Some Christians certainly do that. We've talked about how there's

(32:00):
a fake Jesus. I call him the Buddy Jesus. I've
made ai videos about him. They're very funny, you know.
But people think that that's the real Jesus, and the
real Jesus is anything but that. But because they want
it to be true, they've made it true. That's a delusion.
It's not the real Christ. So creation you could also
put underneath that slash actuality, because actual, what actually exists

(32:24):
is what is, but we don't see the actuality. We
just see our fallen part of the cosmos, which is delusion.
Buddhism has six levels of reality. Okay, there's the realm
we're the most familiar with, which is the heaven realm.
Heaven realm, I'm sorry, the human realm. That's right in

(32:45):
the middle, the human realm right in the middle, right
beneath that. Now you put that in the middle of
the middle column, So right in the middle of your page,
in the middle column under delusion, put human, underneath human,
put animal, an underneath animal. Put hungry ghosts, and then
underneath hungry ghosts put Hell. And then above human, put

(33:10):
demigod and heaven. Heaven's at the very top of the
delusion column, and Hell's at the very bottom of the
delusion column. These are the six gatti of Buddhism. Now,
Christianity only alludes to some of these conditions. These are
not places, These are not dimensions. These are states of

(33:31):
being that can be inhabited at any point at any
time within existence. You don't have to be dead to
be in any of them. You could, you could be
in several at the same time. It all depends on
certain circumstances. But when we die, if we do not

(33:51):
die well, we will end up becoming one with one
of them for right relatively long time, even though time
is not really a thing, it's just a figure speech
in this context. So now you've got that, Okay. On

(34:12):
the right column where it's creation and actuality, put the
Kingdom of Heaven at the top, and then put Purgatory
underneath it. Okay, those are the only things that ultimately
truly exist. Now, the Kingdom of Heaven you could break

(34:36):
into two parts. You could consider it the old Heaven
right now and then the new Heaven that is to come.
And then you could also put underneath purgatory put the
New Earth, because this is going to be the Earth corrected,
no longer this delusional Earth, which is the human realm

(34:57):
right now, where you have that human in the middle
colum in the middle of the middle column on the right,
you're going to have the New Earth, which is going
to be the human realm of eternity that's yet to
come from our perspective. And then on the left column,
put Shaol and Hades Shale slash Hades in the middle. Okay,

(35:24):
And underneath that put Limbo and underneath that put Gehenna.
Now you might can say, well, why are we putting
shale in hades and all that into the non existence column,

(35:45):
because there is no life there in any of those states.
There is no self actualized thought there. At best, you
could say, there's only an in a notion of suffering,
which is not really consciousness. It's just an experience. But

(36:05):
there's no real rational thought. Right, It's not like you
and I can talk about this, argue, this debate, this
we we do not. It's just pain, it's it's it's
its existence, okay, or nothing or or or or or
fear or whatever. All that falls into the limbo. Now.
I don't know about you, but the if you read

(36:27):
descriptions of shale and hades, which is kind of like
this drifting into increasing states of unconsciousness and then sort
of like oblivion, and then limbo, which is kind of
like the realm of of not belonging anywhere. It's almost
like drifting again into a type of nothingness. And then Gahanna,
which is in certain interpretations elimination. You could also put

(36:50):
Gahannah slash like a fire, our second slash second death.
All right, these are all Christian concepts attached to this
final judgment. You could say, now we'll get into whether
or not that belongs in the column of annihilation or
I'm sorry, the column of nothingness versus the column of creation.

(37:12):
But when you understand it from this model, it can't
fit into the column of creation, because the column of
creation is fully actualized, it's fully free, it's fully perfect,
and you can't have those things there, which we'll get
into later on tonight. But for purposes of this question,
where is this council of elders that guides you through
your lifetimes. It's in the middle column, probably from that

(37:34):
demigod realm. Actually, when you read it from the Buddhist perspective,
what that is these are different states. Now, what's so
you know interesting about these gati? Well, in the human realm, see,
it's sacred to the Buddhists because it's the only realm
in which you're capable of being able to experience both
joy and suffering, where you can be fine happiness and

(37:58):
yet feel sadness at the same time. It's the only
realm where you have both experiences accessible to you and
you can make free choices between them. Animals are below
that because they don't have the rational abilities to comprehend
that fully. They understand partly. I mean, they have feelings,

(38:18):
but they're not like how we feel, and they're not
rational feelings. They're more instinctual feelings. They're more at the
mercy of those instincts. They can't really work outside of
those instincts. Hence why you know what, you can never
teach a dog that, well, you know, you shouldn't have
sex with that dog down the street, because that's rape.
They don't care, okay, because their instincts say that that's
what they need to do. Our instincts say that that's

(38:40):
what we need to do, which is why there are
still human beings who rape people. But we also have
the rational faculties that allow us to say, maybe that's
not a good idea, Maybe we need to supersede that
instinct and be better than that. Human beings have that choice.
Animals do not. That's why they're beneath it. But eth
that is the hungry ghosts. That's where all the hauntings are. Okay. Now,

(39:01):
you could also argue that Limbo is this too, So
if you want to put Limbo in the delusional realm,
that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. It
all depends on what makes more sense to you. These
are not This is not an ex cathedra dissertation here.
This is a model for understanding the afterlife. Okay, it's

(39:22):
not even a map of the afterlife. It's just a
model to comprehend it better and using both East and
West to fill in the blanks that both sides have,
because even the East has missing parts that the West
fills in. Christianity fills in a whole lot that Buddhism can't.
And we're kind of getting at that here. I notice
I haven't talked about Nirvana's I'm sorry yet because it's
not really necessary for this model anyway. The hungry ghosts

(39:46):
are those that are so attached to their fears, to
their traumas, to their families, to people they can't let
go of, to their money, to their possessions, anything that
they were not able to let go of in life.
Guess what, Dying doesn't make you magically any easier to
let go of it. If you're having a hard time
parting with those things, if you're obsessive about those things,

(40:06):
now you're going to be infinitely more so that it's
actually worse than because guess what, you don't have a
rational brain to help you get out of it. Right now,
you have this wonderful thing inside your skull called a brain,
and it gives you the power of comprehension. It gives
you consciousness, and consciousness lets you choose. When you're dead,

(40:27):
guess what, that brain dies too, So now you have
to divert back to instinct, and your instinct is going
to go to what you are most attached to because
that's what ultimately you allowed yourself in life to become.
This is why it's important to live a good life.
Despite the fact that Jesus saved you. You might say, well,
why does it even matter because Jesus took care of
it anyway, Well, it matters because you still have to
perfect yourself, and if you don't, then all that salvation

(40:50):
is basically you pissing it away. To excuse the language,
but it's the only way to put it, because that's
exactly what you did. That's exactly what you did. That's
how you lose salvation despite the cross. That's how you
can because you didn't take it seriously enough to actually
integrate it into your life. You just heard about it.
You thought about it, you believed in it, but you
didn't do anything about it, and you got to do

(41:11):
something about it. So if you don't do something about it,
well then you divert back to those base natures again
and there's no grace there. That's you giving the grace away.
So what ends up happening is you get stuck. And
if you're really stuck, then you become what is known
in Buddhism as a hungry ghost. And that's really what
ninety nine point nine nine nine percent of hauntings are

(41:33):
is these ghosts, okay, and and they they're here, and
like why do they they walk the earth because there's
nowhere else to go? There's only existing and there's not existing.
So if they're not here existing with us, they just
don't have the bodies anymore, so they're incorporeal. But if
they're not here existing with us in the form of
a haunting or the then the only option for them

(41:57):
is going to be that column on the left, non existence,
which is what includes Gehenna and Shaol and all of that,
which isn't very pleasant sounding no matter what kind of
definition you want to give to those things. Okay, now,
what happens. If your trauma is so deep and your
self hatred is so much that you can't even look

(42:18):
beyond that, well, then guess what happens as you degrade
down below? The hungry goes into the hell realms. But
this is not the same as Shaol or Hades, and
it's not quite the same as Gehenna. This is a
hell of your own creation. This is the hell that
I was suspect, which we're going to talk about again tonight,
that when the Church talks about this never ending torment,

(42:40):
I think they're conflating the two ideas because they don't
have the metaphysics that the Buddhists have. They haven't really
thought about it, but they understand it because the Holy
Spirit has given them an insight into it. But they
haven't been able to pin together where this fits into
what Jesus said, versus what the fathers of the Church taught,
versus what Plato and Aristotle them to think, and versus

(43:01):
what the East has always taught that they are not
privy to because in the ancient world that wasn't that
sharing of knowledge wasn't as prolific as it is today.
So I would say that this eternal suffering that feels
eternal because in Buddhism it says it's three immeasurable eons.
And I'm not going to get into how long that is.
I've talked about it on this show before. If you
guys are interested, let me know and I'll give you that.

(43:24):
But this is a long question, so I mean, I'm
willing to give you the answer if you want it.
So I would say that the hell realm is what
you do when you completely reject any grace, when you
completely reject all the love and every opportunity you have
in life. This is what you attached to. You're not
willing to go into oblivion. You're afraid of oblivion because

(43:47):
even as you are now, that's why you fear death,
because there's always that thought in the back of your
mind that the unknown, maybe none of this is true.
What happens if a blood slights out. That's scary to
some people. So therefore you're in death. You still try
to hang on and as long as you have a
way to do that by attaching to something that keeps
the illusion of perpetuation going, which is in Buddhism called

(44:09):
the bardeux. You could also put that word in the
middle column. If you want, so Bardou in limbo, you
could say the same thing. So let's put limbo in
the middle column. I think that makes more sense than
on the left. And then and that's what happens, that's
what you become for three immeasurable eons, which for a
Buddhist is practically attorney. It's not eventually it does end?
And when does it end? At the parasia at the parasa,

(44:31):
which is the annihilation is annihilation is a component we
talk about next hour. And I'll kind of integrate this
into that later, because this is why I teach what
I teach about this, at least metaphysically and maybe not
from the pulpit so much, but you know, in philosophical musings.
And then and that's it. But now, what happens if
you lived a great life but you never really cared
about Jesus. Let's say, you know, you made a billion dollars,

(44:54):
you know, you're happy, you had a good life, you
know everything was good, and then you die, but you
never really prepared. You know, you don't have the grace
to go on. You don't you know, you're not weren't
a bad person, but you weren't a great one either.
All you really cared about was making money and and

(45:15):
and and being powerful. Maybe maybe you wanted to be,
you know, a politician or president of the United States
or something, and that's all you cared about. That's all
you focused on. That was where you didn't care about charity.
You just cared about that. You were like, you know, Scrooge,
but with a better personality. All right, then you become
the demigod. You entered the demigod roum. You become attached
to that, and that becomes your your afterlife. Well, what

(45:39):
happens if you believe these New Age philosophies. You're not
trying to get grace, You're not looking for salvation. You
haven't done any of the work. You don't believe in
the sacraments of the church. You don't think you need
the church. That's in antiquated stuff. That's a waste of time.
I don't need Jesus I can. My church is the
woods in the backyard. My church is a mountain. I
don't need it church. I don't need to help people.

(46:01):
I don't need to be responsible for other people's salvation.
I only care about me. And let's say that's how
you lived your life. But you weren't a bad person.
You did good things and you don't have any trauma
that attach you here. And you know money's not that
important to you. All you cared about really was spirituality.
But the wrong focus. Well guess why you went to
the heaven room. But it's the delusion, ey, it's the

(46:22):
delusional one. It's not the real kingdom of Heaven that
Jesus ushers in, it's this delusion of your mind. Buddhism
teaches all of this is a fabrication. Even the heaven
realm right now doesn't really exist. It's just something that
your ego creates to deal with the information, and that
only through waking up can we come to a realization
realization of the truth. And the truth is going to

(46:45):
be either non existence or existence, which one you want
to pick, But we currently kind of exist in a
state between the two. And it's it's all based upon
what we think, or what we want to believe, or
what our passions are, and it's all passion motivated, and
usually those passions are attached to things that are entirely impermanent,
because in the end, everything comes to an end. Don't
believe me. Read the Book of Revelation, because eventually, when

(47:08):
Jesus returns, the old heaven and the old Earth will
pass away, which means all of this, including the delusional Bardo,
will be eliminated, annihilated even okay, annihilated. That where you
want to exist and this fake heaven because it feels good,
because this is where those elders are. This is where

(47:30):
all your loved ones come with Jesus running down the
state the heavenly stairs to greet you when you die
and he's say, welcome home, my child, Come on in
and he gives you a big hug. When you have
these near death experiences where people report this, that's what
they're seeing. This heaven realm, this gatti, this delusion of
the mind because they never did the work to see

(47:52):
the truth. They don't know how to see the truth.
You need grace to see the truth. You need the
Cross to see the truth. But they never focused on
the cross. That was too much work. They focused on
what felt good. All these evangelical churches teach this kind
of Jesus, and that's the kind of heaven they're going
to end up in. Oh, it's going to feel great,
You're not going to care that you're in delusion? Do

(48:12):
you ever see Star Trek seven Generations with when the
one where Kirk dies, Before all that happens, they end
up in this thing called the Nexus. It's like this paradise. Guynan,
which is the played by Whoopi Goldberg, describes it as
as if happiness were a blanket that you could get
yourself wrapped up in forever. And the villain in that

(48:36):
movie is willing to destroy an entire star system that
is populated in order to move the Nexus so that
he can go back into it because he was abruptly
ripped out of it by accident, and he wants to
get back because that's all he cares about. And that's
what we're like, We only care about that when you
when you nearly Oh, I know my Jesus, I know

(48:57):
my God. I know where I'm going when I die.
But you know, what have you done if you've done
anything for anyone else's salvation? Or if you only become
a Christian because you care about yours? Is it only
about you? And are you just you know, picking and
choosing the parts of scripture that applied to what feels
good so that you can be content in that. Well,
guess what you're going to end up with that God,
that that delusional heaven, not the real one, not the

(49:18):
real one, Okay, And so I would argue that when
you die, because there's no time anymore, it's really going
to be an instantaneous judgment. For the lack of a
better word, I don't even like that word, but it's
what the scripture uses, so we're going to keep it.
It's going to be an instantaneous kind of thing, all right.
If you've got the grace but you're not perfect yet,

(49:39):
you go to purgatory, you're gonna end up in that
right column, the column of creation. If you know, if
you if you died in a state of grace, you
did everything right, you know, you received the sacraments, and
you died in a perfect state, which does happen. Then
it's to the Kingdom of Heaven. And at that point,
the new Heaven and the New Earth has already been

(50:00):
ushered in because there's no time. It's eternal, all right,
And everything that's happening in this realm of delusion just
becomes nothing because it never was initially real in the
first place. The Buddhists got that right. It feels real
to us and we have to treat it as though
it's real because it's an opportunity for grace, and that
is real. The opportunity for grace is real. That's the
part that Buddhism is missing. They don't know about that part.

