Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Revelation Revisited, Part 3: Response to Date v Giles
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Revelation Revisited, Part 3: Response to Date v Giles
In this third part of my recent reflections on the Book of Revelation, I respond to the opening of a debate between Chris Date and Keith Giles on annihilationism versus universalism in the Bible. The full debate was hosted by Cameron Bertuzzi and can be found on his channel at the link below. I bookend my debate responses with some personal thoughts on why I find annihilationism unconvincing, at least at this point in time.*
*For example, consider the following retributive dilemma that I did not fully discuss in the episode. It takes the form of a brief imaginary dialogue:
Is it right that Hitler just be quietly annihilated, suffering the same fate as some petty criminal?
"No, he has to be tortured some amount beforehand."
Is there any amount he can be tortured that would be enough? If yes, why not let him go after he has "paid the last penny"?
"There is no amount of torture that would be enough."
If there's no amount that would be enough, then why even try? Why only torture him some random amount? More pressingly, why not torture him for literally ever, if you admit that no amount of torture would ever be enough?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbg4w4FPVIc&t=2396s
View all episodes
By Kaliya RivetIn this third part of my recent reflections on the Book of Revelation, I respond to the opening of a debate between Chris Date and Keith Giles on annihilationism versus universalism in the Bible. The full debate was hosted by Cameron Bertuzzi and can be found on his channel at the link below. I bookend my debate responses with some personal thoughts on why I find annihilationism unconvincing, at least at this point in time.*
*For example, consider the following retributive dilemma that I did not fully discuss in the episode. It takes the form of a brief imaginary dialogue:
Is it right that Hitler just be quietly annihilated, suffering the same fate as some petty criminal?
"No, he has to be tortured some amount beforehand."
Is there any amount he can be tortured that would be enough? If yes, why not let him go after he has "paid the last penny"?
"There is no amount of torture that would be enough."
If there's no amount that would be enough, then why even try? Why only torture him some random amount? More pressingly, why not torture him for literally ever, if you admit that no amount of torture would ever be enough?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbg4w4FPVIc&t=2396s