(50:21):
We know about that part. They don't have that part,
but we have that. Put the two together. It makes
sense now now the missing pieces for both religions all
of a sudden magically makes sense. You needed the East
and the West to come together and say here we go.
All right, that's my answer to that. And it's a
metaphysical answer. That's not Bishop Brian giving you a religious doctrine. Okay,

(50:43):
this is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
I'm just simply saying that this is a metaphysical question
that requires a metaphysical answer. I do not feel that
any of these near death experiences that people experience are
either the real Shale or the real Kingdom of Heaven.
And I think they're all in the six s Gatti.
And because they were able to come back to the

(51:05):
human realm so easily, because let's face it, if you
had a near death experience. It means you're alive now.
Then you never actually made it beyond the six Skati.
You never entered into the the annihilationism of shale Anda Ghinna,
and you never really entered it. You crossed over into
the perfection of the Kingdom of Heaven or the opportunity

(51:26):
to be perfected in purgatory. And these are not again
places we say in it's a condition. It's a state
that recognizes where you're at in your own life journey,
in your own faith journey. I like this model and
this is what I taught the You know, our guests
that Brandon in April, who had come with Jay Jay.

(51:50):
I don't know if Jay's out there today, but you
know they came to Mass and stayed at the retreat
house of this past Saturday. It's open by the way.
You just email us if you want to come. Uh
and the the uh. This question came up, and it's like,
this is how you can best analyze. This is how
you can put the model together, and it's the one

(52:10):
that makes the most sense because it's what reconciles everything.
If you want to believe in a hell that is eternal,
you know, conscious torment. Well, the gatti the hell realm,
and the Gatti makes sense because that's what it is.
That's what it's described as. It's not really the eternal,
but it might as well be. Uh. And it's a
creat it's it's it's a hell of your own creation,

(52:31):
which is precisely what the church teaches. It is. God
doesn't punish you, It doesn't send you there. You send
yourself there. That fits, it fits, and Buddhism says you're
responsible for ending up there, not not anyone else. It's
not the Buddhists that do it. You do it. You're
the one that chooses to be there, and which is
consistent all across the board. Okay, the annihilation part comes

(52:52):
after the parosa. I do not think that there is
annihilation until the parasea, and that's just because of wild
revelation defines it. And you know what, that's what Buddhism
defines it too. But they don't call it the parasa.
They call it nirvana because what nirvana is is the
complete wiping out of delusion. It's waking up to the truth,

(53:12):
it's waking up to what is actual, what is without
the fall in nature. They don't call it fall in nature.
They call it, you know, are just basically our our
proclivity to attach to things that are in permanent which
causes suffering. And they call that whole thing some sara.
But in the in the end, it means the same
exact thing as the fall in nature. It's where all

(53:34):
the sin comes from. They don't call it sin, They
just they just call it wrong, you know. Wrong. Livelihood
is essentially how it's looked at, and it doesn't lead
towards anything beneficial for you or anyone else. It's not
about punishment, it's not a reward system. It's just simply
a cause and effect. You do this, this is what happens.
If you do this. You'el free to do it, but

(53:54):
there's consequences. Christianity is on board with us too. There's
no contradictions here, believe me. But it does answer the
question as to what this Council of Elders is. Okay,
So I don't think there's such a thing. I think
that's a manufactured idea to deal with the uncertainties of death.
And I think some people have explored the delusional realm,

(54:17):
this limbo realm, this bardeu and think that it's the
afterlife because it's the one that's instantly accessible to us
if we're in a near death state, or if we
go into deep meditations where we're able to kind of
cross over into that state that happens immediately at pond death.
It's called death practice and Buddhism, and this is what

(54:38):
they do. They teach it to their monks so that
they know how to navigate through the bardew and not
get stuck there. That's as simple as that. But what
happens if you're in the barde and the parasa happens, well,
guess what. You get wiped out. You get wiped out.
That's the annihilation side of it, because again, the ignorance
cannot persist in Buddhism. Ignorance cannot exist in nirvana, in Christianity.

(55:02):
Imperfection cannot exist in Heaven. It can't simply they are
not compatible realities. So if there is a complete end
to this, it's a delusion. That means it can't exist anymore. Okay,
And that's kind of a foundation to why I taught
what I taught a couple of weeks ago about nihilationism.
Though it's good lead in Brandon very complicated question, but

(55:23):
it's a good lead in. And yes, I don't accept that.
So when people say they have near death experiences and
they saw this, and they saw that, and they met
this person, they met Jesus, I think it's all just
the the the psyche, the spirit playing games with them
because they have not been taught. They have not taught

(55:44):
themselves how to see the truth, and the truth is frightening,
so it's easier to believe delusions, just like we do today.
What you can do, you can talk to your blue
in the face about charity, helping people, you know, getting
out there and and and and and seeing to people, salvation,
you know, getting to church, receiving the sacraments, taking things

(56:04):
like confessions. Seriously, you could talk to your blue in
the face about this. No matter what you tell people,
they still will not listen to you. They'll still do
what they want to do. That's because they are delusional.
We are spiritually delusional. We're spiritually psychotic. We do not
have a rational again, sorry Plato, I don't believe we
have a rational soul because there's no evidence for it,

(56:25):
no evidence for a rational soul. We do not act
rational takes a lot of grace to act rational that
can only cut. It's a gift from God, and I
think immortality is a gift from God. The Hebrews intergree
with me. But you know, we'll talk about that in
the second hour. Okay, Brandon, I'm gonna let I'm gonna
yield to you now. And I hate this thing because
it's got springs on it. And when you do the springs,

(56:45):
you hear this. I know anytime you hit that, you
get that awful vibration. Sorry, but Brandon, does that answer
the question? Because I know that's a very long answer.

Speaker 4 (56:57):
But I think you answered forty questions.

Speaker 2 (56:59):
I hope so, or maybe added eighty new ones.

Speaker 5 (57:03):
You answered forty questions by answering one question, but you
ended up opening thirty other questions to be answered, and
we don't have time.

Speaker 4 (57:10):
Sounds about right.

Speaker 2 (57:10):
Yeah, well, we have one more question we could is it.
It's a quick one, isn't it.

Speaker 3 (57:17):
Yes, it's from April.

Speaker 5 (57:19):
Why do some places seem to have stronger evil spirits
or just stronger spirits in general?

Speaker 2 (57:27):
Okay, Well, you know it comes down to the fact
that the is a proclivity within that within the vibratory
residence of that particular location that produces this effect. If
there's trauma that happened there, then the trauma gets attached

(57:48):
to the area because the energy changes, it changes the vibration.
We've talked about so many times about how there is
no such thing as here or there. Locations don't exist.
All there is is vibration and geometry, okay, and the
geometry changes the vibration. The vibration changes the geometry. They're

(58:08):
kind of interchangeable, all right, But there's really no place.
What feels like a different place is just moving from
through the geometry of these vibrations. And if something very
evil or negative happens somewhere, that can create an attachment
that produces this negative effect, this negative vibration that then
like attracts, like these spiritual forces that operate the same

(58:31):
vibratory frequency as these evil things that happened there will
spawn in that location. That's just one example. There's lots
of things. But essentially the answer is, if there's a
proclivity in the area for something negative to manifest, then
guess what something negative manifests. All right, we're gonna get

(58:52):
into now and annihilationism part two. When we come back here,
don't go.

Speaker 10 (58:55):
Away and psychle be cannot fas using the sisty fat
in the die not the wason.

Speaker 1 (59:17):
What can un just do? Your joke came on your words?
Don't at your concern?

Speaker 10 (59:29):
You know where you have dis alla psychfet.

Speaker 11 (59:37):
If you could go to minute, if it be going
to minute, if it minute bed, if it be went minute,
if you could to minute, if it minute, if it could.

Speaker 12 (59:52):
Write to.

Speaker 11 (59:55):
Minute, if you couldn't mind if it go in to minute?
Did the turn to attend at.

Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
Between the supple go from creality? But suppose went from
city to can the time go back to begin? Then?

(01:00:38):
Don't why attend.

Speaker 12 (01:00:41):
Going back in.

Speaker 1 (01:01:01):
Fine by? Now? What cannot be something? The psychophone some
n me all away to sen you want golay, I
don't want to. I can't see at about things.

Speaker 13 (01:02:46):
The final that she's going on mal the deal escay
the orision of my stuf listened.

Speaker 1 (01:02:56):
Me to the page. You don't be well you got no,
we don't know.

Speaker 14 (01:03:04):
You guys know me?

Speaker 13 (01:03:06):
Well, we don't know me?

Speaker 8 (01:03:08):
Were you guys know.

Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
Mad in this.

Speaker 13 (01:03:54):
The band of bands of you going home in the
middle of you eskayaging no my soul listens me to
the bag.

Speaker 1 (01:04:06):
Beha without the.

Speaker 11 (01:04:13):
Music, there always being love love.

Speaker 3 (01:04:27):
You got.

Speaker 11 (01:05:01):
Lab lobs Silas.

Speaker 1 (01:06:42):
Not a way, not a.

Speaker 2 (01:07:44):
Welcome back, everyone to the second hour of Vestiges after Dark.
Let's get started now with annihilationism. Let's figure out why
the church doesn't teach this and how it relates to
what I just did. I sometimes the metaphysics is a
little bit different than the theology, and sometimes, you know,
you kind of have to understand that theology is going

(01:08:05):
to be more ethereal, more allegorical, and metaphysics is going
to be a little bit more mechanical and philosophical. So
put the two together, you get something pretty cool when
you walk away. And that's what we're going to try
to do tonight. So don't go anywhere. It's going to
be a good discussion, all right, everybody, here we go.

(01:09:28):
So again, a couple of weeks ago, I introduced you
to the topic of annihilationism, an offshoot Christian theological perspective
that is part of the branch of eschatology trying to
define what actually happens after we die. Uh, and of
course concerned with final things like hell and heaven and
all that good stuff. There's always been a debate about this.

(01:09:52):
Don't think that just because your pastor taught you that
this is what the Church has taught that it's always
understood it this way. You know, Christianity has existed for
two thousand years. It's been very influenced by outside factors
in that time. It grew in understanding, but it also
didn't live in a vacuum. Okay, So what is written

(01:10:15):
in the Old and New Testaments is somewhat different from
what eventually became the theology of the Consul and Icea
and everything that came after that. So that's partly, and
I tried to introduce you to that a couple of
weeks ago, but that's partly why there are some discrepancies here. Largely,
annihilationism is attractive to me as a solution to certain problems,

(01:10:37):
not because I like the idea of, you know, let's
just blink the damned out of existence, but more so
that it solves certain philosophical contradictions that I think are irreconcilable.
Otherwise we'll get We'll get to that later, but right
now i'd like to start, and Father Chris is going
to of course be instrumental here because I like to

(01:10:58):
talk about why the Church doesn't teach it. We talked
about why what it is last time. Now we're going
to talk about why it doesn't teach it. And I
want to start off, I think with the most I guess,
the biggest elephant in the room, and that is the
dogmatic definition of the soul's immortality, which at the Fifth
Lattering Council in fifteen thirteen. Notice how long ago that

(01:11:19):
is from when the Bible was written. But the Fifth
Lathering Council taught definitively that the human soul is spiritual, rational,
and naturally naturally immortal. Okay, And it is because of
this incorruptible nature that annihilationism can't be taught by the

(01:11:46):
current understanding of the Church, because it would contradict what
this council has already determined to be true. The Church
does not like to have to do that. The Church
has never said, oh, we got this wrong at this council,
we got to go back and fix that. It will
never do that even if it did. Even if it
did get it wrong, assuming it's possible, they would never
change it or admit to it, because it just goes

(01:12:06):
against the ongoing idea that there's a sort of guidance
of the Holy Spirit, which is almost infallible in most
cases for things like this when it's talking about doctrines.
So this is the big issue. But as I said
a couple of weeks ago, this is where where we

(01:12:26):
get this is not from the Bible. Okay, there is
actually the opposite in the Bible on the immortality of
the soul. The Hebrew understanding was that immortality can be
given as a gift from God, hence eternal life, salvation
being equal to eternal life, the Kingdom of Heaven being
the being ushered in as a place that one rises

(01:12:49):
up to from the dead, and even the concepts of
shale and everything else that even the righteous didn't have
anywhere pleasant to go until Jesus came around and opened
the doors and made have an accessible again. So all
of this is factored in. But it wasn't until the
Greeks started to take to Christianity, and did they ever

(01:13:09):
take to it. They took to it in ways that
even the Jews never did, and largely Christianity became populated
by mostly a former pagan population, and the Aristotle and
Plato were there were their philosophical guides up to that point,
and you don't just dismiss that culturally just because now
you've got this new line of thought. They wouldn't have

(01:13:30):
looked at that Jewish Yeah, go.

Speaker 3 (01:13:32):
Ahead, father, go ahead, just unravel a few of those things.

Speaker 2 (01:13:35):
Yeah, yeah, let's do it.

Speaker 3 (01:13:36):
And I know, I know that you know this, but
I just think that we're There's a thing in pedagogy
called the curse of knowledge. You know, because you know something,
you can assume that other people know it without teaching it. Yeah,
and uh and and look, and everybody suffers from this.

(01:13:57):
So I just want to kind of the first thing
that I was stimulated to say was, yes, ecumenical councils
take place in the life of the church, and you
mentioned one from the sixteenth century, but that it's true
to say that generally speaking, the church makes passes an

(01:14:21):
official doctrine on something, normally in response to a crisis. Okay,
so counselor trend is dealing with the crisis of the Reformation,
and so all of a sudden things then have to
be you know, written, debated, and an authorized view is given.

(01:14:42):
But that doesn't mean that's when that view is invented.
So for example, you know, you get the Mariyan dogmas.
And we've discussed in the past on this show that
we like the Mariyan dogmas, but we probably think they
should have been doctrine and not dogmas. Dogma means something

(01:15:03):
necessary to believe in order to be saved, as opposed
to doctrine, which is the good teaching of the Church.
So but for example, you know, you could say, oh, well,
you know, we didn't have the assumption was it the
assumption or the the amacula conception until you know, the
nineteen fifties Pius the twelfth. I think, well, that's when

(01:15:25):
this thing gets written down. But this is an you know,
a belief the of Christianity from its earliest inception. So
we've been making a category error to say, oh, well,
you know, the church didn't have this doctrine until the
sixteenth century or until the nineteen fifties. No, what councils
do is they say, this is what the church has

(01:15:46):
always believed. Now, actually they're quite sparing on that. I mean,
you know, we're two thousand years hence, so we've got
a fair view of these things revealed to us. But
as you said, we're probably due in actiming up with council.
They don't happen very often, and they're not intended to be,
and the Church is not intended to be the comprehensive

(01:16:07):
blueprint to how God operates on heaven and on Earth.
So I think, you know again, because I know a
lot of our thinking, because we're in the anglosphere West,
has come from Protestant ideas of sort of, you know,
put a pin in it, this is everything. Boom, there's
your product. That's not actually how the Catholic Church operates.

(01:16:32):
So that's the first thing to say, is that just
because something becomes declared at a certain point in the
history of the Church, the whole the whole essence of
ecumenical statements is that this is what the whole church
has always believed, once reveals to the saints. So now
we could we could debate individual rulings and say maybe

(01:16:53):
they're important a bit of this and the other. But
so that's one thing. The other thing is to say,
we think very on very human terms, oh well, this
was the you know, this was the pagan tradition of
the Greeks, philosophy of the Greeks, and therefore, oh, you know,
this gets adopted into that we can be very guilty

(01:17:14):
of removing God from the equation. At the Second Asking
Council in the nineteen sixties. One of the doctrines that
was that underpinned the evangelism of the description of evangelism
and in fact the description of the whole church was
the notion of the anonymous Christian. So this was Karl Rana,

(01:17:37):
you want to look him up. They eventually made him
a cardinal, but he really didn't want to be a cardinal,
and he died before he could, in fact be given
the red hat. So that's how much he didn't want
to be a cardinal. So in other words, he was
not a careerist, but he was a brilliant thinker. And
the doctrinally Anonymous Christian helps us just to set the

(01:17:58):
kind of intellectual context for how we approach these things.
What Anonymous Christian did was it resisted that what had
become a form of evangelism where to be very crude
about it. You know, white people from England go to
Africa and bang Africans on the head and say you're
all worshiping devils. Here's the Bible. That was a sort

(01:18:23):
of mode of evangelistic thinking that was quite strong in
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and it doesn't make
sense when you think about it. Karhana was engaged in
this issue, and he said, no, no, God has always
been at work. And because he did believe that men
and women were creating the image and likeness of God,

(01:18:43):
that all men and women are therefore orientated in their
lives towards serving God, even if they don't know who
God is.

Speaker 2 (01:18:50):
And so.

Speaker 3 (01:18:52):
More is the role of the church to say, you've
actually been worshiping this God, that you don't know this,
and we know this God is Jesus Christ. So they
are hence anonymous Christians inasmuch as they go with their
conscience in serving God. And I think we have to
think about the entire revelation of philosophy, intellectual pursuit of

(01:19:12):
humanity through the ages. We have to begin with the
acknowledgment that there is a God, and God has been
at work in that philosophy. So okay, you could say, well,
and one of the arguments for defending the idea that
the immortality of the soul, though we may source it

(01:19:32):
from Greek philosophy, because we have sent Augustine, who in
a sense baptizes it into the Christian worldview. That doesn't
mean that that's wrong. You know, we could say, well,
you know, God revealed this through these means, so that
in the fullness of time, this could be adopted into
the new Israel, the Church, the ark of the new

(01:19:54):
govenmant whenever you want to describe it. And then also
God has revealed through the Church that we we make
people official doctors of the Church, of what of whom
sent Augustin is one, and that that gives us an
authority to his teaching. So you can say, well, okay,
this philosophy, if this philosophy doesn't find its origin in

(01:20:15):
Christian thinking, well, of course not, because Christian thinking didn't
begin until the fourth decade of the first century a d.

Speaker 2 (01:20:24):
And so.

Speaker 3 (01:20:26):
You know, all of history, including the Old Testament and
the revelation of God to various peoples around the world,
pre date what becomes Christian canon or what becomes the scriptures,
or what becomes Christian philosophy philosophical thought. So to say,
to dismiss the immortality of the soul on the basis

(01:20:49):
that it came before Christianity is a you know, and
I know you know this is that's not that's not
a sufficient reason to dismiss it.

Speaker 2 (01:21:01):
No, I agree, I agree. My argument that I would
use would be, what's the justification for introducing a concept
like that that deviates significantly from several key points within

(01:21:22):
the scriptures themselves. We would have to understand what was
the reason that so many of the early Christians, and
we're by early Christians, we're talking like three hundred onward,
for most of this you know this again, immortality the
soul would not have really been a thought until about

(01:21:44):
that time. Okay, And you're right, you know, I mean,
even though it wasn't defined in any kind of at
a council until the fifteen hundreds, it doesn't mean that
they I mean, clearly the medieval theologians talked about it,
so and Augustine and in Aquinas of course talked about
it detail. They both were very firm believers in the natural,
rational immortality of the soul. So these are far before,

(01:22:08):
you know, long before you know, we we see the
doctrine formalized in the council, but that we but that's
not really my issue. My issue really more comes down
to what changed in Christian thought to well, see something
in scripture and change it and change the way that

(01:22:29):
it's presented. Let me leave it at that.

Speaker 3 (01:22:34):
Yeah, I mean I look at well the the idea
that things don't change for us again, you know, God
becomes a man. That was that was a significant change.
So what changes for us? God becomes a man, dies
on a cross, rises from the dead. And I'm jumping
ahead a bit really, but one of my real arguments

(01:22:54):
against annihilationism is you see, for me, like all of
these things, we study theology, okay, not anthropology, because theology
is about what is it that God is doing. It's
the study of God. And we believe God became a

(01:23:17):
man who died on a cross. And so it's not
because I think that human beings are so important that
I'm opposed to annihilationism, or or that the Church doesn't
support it. It's it's because of the enormity with which
we view God. That God is eternal, the all time
and space are present to God. This is basic theology,

(01:23:38):
you know, philosophy of God. There can only be one
God because if there were two, then there wouldn't be
a God. That God must be outside of time and
space and also simultaneous, the all time and space must
be present to him. So again, philosophically speaking, annihilationism suggests
that there is somewhere in a turn of see that

(01:24:01):
God is not, that is outside of God's presence, which
I think is problematic philosophically speaking. But coming back to
Christian theology, the enormity of the of the humiliation of
God becoming a man in the first place, I mean,
you had your little hierarchy of life in the last

(01:24:22):
segment about you know, man and then beasts, and then
you know, well yeah, so well what Christians. The radical
thing Christians believe forget about walking on water and loads
into you know, feeding the five thousand. The radical thing
we believe is that God, Almighty, to whom who is

(01:24:44):
outside of time, is eternal and yet present in all
time and space, takes on human mortality in human flesh.
And we can't even conceive of the humiliation of that.
You know, we could say where it's like us becoming
a dog, it's actually not. It's way it's way worse,
if you know, like, but it's much more debates than that.

(01:25:06):
So why why so why would God go to that length?
And not only is the length of that humility of
becoming a man, but also submitting himself to death, and
then during the pain of death, which we believe Jesus
did experience, the pain of death, he was experienced that
in his humanity. The idea that that that tallies with

(01:25:31):
with his his wish that people be annihilated. For me,
that just seems that that's a step of belief too
far and going back to the old Testament. I mean,
and I know you know, we can we can argue
about the meaning of words and what have you. One
of my favorite psalms is Psalm one hundred and thirty nine.

(01:25:52):
Of often if people come to me for confession, my
the penance I give them is to is to pray
Psalm one hundred and thirty nine. The main reason for
that in confession is because you know, you search me,
and you know me, You knit me together in my
mother's womb. This this, this, you know, the consolation that

(01:26:13):
your life is not an accident, and that God has
been involved in it all the way through. But also
in Psalm one hundred and thirty nine, you know where
shall I go from your spirit? Where shall I flee
from your presence? If I send to heaven, You're there.
If I make my bed and shell. You're there. If
I you know the utmost parts of the sea, or
handshall leave me, you're right, hand shall hold me. So

(01:26:36):
I don't accept that the Old Testament is annihilationist in
its entirety. I mean, I don't accept this annihilationist at all. Certainly,
when we come to the gospels. I said this briefly
when we've visited it last time. Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says,

(01:26:59):
and these will go away into eternal punishment, but the
righteous into eternal life. So we have this sort of
mirror of eternal life eternal damnation. And again, annihilationism is
very similar to universalism, is to suggest that beyond and

(01:27:20):
I understand that the distinction of saying beyond the perusia,
beyond that beyond the second coming of Jesus and the
final judgment. I do understand that nuance, I think, and
I think I made reference to it last time. But
I I just find or one of the one of
the reasons therefore that the Church does not teach annihilationism.

(01:27:44):
And I will come on to some of the subtleties,
by the way, especially of some of the saints, that
the Orthodox Church emphasized more about the nature of heaven
and hell. But so there is new once there is
room for nuance here. But the the notion that that
people cease to exist is a diminishing of the divinity

(01:28:09):
of God. And also I think makes a mockery of
the Cross. And the reason that the Church resists annihilationism
and universalism. Universalism is the doctrine that everyone goes to heaven.

Speaker 8 (01:28:22):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:28:22):
I reject that completely, of course.

Speaker 3 (01:28:25):
And anybody with any sense would reject that because it
means nothing matters. Actually, it means your life is meaningless,
and so so it's really, really, so really people think
it's a lovely doctrine, it's a really evil doctrine because
it says, basically, you're just an ameeba, nothing matters.

Speaker 2 (01:28:40):
Well, it creates another contradiction that's irreconcilable with life. I
mean this, this life would literally serve no purpose if
that were.

Speaker 3 (01:28:46):
Sure, absolutely so. But annihilationism, whilst subtly different from that,
I acknowledge the differences between it. It says, well, actually, no,
well they'll they'll be some final judgment and there'll be
a punishment. And therefore, you know, there is a distinction

(01:29:07):
from universalism it's still related to it. And I think,
you know, I picked up on something that on the
Mighty network that you said stimulates the thought in me.
And this is a very common thought people. You know,
if you're going to be sentenced to life imprisonment, you'd

(01:29:30):
rather have the death penalty, you know, because life imprisonment
is more torturous than the death penalty. I think a
lot of people can sympathize with that. Therefore, I think
that it's wishful thinkings of even annihilationism, because the idea
that you'd have to pay an eternal consequence for your
eternal rejection of God, and it's self imposed. This is

(01:29:52):
what's so crucial to understand. You and I are an
agreement on this and the churches. God does not send
us to hell. It is eternal self exile from the
joy of divine the divine presence. In other words, that
because our rejection are in the cortesin say, is the

(01:30:15):
term that Center Agustine uses, turned in on yourself. We're
turned in on ourselves so eternally and terninally that we
can't experience the joy and light of the presence of God.
We experience it as eternal self unforgiveness for having rejected
divine love, and the annihilationism would pardon us from that.

(01:30:43):
And I don't see just as God doesn't interfere with
our free will in this life, I don't think he
interferes with it in the life to come, and to
annihilate us would be to interfere with that freedom.

Speaker 2 (01:30:56):
Well, I don't. I wouldn't say that necessarily annihilations and
assumes that he does it I think. I mean, I
guess you could say ultimately, because the kind of annihilationism
that I tend to favor is not that you know
that hell is annihilationism, and when you know you get

(01:31:19):
sent to hell, then God just eradicates you that he
does it. I think we do it to ourselves by
divorcing us from our from our connection to God, which
is consistent with the with the theology. It really comes
down to what are these concepts actually precisely mean and
what is it that's actually being annihilated. I've already said

(01:31:41):
the numa does not get annihilated. So is that what
Augustine and and Quinas are actually talking about when they
say that there's an immortality. Of course, they didn't use
the word psyche they I mean, they use the word
psyche rather not numa. So maybe they didn't know what
they were talking about. Maybe that's when some mankins started
to get confused and they became interchangeable, which makes these

(01:32:04):
kinds of ideas difficult. But where I start to get
where I find the problem is not so much in
what it is as much as it is, or at
least not as much in the process of how it
happens or why it would happen, but what it is
specifically that is happening. So let me give you some

(01:32:24):
Bible verses from the New Testament that reinforced this thinking. Okay,
so we have First Timothy chapter six fifteen through sixteen
says which God will bring about in his own time, God,
the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and

(01:32:46):
Lord of lords, who alone is immortal, and who lives
in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can
see to him, be honor and might forever I'm in.
So here is specifically Paul saying who alone is immortal? Okay,
not saying that, you know, immortality is like something that

(01:33:06):
is commonplace in intelligence around God's creation, but rather something
that's unique and specific to God. Now we could argue that, well,
being his image is enough, so I could accept that,
and I think that's how the church reads that one.
But then you get Romans chapter two, verse seven, that
says to those who buy persistence in doing good, seek glory, honor,

(01:33:30):
and immortality, he will give eternal life. So again, why
would they be seeking something that is already naturally theirs
Unless we're going to again modify how we read this
and say, well, they're really talking about immortality with God.
We're not talking about immortality immortality in general. And I
think again that's how the church answers that. It's not

(01:33:51):
talking about general and immortality, talk about a very specific
one with God. Okay, it says eternal life. I can
accept that, I guess. Then you get to First Careerians
chapter fifteen, verse fifty three. For the perishable must clothe
itself with the imperishable and the mortal with immortality. When
the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable and the

(01:34:15):
mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will
come true death has been swallowed up in victory. This
to me changes the concept because before the other two verses.
You could say, yeah, well we're talking as in general,
is it specific, Well, you know, pick one, pick the

(01:34:36):
one that works for what the general understanding is, this
is what the Church has been teaching, This is what
all of our fathers have been teaching, So this must
be what it means. But when you start reading it
this way, this is a very specific way of saying
that we're perishable and we must literally put on something
that makes us no longer. So if we reject that,

(01:34:57):
which is of course grace, you know, I mean the
impa put the clothing oneself with the grace of Christ,
the grace of the Cross is what makes that imper
that perishable go to imperishability. If we reject that, which
is what the damn do, then they are literally rejecting
the imperishability aspect that component and then the rest of that.

(01:35:20):
Those two verses become null and void when the perishable
has been closed with and reverse it.

Speaker 3 (01:35:27):
The counter argument, So that would be and if you
read through one and two Corinthians, I think I think
this is well. I think it's referring to the purification,
which you know we would call purgatory or purgation. The
fullest soap, all of that that those things that this

(01:35:51):
is using that term mortality in terms of those things
which are I mean, we all know some Paul was
obsessed with sex. The he's talking about that those things
must must essentially be a rabic. Those things die.

Speaker 2 (01:36:11):
Just like when you put.

Speaker 3 (01:36:16):
Antibacterial gel on your hands. It kills the bacteria that
are on your hands, but it doesn't kill your hands.
I think I think that's the images being described here,
and I think that's the traditional understanding of these texts
is to say that, yes, not everything about our mortal

(01:36:36):
character will go with us into heaven, because the bits
of it that are sinful, that defile us will be
burned away. Now, this is what I think, But you.

Speaker 2 (01:36:45):
Can only interpret that in retrospect, in hindsight. If you
look at it from just where people were at in
the New Testament at the time that Paul wrote that,
that would not have been their conclusion, because the immortality
of the ol would not have been something introduced to
them at that point. Paul might have known about it
because he was very hellenized. I mean, he lived in

(01:37:07):
the hellenized world, so he probably would have known and
super smart, but he was also very much rejected pagan influence,
so I'm not sure he would have been all too
keen on Aristotle and Plato as much as the fathers
were later. So I don't think when Paul's writing this,
and again we've talked about how it's kind of ridiculous

(01:37:29):
that we have taken his letters and turned them into
doctrinal statements, because you know, he never thought he was
writing this is a letter I was writing someone, and
he turned it into like, you know, actual dogma here.
That was not the intention.

Speaker 3 (01:37:44):
I mean, well, we believe the Holy Spirit guided the
Church to do so, I understand, but we also almost
make a distinction. And this is a distinction that because
of the the effects of the Protestant Reformation with the
sort of you know, the inerrancy of scripture, these are

(01:38:05):
new doctrines, these are these are invented doctrines of that
period which are pervasive and have pervaded the Catholic Church
and the authologed churches as well. Now that's not to
say we don't hold scripture in very high regard. We
ought to, and you know, the traditional, the tradition of
the church to say those things which have persisted for

(01:38:27):
the longest period of time are the things that are
the most reliable. But you know, a Catholic understanding of
the scriptures is not to say that they are infallible
in error and and and all those other things that
that are said by people like Calvin, and so I

(01:38:48):
don't I don't think we need to have an over
over alliance on them, but we also don't reject it
in as much as the the when Jesus rises from
the dead, he meets the apostles in the upper room,
we've all betrayed him and been completely let down, and
he ordains those men as the apostles to to essentially

(01:39:11):
continue his mission in the world, which is primarily around
the forgiveness of sins, and that that is the faith
that's handed down. You know, this is this is the
this is what empowers the church to say, well, actually,
when those apostles gather, they're guided by and he says,
I'll send you the paraclet, the advisor to help you

(01:39:33):
discern these things. And so, you know, the scriptures have
authority because God has given them authorities through the Church.
So we have to respect them in that way. But
you know, we're always on that on on the trying
to balance the paradigm between over alliance on a kind
of a form of literalism, which is a form of idolatry,

(01:39:55):
bibliolatory I call it, but also on the oh everything
is contextual like well, no, God has given weight to
these things through his Church because he's guiding the Church
by the power of the spirit. And so you know,
when it comes to ideas of universal universalism, we have
the Second Council of Constantinople, which is five five three,

(01:40:20):
that condemns universalism. Now by deductive reasoning, we say, therefore
it also condemns undermining eternal punishment because if we've you know,
we have this sense of the eternal presence of God,

(01:40:41):
that we are created in His image and likeness, and
therefore we reflect that eternal nature. And you know, again,
while the Church resists, it is because it's imperative that
people in this life embrace Christ as their Lord and Savior,
their law, gold and Savior, because there's no salvation outside

(01:41:02):
of that.

Speaker 2 (01:41:03):
But there would be no purpose to that eternal conscious
torment if there's no redemption from it.

Speaker 3 (01:41:12):
Well that no redemption is offered. Redemption is offered in
Jesus Christ.

Speaker 2 (01:41:16):
Well, yeah, before, but but before you go through it though,
before the eternal conscious torment happens, you have to make
the choice before you end up in that condition.

Speaker 3 (01:41:26):
Well, just that you have to make a choice whether
you're going to murder somebody or not before you get
put in jail. I don't see any issue with this.

Speaker 2 (01:41:34):
Well no, I'm not. This is just yeah, right, I
get that. But what I'm trying to say is eternal
conscious torment doesn't hold I mean, prison holds value. You
can if you let them out, they could do it again,
all right, So we keep people in prison. I mean

(01:41:54):
they call it corrections. It would be nice if it
was about trying to make reform them, but it's not
about and then we know that it's about keeping them
keeping the rest of society safe. But that's not relevant
to someone in hell. It's not like you know you're
in hell so that you can't Yeah, yeah, you're not.

Speaker 3 (01:42:12):
You're not in hell as an example to the people
in heaven.

Speaker 2 (01:42:14):
And you're not in hell to protect the people in
heaven from you. So so what So there's no purpose
to eternal conscious torment after the fact. It's only really
serves a purpose before the fact.

Speaker 3 (01:42:27):
No, Well, the purpose is freedom. The purpose is God's
absolute commitment to freedom.

Speaker 2 (01:42:36):
But you don't have any freedom after you end up
in that. You kind of lose your freedom once you're there,
I think out of it. You can be like, boy,
this sucks. I've made a mistake. I'm coming back. You
can't do that, right, No, you can't.

Speaker 3 (01:42:51):
No, No, there's a chousm that's been you know in Lazarus,
we get this right, you know, there's a cause. So again,
when when Jesus preaches about the poor man Lazarus.

Speaker 2 (01:43:02):
You know, but the Greek there is is hades.

Speaker 3 (01:43:07):
Sure, but you know God creates, God destroys, nothing is created.

Speaker 2 (01:43:13):
Right, So.

Speaker 3 (01:43:16):
If we believe that we're crazy, the image in the
image and likeness of God. What's more in the image
and likeness of God than having an eternal nature? And
God won't transgress our free choice. And so the purpose
of being in hell is well again, the suffering serves
no purpose. That's the definition of hell. The suffering that

(01:43:39):
serves a purpose is purgation. It's purgatory is the one
that leads us to salvation. No, no, so I am
affirming that hell is a place where there is no
meaning to suffering. It's suffering for the sake of suffering.
But it's self imposed by by the free choice to reject.

Speaker 2 (01:43:57):
But it's a free choice that can only be made
and before the fact is what I'm trying to get at.
It's like the freedom is gone once you end up
with it, So it doesn't serve the purpose of freedom anymore.

Speaker 3 (01:44:13):
But I think we need to. I mean, well, but
it does. It does serves God's commitments of freedom. God,
God has a perfect commitment to freedom. But but coming
back to what we mean by choice in this life,
and again that's why I started by talking about the
Dutch of the anonymous Christian. This isn't to say somebody

(01:44:33):
born in Saudi Arabia who's lived their life entirely as
a Muslim because that's the milieu they're in, and they die,
then well they're just condemned forever to self imposed punishment.
That's not what I mean by this. You know, I
think it's pretty well attested that there has to be

(01:44:54):
an affirmative rejection of the truth that you know and understand.
You know, so in other words, only your conscience can
condemn you to hell because it requires you to operate
against goodness itself, because that's who God is. God is good,

(01:45:15):
God is love. And so now that requires well to
use classical Catholic terms, full knowledge, you know, perfect rejection,
all those things. Now less you think I'm operating in
a universalist direction, I'm not. I do believe people can,

(01:45:37):
deliberately and with knowledge, choose to reject God. That's husing hell.
And we choose to reject God by operating against our conscience,
against the notion of love, against the idea of forgiveness.
I mean, I think it's you know, what condemns us
to hell is the line in the Our Father, you know,

(01:46:00):
forgive us our trustpasses as we forgive those who trespass
against us. If you act, if you positively refuse to
do that, you're condemning yourself to hell because you don't
need to know anything about the Gospel to fall into
that trap, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:46:15):
And I agree with all that. I agree with all that.
I think the real the only contention point I think
for me is the eternal aspect of the conscious torment.
It's not Hell. I don't have a problem with Hell.
It's it's it's it's it's the definition of how do
we characterize it because we've said it's not a place,
we said it's a condition. So we agree there very difficult.

Speaker 3 (01:46:37):
It's very difficult to describe something which is outside of
time and space, right.

Speaker 2 (01:46:41):
That's that's kind of what I'm getting Yeah, that's what
I'm getting at.

Speaker 3 (01:46:43):
Yeah, but that's why I think, you know, and the again,
the Orthodox Church are slightly more explicit about this than
the Catholic Church in saying that Heaven and Hell are
the same place. I mean they say that over the
impurgatory garbage they do. It's we really are having a
semantic argument with the Orthodox Christians when they talk about that,

(01:47:06):
because essentially what we believe that in the beatific vision,
so it's to be in the presence of God. That's
why I don't accept annihilationism, because actually those condemned to
hell are in the presence of God. It's just that
the presence of God is hell to them because they
rejected Him and they hate him. That's what it's it.

(01:47:27):
So again, the Orthodox description of this is instead of
instead of the presence of God being the experience of
light and truth and joy, the light becomes an eternal
fire that burns them because they hate God and so
and hate. It's an horrific vision. It's one that you

(01:47:50):
want to avoid, you know. And that's why the Holy
Church says, yeah, avoid that. Don't be somebody who gets
completely caught in your own, uh psychological traps, your own
philosophical traps. You know we we because the torment of
being in the presence of the God who you hate

(01:48:12):
is eternal, because Heaven's eternal, and you'll be there and
you will hate it. It will be suffering to you. Now,
I do want to give I do want to throw
a bone though to to to traditional teachings in the
church that might point towards more of what you're describing,

(01:48:33):
because one of the one of the obvious questions is
if I'm in heaven, like let's say that, you know,
I've accepted God's grace and sincerely tried my best, died
in the states of grace. What have you or have
been purgated the fires of the Again that the light
and truth of heaven is heat that burns away are impurities,

(01:48:55):
the full of soap. So I'm in the presence of God.
But it turns out that somebody who ideally love in
this life a member of my family a friend is not,
then how can how can that be heaven for me?
If I have the memory of somebody who I love
dearly who's in hell.

Speaker 2 (01:49:13):
Yeah, that would be that would be something that I would.
I would. It's a good question question.

Speaker 3 (01:49:18):
Yeah, it's a good question.

Speaker 8 (01:49:20):
And and.

Speaker 3 (01:49:22):
I'll have to I did look this up in terms
of because I always forget the names because the names
overlap for me with the Uh, these church fathers or
people who've inspired the the life of the church. Let
me just find it here because I don't want to.

Speaker 2 (01:49:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:49:40):
So some St. Isaac the Syrian suggests that the blessed
in heaven focus entirely on God's glory, which may overshadow
or recontextualize earthly memories. So it does not necessarily mean
memories that are erased, but they're transformed in the light
of divine truth. And this is Saint Gregory Nissa similarly
says that well, because in heaven will be in a

(01:50:02):
state of spiritual perfection, earthly passions, which include grief, are
no longer present. They're transcended and sore, we would have
a reinterpreted memory. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:50:14):
I mean, look, I like I like him. I do
like him, I'm not saying that. Yeah, I like that saint,
but but my problem with it would be you're starting
to turn heaven into sort of like a meth trip
or you know, it sounds like you could be so
drugged out that you just don't give a shit about

(01:50:35):
anybody anymore. And that sounds like a very selfish imperfection
for a perfect place.

Speaker 3 (01:50:41):
And I'm not suggesting, by the way, that those great
saints were defending annihilationism.

Speaker 2 (01:50:45):
Yeah, no, I don't think they were.

Speaker 3 (01:50:47):
But you know Revelation twenty one to four, who will
wipe away every tear from their eyes and death more,
which I think happened mourning or crying or pain anymore. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:50:57):
Well see, let me, let me, let me put let
me phrase it in this, let me is it in
this and give people something to think about. We can
kind of sort of try to answer this one because
it's along the lines of what you've already introduced. Let's
take just for face value, right now, what the Church
has traditionally taught in the most basic Like you're talking

(01:51:19):
like CCD with the kids. You know what all Catholics
are taught when they're growing up. Okay, so obviously, in
most cases, most Catholics believe heaven to be a location
a lot. Some of the more sophisticated ones might understand
it to be a condition, but for the most part,
people expect that they're going somewhere, that there's going to

(01:51:41):
be some place that their loved ones are waiting for them.
So let's yeah, they're pets and everything else. So let's
keep it. Let's keep it on that framework for a second,
because that's the framework from which the rest of the
teaching draws from. So let's say, Heaven's this place of
perfect happiness. Scripture backs this up. Okay, perfect happiness, and

(01:52:04):
for perfect happiness, we have to have perfect freedom. You
can't separate the two. I think we agree on that.
You know, freedom is necessary for happiness. You have to
be perfectly free, responsibly free. And that's the point of
being perfect, is that you can be free without screwing up. Now,
because if you're perfect, then you can keep you can
be responsible with your freedom. Unlike Adam and Eve that

(01:52:26):
screwed everything up. We once we enter into this more
perfected state after purgatory or with grace, we no longer
would make those kinds of mistakes because we now are
operating from a perfect perspective, but still nonetheless free. We
just are so skillful we don't make those mistakes anymore.
So we're free and perfect in heaven. I agree completely.

(01:52:48):
I think that's exactly what to expect. Scripture backs it up,
the fathers of the church back it up. Just about
every Christian denomination backs it up.

Speaker 3 (01:52:56):
And therefore we'll be completely satisfied with what heaven is.

Speaker 2 (01:52:59):
Completely satisfied. Okay, So I agree completely, Okay, I agree completely.
Now let's also define hell according to the conventional understanding.
So also, like heaven, it's a place you go when
you're damned, now, okay. In fact, saints have literally taught
that they will be tortured for all eternity, aware of

(01:53:23):
this torture by Satan and his demons. And it's this
continuous thing that I mean, this is where you know,
the medieval notions of hell came from, these ideas that
we're taught all these all this time.

Speaker 3 (01:53:36):
And to well, we have the lake of Fire in revelation,
like you know, I mean, there are there are biblical
warrants for these things. I mean, h yeah, Okay, Dante
is not not doctrine. Yeah, yeah, but and it's never
been you know, never been made doctrine of the church.
It's using images that are present in the scripture.

Speaker 2 (01:53:56):
Our present, so it's yeah, it's there. So this there
is foundation to these understandings. Where it breaks down is
not in the images what scripture shares or how it's
even being interpreted, as much as the logical inferences that
one must draw to reconcile the contradictions they create that

(01:54:19):
I don't think most Christians think about. And I'm gonna
give you the big one, which you already kind of
alluded to, but let's expand it a little bit because
I like the direction you were going. The fact is,
let's say I'm gonna I'm gonna be the good guy here.
So let's say I go to heaven, right, I just
got to go to heaven. Everything's wonderful, okay, and I

(01:54:39):
make it and everything's just like I expected to be perfect,
you know, free, and I'm completely satiated in the presence
of God, no care in the world, nothing, you know,
I'm good. But let's say I have a loved one
I'm gonna choose. I'm gonna condemn anybody, but let's just
say I had one, you know, a child, a parent whatever,

(01:55:02):
who did not give a shit about God or the
Church or Chris or sacraments or grace or anything but themselves.
And they live the marginal life, maybe even in evil life.
Let's say, but I love them because they're my kid
or they are my parent whatever, Okay, and they don't

(01:55:24):
go to heaven. They get to be in the traditional understanding,
tortured for all eternity, consciously aware of it in this
place called hell. Well, I'm living it up in this
place called heaven, and I'm perfectly happy knowing that with
my full freedom to know, because I would have to
be diluted by God to not be aware of it.

(01:55:46):
I'd have to be, you know, because I'd be like,
where's where is this parent? Where is this child? Why
are they not here? Well, I mean I wouldn't be
if God's going withhold information. That would be disingenuous. That's
not perfect. If I'm going to be content with that
because I'm so satiated by God, I don't care. That's
not perfect either, that's pretty selfish. The problem is that, No, No,

(01:56:10):
I've got a solution. Okay, So what's the solution.

Speaker 3 (01:56:13):
The solution is is that you're not empty of anything,
You're filled with everything. And one of the things you're
filled with is justice.

Speaker 2 (01:56:20):
So I'm happy that they're being tortured.

Speaker 3 (01:56:23):
Well, I'm not. I'm not sure that that's the correct characterization.

Speaker 2 (01:56:31):
I think I kind have to be.

Speaker 3 (01:56:35):
Well, it's why, it's it's why, it's it's you know,
it's impossible for us to imagine because we're not perfect.
It's impossible for us imagine because we do live in
the fallen world. But uh, you know, filled with the
likeness of God in grace and justice, in love and
all of the rest of it, we may we must

(01:56:57):
be open to the of the idea that that will
completely change the way we view everything.

Speaker 2 (01:57:03):
I agree, But I don't know if you could say
that it changes one's intimate love for another person. I
don't know if that we could argue that.

Speaker 3 (01:57:13):
I think that we have a fallen love for one another,
not a perfect love for one another.

Speaker 2 (01:57:19):
But could we ever have a love that's perfect enough
to be perfectly okay with a child or a parent
being tortured by Satan for all eternity? Could we ever
be I mean, well, that's what I'm trying to say, though,
I mean, yeah, we'll find out, of.

Speaker 3 (01:57:35):
Course, because what you're saying is, can you imagine something
that's unimaginable? Well, no is the is the honest answer
to that question. But that doesn't mean that we can't
conceive of the possibility. And I think you know, the
things that we are required to believe are the creeds
of the Church. Now everyone, well most people have any

(01:57:58):
connections to the Church. The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed
very well, very ife. You read the Athenasian Creed very
often because it's longer, it's more complicated. Actually, the Church
of England they're supposed to read it twice a year.
Liturgically speaking, I think I was the only person that
ever did the The the end of it says about

(01:58:19):
Jesus at who's coming, all men will arise with their
bodies and shall give account for their own works. And
they that have done good shall go into a life everlasting,
and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. So
now I'm not reading that line out as this is
the definitive opposition to an annihilationism, because we can talk

(01:58:40):
about what fire may or may not mean, but it
is a It's interesting. That's what has happened post even
more recently than post Reformation, is we've entered a period
of in the West, especially in the anglosphere of history,

(01:59:02):
where Christians can't conceive of any punishment whatsoever. I don't
see yea that is not that is not an ancient
belief of the Church.

Speaker 2 (01:59:14):
And I've seen let's let's pause right here. I've seen
some comments in the chat that we're suggesting that, you know,
annihilationism is a cop out. That's not how I'm arguing it.
I want to make sure that's clear. No, I don't
see it as a cop I don't see it as
like a I presented that.

Speaker 3 (01:59:33):
To be fair.

Speaker 2 (01:59:33):
Okay, yeah, yeah, I'm not. I'm not arguing that part
of it. I know people do and can. But we'll
come back to this in a moment. Don't go away.
And we got some questions.

Speaker 14 (02:00:02):
So bum bum boom boom.

Speaker 8 (02:00:35):
Bum bum bum bum bum boom.

Speaker 2 (02:01:00):
M fads.

Speaker 13 (02:01:06):
I capdoin u s.

Speaker 1 (02:01:12):
Again? Can shows so.

Speaker 8 (02:01:41):
M dum dump bump bump bump.

Speaker 1 (02:03:22):
Just pretty good?

Speaker 10 (02:04:08):
Sometimes series are cols skills.

Speaker 8 (02:04:16):
These things jes.

Speaker 1 (02:04:20):
Jings and Jess so all ser just kiss.

Speaker 13 (02:04:25):
Cos she's pretty good.

Speaker 11 (02:05:00):
Ss ss sss.

Speaker 8 (02:05:06):
S s.

Speaker 12 (02:05:09):
Sssss do.

Speaker 2 (02:06:52):
Its Welcome back everyone to the third and final hour
of Vestiges after Dark. We've barely scratched the surface here,

(02:07:13):
and I feel like we already need another episode or two.
There's probably three immeasurable eons worth of episodes that is
necessary to tackle this subject correctly. But we're doing the
best that we can with the time that's allotted to us.
We're we're going to continue this and maybe look at
some of your questions here. You can call into the

(02:07:35):
show if you want to. Two O seven five four
four nineteen eighty three. Keep the subject though on tonight's
show topic, Let's not ask random questions. That's next week,
by the way, open lines, open topics next week, so
save other subjects for next week. But yeah, we'll be
dissecting some of your questions here and continuing the thought process.

(02:07:58):
Lot to contemplate, as Jamie says, lots to ponder on this,
don't go away. In One John, chapter four, verse seven,

(02:09:46):
it reads, beloved, let us love one another, for love
is from God, and whoever loves has been born of
God and knows God. Anyone who does not love anyone
who does not love does not know God, because God
is love for me. I don't think this is an

(02:10:09):
allegory or a metaphor or a clever parable. I think
that this is being very specifically, almost painfully literal, which
tells me one thing in relation to what we finished
talking or I guess did not finish talking about over
the last hour, is that the love that we know

(02:10:32):
is actually perfect. There is nothing more that needs to
be corrected in that. Maybe perhaps just the being able
to hold it at all times. I don't think we
do that very well, and we seem to fall out
of love as easily as we fall into love. That's
the imperfection of it. But I think the actual experience
while we're in it is the experience that it is,

(02:10:55):
and I don't think we're going to find that in heaven.
It's going to be largely different than that, other than
the fact that it will be enduring, an eternal, and
and and complete. It won't be fickle like it is here,
where you know your wife pisses you off and now
you want a divorce or misdirected here.

Speaker 3 (02:11:17):
I mean it's not hard to see. I mean, you
know your country is a basket case at the moment.

Speaker 2 (02:11:21):
Yes, it so, by the way, so is mine.

Speaker 3 (02:11:26):
I'm not, you know, because people have got a very
skewed idea of what love is.

Speaker 2 (02:11:33):
Correct, But I think what we so experiencing love?

Speaker 10 (02:11:38):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (02:11:38):
But then but the application of love?

Speaker 2 (02:11:42):
I think, but there's no application of love. I don't
think there's any application of love, even within or without justice,
however we want should have defined that, or however limited
we are in understanding that. Yes, but I don't think
there's any rule for eternal conscious torment in that equation,

(02:12:05):
because how could we ever be content with that? I don't.
I don't see how their compatible realities.

Speaker 3 (02:12:15):
But the argument about how can you be happy in
heaven if you know that suffering?

Speaker 2 (02:12:20):
Right, That's where we left off on how.

Speaker 3 (02:12:22):
Can you be happy in heaven? If if you if
you if your love one has been annihilated?

Speaker 2 (02:12:27):
Well, because of what I no, it's not, because it's
annihilation can be defined several different ways. And I think
you might say that the way that I have presented
it in two weeks ago is also very different from
what it conventionally has been taught. As I would say

(02:12:47):
that again, we have to do a logical inference here
because there really isn't a doctrine to look to to say, Okay,
this is how we can interpret this. We have to infer.
It's it's kind of like purgatory in a lot of ways.
Purgatory is not as not like a biblical doctrine, other
than the fact that the Maccabees talks about praying for
the dead, and why would you need to pray for

(02:13:08):
the dead if they're in hell, because you know they
can't say.

Speaker 3 (02:13:12):
That in Malachi.

Speaker 2 (02:13:14):
You've got yes.

Speaker 3 (02:13:15):
But but I agree the doctrine is not here, and
that's why we had the Reformation, right, but one of
the reasons.

Speaker 2 (02:13:24):
But purgatory is not what I'm trying to say. They
progatory is still a logical inference. It ultimately is you
have to see like there has to be after you,
after you've doctorally defined this and then you define that.
Then that leaves a vacuum on a particular area.

Speaker 3 (02:13:43):
That says, well, well, so when Jesus says the sitting
is a holy spirit that cannot be forgiven, either in
this life or in the life to come, yes, it does.
Deductive reasoning says, therefore there are sins that can be
forgiven in the world to come right correct, just that
one whatever it is that.

Speaker 2 (02:14:00):
Yeah, So in this particular case, with this issue, I
think we have to do the same thing because we
don't have doctrine to look to. And so here's how, No,
I don't think we're supposed to because ultimately we really
shouldn't be concerned so much with annihilationism. If for cultivating
grace and adopting the life of the Cross, I mean,
ultimately annihilation or hell, whatever you want to call it.

(02:14:22):
It's kind of irrelevant for a person who actually pursues Christ,
you know.

Speaker 3 (02:14:27):
So I think you shouldn't really want the death penalty
or life imprisonment.

Speaker 2 (02:14:31):
Yeah, exactly, ultimately out of good, you know. But in
this case, since we are, you know, trying to understand
and define this and make sense of it, I would
say that the only annihilationism that is logical is that
if you infer that, first of all, what we do
know about God, God is outside of time, and we

(02:14:54):
know that those that enter into the beatific vision live
with him, exist with him, so that means they're out
of time, and out of time would mean that all
points are the same point. There's no what happened before.
There's no something that's yet to come. Everything you know,
as far as as far as salvation is concerned, Parrosia,

(02:15:16):
new avenue, or it's all done. It's always it's accomplished.
When Christ says it's accomplished, he's talking in that sense,
just like when God says, I am, and then Christ
reaffirms that same statement, you know, I am. It's it's
the eternal now of God that we are dealing with here,
So we know this, which would mean then that what

(02:15:38):
does that look like from the standpoint of a linear
mind trying to discern and find their way to salvation
when the reality that they're trying to get to does
not have any linear benchmarks to follow. And this is
where it comes down to. And I think a little

(02:15:58):
bit of it, and I'm not going to do that
tonight because I think I did enough of that in
the first hour. Buddhism I think solves this problem. But
let's try to do it with just the chools of
the church, just for the sake of a theology here
and not trying to introduce other perspectives to make it
make sense. The only way it makes sense to me
is that annihilation is like sin. Christ does not forgive sin.

(02:16:25):
Christ blots it out as though it never was to him,
whatever sins have been forgiven never actually occurred. For him,
we still suffer the consequences because we're stuck in this
linear thing, but for him it's eternal now, which would
mean that that same thing has to apply to the
sinner as well. So I would argue that the only

(02:16:47):
way to really rationalize annihilationism is that for those that
choose this freely, because as we I agree with you,
it's not God punishing, it's not God's sending, it's you
choe using freely to reject the grace that saves you.
I think the result of annihilation is that you blot

(02:17:07):
yourself out, and it's as if you never were. Therefore,
let's apply that.

Speaker 3 (02:17:13):
Let's apply that philosophy from the reverse perspective. Okay, So
if you begin with the eternal, so if you begin
with God and your and the eternal nature that is
incarnated in us in this life, if if if our
ultimate destination is annihilation, we wouldn't exist now, because it's

(02:17:42):
to be annihilated means to be complete, as you said,
totally blotted out. Therefore, we would not exist now and
that and that's why it's connected to universalism.

Speaker 2 (02:17:55):
You see, but we know but have a whole.

Speaker 3 (02:17:57):
That view would be saying everyone everyone, actually who is there.

Speaker 2 (02:18:01):
But we're not any But the thing is is that
these could the conditions upon which this reality exists. Whatever
existence is, does not operate by those eternal rules because
it's it's being annihilated anyway, This is being annihilated. We may,

(02:18:22):
I mean, we can argue whether or not we are,
but we know this, this, this creation is.

Speaker 3 (02:18:29):
The Church deliberately uses the language that transcend, that it
transcends rather than is annihilated. You know, it's not that
something is destroyed, it's that something is made whole, is
made holy. So and the fullness of what something is
is a transformation, but it's not an annihilation.

Speaker 2 (02:18:48):
Well, I mean, let's look at what let me see
Heaven and earth. I think it says pass away in
in the in in heaven.

Speaker 3 (02:18:57):
And earth will pass away.

Speaker 2 (02:18:59):
King will not pass away, Yeah, Matthew. So in the Greek,
the word that's being used here is paralyucity. That paralyusiti
means to come near our site, to approach, go by, perish,
or neglect avert.

Speaker 3 (02:19:21):
So in the word the word perish is deeply debatable
in terms of all that means.

Speaker 2 (02:19:28):
From para and let me look at let me look
at the deeper on reading here. So it's used in
numerous places in Matthew Matthew, he likes that word a lot. Yeah, Okay, yeah,
it's actually an all the Peter the heavens shall pass

(02:19:49):
away with great noise. Let me see what. Yeah, it's
the same word. So yeah, again, it comes down to semantics. Think.
What my argument is though, is that we already experience annihilation.
We we This is the whole point. And this is

(02:20:10):
why I say, and I'm trying so hard not to
introduce it again because I'm trying to keep it fully Christian.
But this is where Buddhism helps so much, because it
has that concept of the bardeaux, which is seen as
neither existing nor not existing. It's it's kind of like
it's kind of like a quantum particle that hasn't decided

(02:20:31):
whether or not it wants to be a wave or
a or a particle. It's like it has to be
brought into existence, but it it's like it's like the
cat there, what's the both dead and alive. Yesss ca, Yeah,

(02:20:52):
it's it's it's both dead and alive. I think that
is us. I think we we we take for granted
that the fallen cause most is not really the real thing.
I don't think it's the real thing. I think what
it is. And this is again and you have to
infer a lot, and I'm borrowing now from Eastern philosophy
to make it make sense. But this is why I

(02:21:13):
say that it's not the real thing, because I don't.
I think we exist in a potential right now. I
think we can choose. I think the choice of salvation
is not whether or not necessarily to be saved in
the sense that we think of it. We just think
of it because we're in it. But I think it's
more along the lines of are we choosing to exist

(02:21:33):
or are we choosing to not exist? Not so much,
are we choosing to go off into some perfect paradise somewhere?
Are choosing to be eternally torture? But isn't that?

Speaker 14 (02:21:44):
That?

Speaker 2 (02:21:44):
Isn't that? What isn't that? Literally though, the the the
entirety of Eastern praxice. I mean, I'm talking Eastern Orthodox praxie.

Speaker 3 (02:21:58):
No, not really I mean, theosis is to become godlike,
not to become equal.

Speaker 2 (02:22:04):
God like. But but it's more than its god like.
It's not just it's not just to be like. It's
not to be God. We don't literally become Him.

Speaker 3 (02:22:15):
But because because we otherwise, they believe what Mormons believe,
you know, yeah, so so. But I think the idea
that we get to decide whether we exist or not,
but what we do that completely counterscripture, totally counterscriptural and counterfactual,
because we do, because we do exist.

Speaker 2 (02:22:34):
Only only in this potential, only in this, only in
this whatever this is, it's it's but it's it's a choice. This, this,
this entire life is a choice.

Speaker 3 (02:22:43):
We only exist in as much as we know what
existence is.

Speaker 2 (02:22:45):
Well, yeah, okay, but do we really I mean, does
anything really exist here? I mean, think of it this way. Okay,
where's my childhood cat? Where is he? Alix died in
nineteen eighty eight. Where is he now? I can't see him,

(02:23:05):
I can't experience him. Yeah, well, I mean yeah, I
mean there's there's there's there's an imprint of his existence
all this picture.

Speaker 3 (02:23:13):
I mean, but we're so we're so infused by postmodern
thinking and self worship actually of our own intellects, that
we because it comes back to a form of atheism,

(02:23:35):
or not atheism, a form of self deification, which is
not theosis, which is actually replacing God with ourselves. We
exist because God has made us. God has created us.

Speaker 2 (02:23:47):
I think He's given us the opportunity. I don't think necessarily.

Speaker 3 (02:23:51):
No, I think we exist. I think we exist in realcity,
in the in the real and in the whole. And
the affirmation I think we did particularly well. I think
the affirmation that humans in particular exist is because God
became a human being. And so, in other words, there's
no more there's no other form of existence that's been
as ratified by God than humanity because He became a human.

(02:24:16):
And so all of this comes back to a basic
the fundamentals of the Christian faith. You know, do you
believe God became a man? And so, because if we
believe in an annihilation's point of view, then as soon
as we're annihilated, we cease. We cease to have not
only ceased to exist in that moment or in that

(02:24:37):
eternal aspect, but we cease to have ever existed at all.
And that's why I can't believe in annihilationism, but.

Speaker 2 (02:24:48):
You experience that every day. Where's where's five year old
father Chris? I mean, he doesn't exist. He I mean,
you could say that he existed at one time.

Speaker 3 (02:24:58):
But but if I was annihilated in all eternity by God,
then five year old Chris wouldn't even be a memory.
He would not have existed at all.

Speaker 2 (02:25:08):
But you don't know if there's anything beyond the memory
that you're experiencing right now. I mean, you know, the
problem is, we don't really even experience presence. But my
point is we don't really even experience moments. We only
experience the memory immediately after the fact. When you really
think about it, we don't even have. All we ever

(02:25:29):
really know is just like a few milliseconds of the
past is as close as we can get to the present.
So in a sense, we're already on the precipice of annihilation,
which I think is what is trying to be inferred
from the consequence of original sin being death. I think
that's what it means, is that when we are exiled

(02:25:51):
from the garden of Eden in that metaphor, what I
think it is trying to say is we gave up life,
and now, because of God's infinite love, has given us
an opportunity to choose which side of that fence we
wish to be on. And so we're kind of stuck
in this dying state from the and I've said it before,

(02:26:13):
from the day we get here, we're dying. We're not living.
We've never really known life. We only know this shadow
of death that we call life. But it's not really life.
And if it's not really life, how can it exist
if it's not eternal? And and that's my point is
I think exactly it can go either way, the same

(02:26:33):
point I think we are, but I think the semantics
is less vastly different.

Speaker 3 (02:26:38):
Well, I guess, I guess what I mean, what I
am affirming is that I do exist, and so do you.
And so now I don't know that's not what you're saying,
but that is why I am saying that that we
do exist, and the fact that we exist, and because
obviously I believe all of the other things that we've
spoken about that I believe God created the heavens and
the earth, that God God is is in all and

(02:27:02):
of all, and and and nothing exists outside of God,
and Therefore, if I existed any way, shape or form now,
then that then I cannot believe in annihilation because I'd
have to I'd have to believe that I don't exist now.

Speaker 2 (02:27:20):
So maybe though, the only reason why you have a
hard time fathoming that is because you have a soul, yes,
and keeping it, do you see?

Speaker 8 (02:27:33):
Well?

Speaker 3 (02:27:34):
But but but that, and that is the point I
was making. I can't remember just before. I think it
was just before the break of why annihilationism is tied
to universalism, Because if we say that that if I
was going to be annihilated beyond this life, that that
actually would eradicate this me here and now, and and

(02:27:56):
the five year old and whoever I ever was altogether,
then actually what we're saying is any human being that's
currently alive is destined for heaven, because otherwise they wouldn't exist.
And that's why I think annihilationism is rightly rejected by.

Speaker 2 (02:28:11):
The But I see you're you're going on the premise
that this exists. Now, I'm not saying I don't think
this exist. I don't think this does.

Speaker 3 (02:28:18):
Yeah, I think the Bible. The Bible's on my side
on that. But I accept that you're making a different argument.
But I'm just I'm just trying to make it clear
why why annihilationism and universalism is connected. This is how
and that if we believe that.

Speaker 2 (02:28:34):
Let me give you an example. Let's before we get
derailed on that thought, let's let's let's stay with this
one for just a second. I'm going to give you
an example if you were to let's just say, you know,
you and I we build a spaceship that can go
at you know, light speed beyond light speed or we're
talking like warp Town or whatever, Okay, like fast enough

(02:28:57):
to get to the nearest black hole. And let's say
we get there and I get into the shuttle pod
and you stay behind in the cockpit, and I'm going
to say, I'm going into I'm going to cross the
the what they call it. Someone helped me. It's too
late at night. No, the event horizon, event horizon, the

(02:29:22):
event horizon. Okay, So let's say I'm going to go
and I'm going to cross it because I want to
see what the spaghetti spaghetification things all about. I want
to try it. Okay, And so you know, you and
I go out there and you stay behind, and I'm
going to go. I get into the shuttle pod and
I start heading towards the black hole. You're in the
cockpit watching me. What you're going to see from your

(02:29:45):
perspective is that you're going to see that shuttle pod
keep going, keep going, keep going, and we're going to
be able to communicate, you know, just fine until I
reached the membrane of the event horizon. Once I hit
the event horizon, I'm going to start to experience a

(02:30:09):
dramatics slowing down that begins the spaghetification process where eventually
I'm just literally stretched into nothing. I just get, yeah,
broken apart. You're going to see the shuttle pod go
all the way to the event horizon and just stop,

(02:30:30):
and it's going to stay stop there at the event
horizon for all eternity. It's going to always just be
there still, even though I will no longer exist, you
will never see me actually enter into the black hole,
because it will the way that time gets distorted in this.
And I'm not going to get into all the physics

(02:30:52):
of how this happens. That as the gravity well yeah,
well it's only a theory, but I mean in mathematic
it kind of has been proven mathematically so if black
holes exist, then this is how they would behave as
kind of the argument I guess that they make in physics,
and I think they think they do exist. I mean,

(02:31:12):
I think we've found some. So I you know, this
is you know, let's just say so. And we already
know about relativity and that you know, different velocities change time,
I mean change the perception of time. Okay, so we
know that somebody traveling at the speed of light would
would would experience a much slower rate of time than

(02:31:35):
those of us who are stay on Earth. They'll come
back again, is about that? Yeah, yeah, yeah, So we
already know that the physics of this fallen universe does
not operate on the basis of anything remotely eternal. It's
all based upon entropy in different stages of how it

(02:31:58):
breaks down to ultimately what most scientists would say is
eventually going to be a heat death. It's gonna peak
everything just at the last star burns out and that's it.
It's gonna be just a void of nothing, which is
consistent I guess with scripture in my opinion, I mean,
at least if you want to interpret it in cosmological terms. Yeah,
I think it works. So in that sense, how do

(02:32:22):
we know we are not in our own event horizon?
In the sense that what this opportunity is that God
gives us is that still moment where we appear to
exist but we don't. He can. He can pull us out.
No one else can if we choose to let him.
And I'm not arguing that we're God. I'm not saying that.

(02:32:43):
I'm saying that we're making the choice. Just like we
make the choice whether or not we want to send
ourselves to Hell. It's God that makes it possible for
us to have an opportunity to do something else. So
the choice comes from God, but we have to choose
to take it. That's what I mean by when I
say that. So how do we know we're not in
the black hole right now? I mean, look up into
space and all you see is stillness in darkness, there's.

Speaker 4 (02:33:03):
Not we're all in the barde together.

Speaker 2 (02:33:05):
Well, in Buddhist terms, we are limbo. Life does not
give you any exemption from the bar.

Speaker 3 (02:33:12):
Do one thing that might help us to look, we're
talking about concepts that are beyond our grasp really, but.

Speaker 2 (02:33:21):
Yeah, because you're talking about timelessness, that's right.

Speaker 3 (02:33:25):
So let's talk about the distinction. And I don't want
to get to don't see these as too separate. I've
got to describe them separately because it's no other way
of speaking, but that you know that we have temporal
existence and there's eternal existence. Now I happen to believe
they overlap. I think the overlap in the human soul.

(02:33:46):
Let me give it. Let me give a very very
short defense of that. What you described in terms of
the space you're going towards the event horizon, these are
things that are observable. They're temporal, they're in time and space.
You can see the dimensions of the of the spaceship,
your dimensions as a physical being. You can measure that,
you can you can time it. Those things are all

(02:34:10):
in the realm of physics, shall we say? But the
why do I say that, although we are temporal, we're
also taking part in the eternal, Which is why I
know I'm alive, why I know I exist, and why
I know you exist is because all of the most
valuable things in our life are not temporal. And it's

(02:34:33):
why we are different from animals. It's why we're different
from your dog that's in the grave, because we believe
in these weird things that are outside of time and space,
like freedom and love and justice and evil. Even you
know that and these things are not you can't.

Speaker 2 (02:34:52):
Now the Church says evil doesn't exist.

Speaker 3 (02:34:54):
Well, yeah, I mean that's right. I mean, evil is
the kind of degradation of that which is good. I'm
cra happy with that definition. But all I'm saying is
is that the idea that there is a good and
therefore are best.

Speaker 2 (02:35:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:35:06):
So this is where, in a sense you've got you've
got Einstein interacting with Aquinas. You know, Einstein says there
are laws of the universe, and Newton says that you know,
these are the laws of the universe, and and Aquinas says,
that's because there's a law giver, you know.

Speaker 8 (02:35:25):
And so.

Speaker 3 (02:35:28):
The only the only thing of which we know so
far where the realm of of of the physics of
the linear, of the temporal intersects with the notion of
eternal things which are beyond the material, like love and
justice and freedom. The only place we know that that
exists is in human beings. Is in I mean, even

(02:35:52):
if I'm going to remove what I believe about Jesus
Christ from this, so I'll just, you know, try and
be as kind of materialist as possible, which is hard
for me because I'm not a materialist. But even if
I was going to be as materialist as possible, i'd
have to say the human I'll say mind because I'm

(02:36:12):
trying to avoid all religious conversations of so really say soul.
But the human mind is the only place where observable
time and space interacts with noble ideas that transcend that,
like justice and love. That's how I know I exist,
is how I know you exist.

Speaker 2 (02:36:30):
Yeah, I mean, I get what you're saying, and I
agree with it. I would just say though, that because
we cannot permanently adopt those states means that we are
not quite in them yet we can, And that's what
I mean by that.

Speaker 3 (02:36:48):
It's not fulfilled, right, And that's what I mean by
love for an eternal existence.

Speaker 2 (02:36:53):
Yeah, And that's what I mean by love because it
is fickle, it isn't perfect, it can be self servile.

Speaker 3 (02:36:59):
That eternal existence, I don't say pre destined by the way,
I'm avoiding that word like the plague, okay, for very
good reason. Yeah, the the we are destined for an
eternal nature. That eternal nature will be fulfilled in the
beatific vision to use you know, classical terms. But there

(02:37:25):
is a destination because I am alive, and I'm alive
because I experienced these eternal instincts in this temporal world,
and therefore I cannot be annihilated at the same time.

Speaker 2 (02:37:43):
They're not.

Speaker 3 (02:37:43):
It's not possible. So I'm destined for eternity.

Speaker 2 (02:37:46):
Well, I don't think you can be annihilated as long
as you hold onto those ideals and pursue them. But
I think if you reject them, how could you maintain it?

Speaker 3 (02:37:55):
Well, therefore you're a universalist.

Speaker 2 (02:37:57):
No, because because I'm not saying I'm people will reject it.

Speaker 3 (02:38:02):
I'm just saying that too. And that's what I'm saying
is hell, that's what I'm Well, we agree that, well,
but I believe it's eternal, don't.

Speaker 2 (02:38:11):
Oh, I do believe it's eternal too. I just don't
believe you're you're consciously being tortured through it. I just
don't see how that that makes. That's the only part
of everything we've said tonight, That's actually the only part
I struggle with because A it's not it's not compatible
with eternal happiness in heaven, because again, loved ones are
going to have people are gonna have loved ones that

(02:38:33):
end up in hell and and and they're supposed to
be happy while they know this is going on for
these loved ones. And I don't think we can just say, well,
God's justice is gonna make that make sense. I don't
think we can kind of I think again because of
how scriptured, how it's described in John there uh in

(02:38:54):
first John, I think it was uh. I think we
already know what love is. We already know God through
that love. I don't think there's much more that. I
think love is pretty transparent and it's the one place
that God is.

Speaker 3 (02:39:07):
I mean, to be honest, I think if we have
a shred of love within our soul, then our eternal
destination is is heaven. I believe that.

Speaker 2 (02:39:16):
Well I do too, But that's exactly what I'm saying,
I think.

Speaker 3 (02:39:20):
But I do think that people can you know, we
have the freedom to snuff that out ourselves. Yes, So,
I mean one of the questions earlier in the chat
was you know or one.

Speaker 2 (02:39:31):
Of the old we should get the questions, But one.

Speaker 3 (02:39:37):
I think Brandon made was you know. And we've said
before the Church declares people who we believe to be
in heaven the same. Yeah, And I think I think
that's what we're getting about here, is that's why the
Church doesn't declare the damned, because we're entering into a
mystery and we only see through glass darkly. As you said, Well,

(02:40:00):
what we know though is that.

Speaker 2 (02:40:01):
But could it be that the damned can't interact with us?
And that's why the Church can't declare it. See, the
saints can interact with us. That's how the church knows
they are they They they've made it because there's miracles,
there's interactions, there's separations.

Speaker 3 (02:40:14):
The poor man Lazarus parable from that Jesus gives us
in the Gospels, would suggest that a chasma's well again.

Speaker 2 (02:40:24):
But that's still I still see that. As shay All,
I think I don't think we can applague a henda
to that one.

Speaker 3 (02:40:29):
Well, and I gain So the last thing I'll say
I will get onto questions is is, yeah, the idea
of torture. The problem with with our use of the
word torture is we is we envisage. Well, I'm from England,
so I envisage people on the rack being stretched out
things and I think if that's our vision, then then
of course that that that doesn't interact with with a

(02:40:52):
loving God. But I think I think what it really
means by torture is and this is why, you know,
I think the the image of heaven and Hell being
actually the same place is a useful one. What I
envisaged by torture is that stubbornness of of eternally making

(02:41:14):
the same wrong decision to reject the love of God.

Speaker 14 (02:41:17):
That is it.

Speaker 3 (02:41:18):
That is the torture. It's not so you know, we're
not gonna be watching our loved ones stretched out on
a rack and pope with things by by the devil.
I mean, these are images that have been that have been,
you know, viscerally used in the life of the church
for all sorts of reasons. Yeah, not all, not all
evil reasons. By the way, it is something we should
want to encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ to avoid.

(02:41:41):
But really the image of torture is more like eternal
self imposed regret. Yeah, but we can't reach God's embrace
because we we are the ones who have turned our back.

Speaker 2 (02:41:55):
Not that God has with no option to change the condition,
because we because we so we make a finite we
make a decision in a finite reality and then yet
get eternal consequences as the result of it.

Speaker 3 (02:42:11):
No, no, no, no, no, that's not the that's not
the That's what I described. I described that in every
eternal instant, because moment is time based, right in eternal
every single part of our eternal existence. We if we
were going to use the temporal terms every second we

(02:42:34):
reject again, But why would we? I can't conceive of
why anybody would do that.

Speaker 2 (02:42:41):
But that sounds more like a path towards universalism to me, though,
because it's like once you would see the consequence of that,
once you know there are.

Speaker 3 (02:42:50):
People who do you think there are people who in
this life no, Jesus Christ is God incarnate, rose from
the dead an office forgiveness of sins, who hate him
and want to reject that forgiveness.

Speaker 2 (02:43:05):
I think they do in a finite reality. I'm not
so sure they would in an eternal one. I don't see. Well,
we will, but I mean that's but see, that's why
I'm saying, it's very close to where you start falling
into maybe a universalism outcome, because because I think the
only reason they can reject him right now is because
they don't know him from squat. And let's face it,

(02:43:26):
God is elusive if you don't know how to find him,
if you're not doing what it takes, he's elusive.

Speaker 3 (02:43:32):
It's just as impossible for us to enter the mind
of a psychopath, you know, who just thinks transactionally about
all things.

Speaker 2 (02:43:39):
Yeah, but I mean then, but do you have to
account for now like brain malfunction and reasons for why
people become like that.

Speaker 3 (02:43:49):
But what I'm saying is just because we can't conceive
that people would make that choice doesn't mean they're not
free to do it, and doesn't mean that people do.

Speaker 2 (02:43:58):
I can't.

Speaker 3 (02:43:59):
I don't know why people love God and onces A
goes to the Eucharist, you.

Speaker 2 (02:44:02):
Know, I think they could make the choice. I'm what
I'm arguing is is how can we be accountable for
making a finite decision that has eternal consequences Because it's
kind of like, Okay, you had your chance, because that's
how the church looks at it. You had your chance.
It's still rate now now and now they get to

(02:44:24):
see the consequence. Now they're living the hell that they
created and now, but maybe they want to get turned
around and get out of it.

Speaker 3 (02:44:30):
They can't. But you're falling into the trap of beginning
with what we think as being just and right and
true and projecting that onto God.

Speaker 10 (02:44:39):
We are in.

Speaker 3 (02:44:41):
Whether we think that God is moral or not is immaterial.
God is moral by definition, and just because we struggle
and wrestle, how on earth could we conceive of this
that the other. Instead of saying, therefore God must be
different and fit into what we think is right, we
have to say, I mean, this is the word mystery
is allowed. Once you've exhausted anything you can reasonably try

(02:45:07):
to attempt within your intellect to grasp after what what
God intends. We have to say, well, actually there is
there is that mystery beyond our understanding. But God knows
what God is about.

Speaker 2 (02:45:20):
And so but is that going to include things that
are morally dubious in our current state of understanding? I think,
I think I think that I think we have We
would never hold our children to an eternal punishment as
the result of making a finite mistake. We would never
do that. We wouldn't even think that would be I mean,

(02:45:42):
you go to jail if you tried to do that.
The law, the justice of our country would come down
in it.

Speaker 3 (02:45:47):
I was just about to I was just about to
correct you. People do go to jail for doing that, right, So, yes,
people do think that way.

Speaker 2 (02:45:54):
Yeah, I know that. So I'm sorry. I'm trying to say,
is though, but where but the church? The church is
traditional view you on this is arguing that very thing.
It's saying that that God's justice is so perfectly eternal
that you know, because and that's what Augustine argued. He
said that, you know, an eternal God, a crime against

(02:46:15):
an eternal God requires an eternal punishment. That's how he
looked at it. You know, I think I think Augustine
had a lot of emotional problems personally. I mean, and
I think when you read that in his text, I
honestly think he needed a psychiat a psychotherapist. That they
didn't existpect then. But you know, and so I think

(02:46:37):
a lot of his doctrines, did you know, did suffer
as the result of him struggling.

Speaker 3 (02:46:45):
Placing off faith inst No, no, I know that, but
but you know, so I just think that the fact
that it's always the it's always the risk that we
moralize God according to what we think were we've just said,
we're viewing through a mirror, a glass darkly.

Speaker 2 (02:47:03):
You know, we we we are.

Speaker 3 (02:47:07):
Inferious to God in a way that we can't possibly contemplate. So,
you know, but there are things that God has revealed
through the Church that we can say. So, but but
it's not right to then work back through those things
we can say and then say therefore the opposite can't
possibly be. I think that's a that's a I think

(02:47:32):
that's a philosophical trap to fall into. And so, you know,
whilst I can't conceive of, especially face with the beatific
vision people in every moment rejecting divine love, we have
to because we believe in the freedom that is divine
that God gives to us. We have to believe that

(02:47:54):
it's possible that somebody might.

Speaker 2 (02:47:56):
Yeah, I don't. I don't doubt that people wouldn't. What
I'm doubting is, once you understand the consequences of that
free choice, I think you would immediately reverse course. And
then you're being told now that you are stuck in this.

Speaker 3 (02:48:13):
I would, I hope I would.

Speaker 2 (02:48:15):
I mean, I think anybody would.

Speaker 3 (02:48:16):
But that's the whole meaning of life. The whole meaning
of life is the.

Speaker 2 (02:48:21):
So most people reject card because they don't feel he
They either don't believe in in him or they don't
believe He really gives a.

Speaker 3 (02:48:33):
Ship misled, they've been misled. Yeah, but the but I
don't think we go to hell for being misled.

Speaker 2 (02:48:39):
You know, right, No, I don't think that either.

Speaker 3 (02:48:42):
I think I think it's a positive rejection of God,
and I think that's a very different thing. I go
back to anonymous Christian, right, I'm not I'm not saying
that unless somebody's perfectly received the Gospel and the Church
as I as I understand it in my fallible, you know,
limited way. I'm not saying that anyone that doesn't completely
agree with with my vision of these things goes to
Hell or even or even you know, people who've never

(02:49:06):
encountered the Catholicism, the Catholic Church don't understand, you know, no,
not at all. I'm just saying that I want to
be very cautious of of anthropomorphizing the divine will and judgment,
because I think I think that that is actually the

(02:49:26):
original sin.

Speaker 2 (02:49:28):
I don't disagree. I think where I think where I'm
getting stuck on it is that I don't think what
we understand to be love is inaccurate. I think everything else,
I think, yes, our concepts of justice.

Speaker 3 (02:49:47):
It's not inaccurate. I think it's partial.

Speaker 2 (02:49:49):
I don't think I don't think it's fine. I don't
think it's I think our implementation is partial. I don't
think the experience of it is I think the experience
of it is complete. I really think that's the one
thing God gave us that is absolutely hole and entire.
And the fact is that we can't use that as
enough to stop killing each other, to stop hating each
other because of political things, is proof positive that we

(02:50:09):
don't know how to deal with this because it is
so perfect in itself and we are so imperfect that
even when we're given something perfect, we don't do it
do well with it.

Speaker 3 (02:50:19):
So we might be in a semanti trap here because
I mean, like, and I don't want to get into
this debate, but the the like when they brought in
gay marriage in Australia, the campaign in favor of legalizing it,
and when it comes to law, I don't really care
what people do, but the whole, the whole mantra of
that campaign in favor was our love is love. Well

(02:50:43):
that's that is a misuse of the term love in
my opinion, Yeah, and in the opinion of the church.
But people would experience love now, and I would say
much of that love would be genuine, like love between
people all this. You know, you can have love between
brother and sister, between mother and father. You know, there

(02:51:08):
are aspects of that love that are genuine. But human
beings can get very, very confused, very easily about what
love is. So that's why I said, I don't think
it's something we fully experience in its perfection.

Speaker 2 (02:51:21):
I just can't imagine that we it would be we
would be so far off that we would be in
a place where we would be able to, through a
better understanding of love and justice, be able to be
content with loved ones being tortured, even if it was
self imposed.

Speaker 3 (02:51:37):
There's chiros moments we have, like you know, you know,
if we're if we're blessed and lucky, we get a
few of these in our lifetime where you know where
Yet people experience these as conversion experiences as what but
those moments where all of a sudden everything is you know,
it's just it's the still point, right, you feel like
eternity and time are just united, they don't last their

(02:51:58):
mountaintop experience is I think if that's what you mean
by experiencing love, then we can agree. I think. I
think where we where we can really easily deceive ourselves
is where we uh continue that notion of love into
everything that makes us feel good or everything that you
know we think.

Speaker 2 (02:52:18):
Is No, that's when it become selfish. Yeah, I think
we're actually on the same page with that one. No,
I'm talking about I'm talking about real love, authentic love,
and the fact that that's not enough for us is
proof that we have the real thing and we don't.
We don't we're not able to utilize it in any
effective way because we kill each other all the time
and we're actually happy about it. We actually want to

(02:52:42):
see suffering. In fact, there's this even this psychological phenomenon.
I forget what it's called, but we actually have a
bias where we take pleasure when things go wrong for
other people. It's an actual psychological thing. I can't remember
the name of it, but it's it's it's a there's
a re action that people feel when something goes wrong,

(02:53:04):
that there's actually asserted satisfaction or curiosity or a pleasurable
feeling that is experienced through it, almost an anti empathy
of some kind, and it's it's a pervasive psychological phenomenon,
probably a pet primate carryover. I don't know. Okay, So
here's the thing. I see that some of you are

(02:53:25):
reporting that there's been some issues the stream dropped. Yeah,
I mean hopefully did did you? Okay, So you guys
were were you able to hear everything? Because the reason
I'm saying this is that the audio only version of
this show, the one that becomes the actual podcast, is

(02:53:49):
a separate recording entirely from the feed that you see here,
that gets recorded into my soundboard, and then that is
what gets uploaded to the audio only version, and that
goes out to iTunes and iHeartRadio and all that stuff,
Spotify everywhere that the podcast ends up. So if you
missed any of this conversation, uh in a couple I'd

(02:54:11):
say maybe about fifteen minutes after we stopped going live,
that will show up in the podcast options. So you
can go to iTunes, iHeartRadio, whatever and and and listen
to the parts that you missed. But I don't I
think this is too important a subject to have this.
I'm not sure why it's doing this tonight because I'm

(02:54:31):
not seeing anything wrong. Nothing we've got, I mean.

Speaker 3 (02:54:35):
Just YouTube that has been a global issue with the internet.

Speaker 2 (02:54:38):
Remember maybe that's it today or something like that. Okay, yeah,
so that maybe it's it's not even local. Okay, that
makes sense.

Speaker 3 (02:54:48):
I don't think it's local.

Speaker 2 (02:54:49):
Well anyway, Look, next week is open Lines, Open topics,
and uh not that I'm saying that we will eat
up the whole show talking about this subject more. But
I'm sure there's a lot of questions that perhaps will
come to you something that we didn't get to tonight.

(02:55:10):
And I only really kind of went over with it
with this tonight because I knew we had open Lines,
Open Topics next week, and then that will be an
opportunity for all of you to come on and if
you want to talk about this, then you'll tell us
by asking the question. We're not going to bring it up.
We'll go with whatever you guys ask. But there's more
that could be said.

Speaker 3 (02:55:29):
Can I say something that we will definitely both agree on? Yes,
The better choice in life is not to try and
avoid help or annihilation. The better choice in life is
to ask myself how can I more perfectly love God?

Speaker 2 (02:55:47):
Yeah, And so.

Speaker 3 (02:55:51):
If we spend our time and energy focused on how
we love God, serve our neighbor, how we choose to
worship Him as Is revealed his will to be worshiped,
then these are interesting topics, but they will not have
any eternal meaning.

Speaker 4 (02:56:06):
For you love God and love each other.

Speaker 2 (02:56:08):
I mean, I think if that's what you do, then
you don't have to really worry about I mean, let's
face it, the Scripture doesn't really spend too much time
talking about Hell. It's it's really more about you know
that is is just a mindfulness, And that's perhaps why
it's not more clearly defined where we would have to
get into discussions like this that are ultimately unresolvable. Like

(02:56:33):
I said, I can rationalize it because I come from
a very Buddhist background. In fact, like I said, I've
told you guys this so many times. I only my
Christianity only made sense to me once I became a
Buddhist and left that and came back. And what I
mean by that is the gaps that made me leave,

(02:56:55):
the contradictions, the philosophical problems with Christian theology that may
me leave it we're fixed by my ten years as
a Buddhist, and then I could come back to Christianity
and say, now I understand. I think ultimately the only
way to really reconcile some of this is to integrate
the two. I understand also that that's problematic for the

(02:57:18):
Church and largely unnecessary. That's a metaphysical musing and more
appropriate for shows like this, which is why I don't
get into this too much. During Mass. The focus is
of course on salvation, and that's what the church really
cares about. That's what it spends its time defining, and
everything that it does define is really ultimately about that.

(02:57:40):
So next week we will take your questions on open lines,
open topics. I want to thank Father Chris Brendan Milam
for being here tonight. Conversationammy, Yeah, I mean, there's so
much to say, and I want to make it clear
I'm not even arguing with Father Chris. It might seem
like it we're not even arguing.

Speaker 4 (02:57:59):
It didn't come off well, you.

Speaker 3 (02:58:00):
Know how you develop a point it is.

Speaker 2 (02:58:03):
It is good. I don't even disagree. I don't even
disagree with ninety nine to ninety percent of what you said.
It's really just down to the eternal conscious torment. What
that means. I think the numa goes to heaven automatically,
so maybe that's what is eternal. But I don't think
it's the ego. I think the ego, yes, does suffer
for a time. I don't think it's forever. But we

(02:58:23):
can talk more about that next week if you guys
want to. You guys, tell me I'll go with you
and your questions. Okay, until then, I'll see you out
there in the ether. God bless everyone thinking about it,
all right,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Unpacking Annihilationism with Bishop Bryan Ouellette and Fr. Chris Yates

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

All Episodes

Unpacking Annihilationism with Bishop Bryan Ouellette and Fr. Chris Yates

Stuff You Should Know