Universalism Against the World: Recent Episodes
Kaliya Rivet
Christian universalism is a lonely position due to its paradoxical combination of inclusivity and exclusivity. In this podcast of speculative theology, my guests and I engage the topic both rationally and mystically.
This episode takes the form of a quick commentary on my previous episode ("No One Can See My Face and Live") followed by a short asynchronous exchange between Jason and me (selected messages from the Signal voice app). This exchange covers similar ground to our longer discussion, "My Lord and My God." The episode centers around the exclusivity of Christ and the deceptions of the enemy.
This episode covers a lot of the podcast's regular themes--near-death experiences (NDEs), the exclusivity of Christ, and the relationship between the self and God. It is in large measure a commentary on and refinement of the points I made in my previous episode, "Assorted Thoughts on Natural Theology."
Creation from nothing versus pre-existence, and, of course, hell and the hope of universal salvation.
In this episode I try to explain my reasons for considering Catholicism and why I may stop podcasting altogether. Roy Schoeman's witness testimony: https://youtu.be/EWDevlijGUI Luke Thompson on consciousness: https://youtu.be/6B0D3QVYTas Chris Langan on Godel and self-reference: https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Common_CTMU_objections_and_replies#Russell.27s_paradox_and_Godel.27s_incompleteness_theorem_prove_that_the_CTMU_is_invalid.
Another chat with Peter L'Esperance. We delve more into my upbringing and Hare Krishna.
A longform exchange between Jason and myself in which we try to understand the necessity and nature of the Incarnation.1 Corinthians 8:6, NASB: "yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."Pageau and Fr. De Young on the God-Man: https://youtu.be/g4XeV3O2gewMy conversation with Jacob: https://youtu.be/bJvy2RSuw_YBible Study with Jacob and Jason:https://youtu.be/83QwcDDIe-YChristopher Langan: hology.org
Peter L'Esperance moderates a discussion between atheist Christopher Lazarro and myself.Miscellaneous solo reflections follow. Link to Peter's new podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/7njfWVzH2LUGJPts3eBSUx?si=7RgutIpuTymVzc6gKobD3w&utm_source=copy-link Link to Peter's album: https://open.spotify.com/album/3IFYOO62N1fQ1uqziACOLm?si=_fIREKoPRUCCk1OPsfou1g&utm_source=copy-link Link to Nate Hile's conversation with Jordan Daniel Wood: https://youtu.be/f1JNy1uw0ss Link to random video of Luke Thompson just being awesome: https://youtu.be/6B0D3QVYTas Christopher Langan's work: hology.org
Patchwork episode featuring clips from Nate and Jason. Unfortunately this episode is not so much a conversation as it is a smorgasbord of clips recorded in our group chats on the Signal app. Grail Country/Nate: https://youtu.be/d9YDXBppk4E David K Bernard: https://youtu.be/yyftqYNPVnY John Milbank on Grace Saves All: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZGF2aWRhcnRtYW4ubmV0L3BvZGNhc3Q_Zm9ybWF0PXJzcw/episode/NWVhMDkzY2U4NzgxMjEyNjFkODAzYzViOjVmNzNiZTQ4MDViYjMzNGZjNDY3NWYyOTo2MjE5MmM0Yjk1NDE4MTExOWMxZGE5NjM?ep=14
Description in episode. Here is the link to the song referenced in the first couple recordings ("Christ Jesus" by Deer Tick): https://youtu.be/hobfo6Cs8uI
Rajat and I do a brief reaction video to the conversation that Joe Schmid hosted between Joshua Rasmussen and Eric Reitan, in which they responded to various philosophical and theological criticisms of universalism.
Link to the source video: https://youtu.be/sxQyKw04Ncg
Peter L'Esperance takes the initiative in setting up an interview with Andrew Hronich, probably the single-most comprehensive expositor of Christian universalism despite his young age. (Toward the end of the conversation, Peter takes over the interview as well.) We discuss issues of Christian eschatology including moral philosophy, free will, biblical eschatology, and the experience of hell among other topics.
Conversation with Peter L'Esperance: Two amateur theologians discuss Christology, eschatology, Bill Wiese, and NDEs.
"Bonus content" at 2:14:20
More thoughts on Oneness Christology pulled from my Signal conversations with Jason, Luke Thompson, and Luke J. In these exchanges, I have a tendency to throw out ideas or even near-quotations without attribution, so I here I would like to cite Asher Walden, Howard Storm, David Bentley Hart, and--as ever--Christopher Langan as major influences on what I say here. Link to the Grail Country video referenced in the recordings: https://youtu.be/I6vHqJlvkV8
This episode consists of a series of voice messages I sent to listener Peter L'Esperance, who weighed in with his reasons for believing universalism to be the most plausible form of Christian eschatology. My response is a sort of mini-meditation on the nature of desire/desirability, the image of God, and free choice. In so doing, I cannot help but sound a tiny bit like the otherwise inimitable David Bentley Hart (as well as two of my other big influences, Christopher Langan and Daniel Siegel).
Description in episode. Mistakenly refer to John Milbank as John Milton in the first few minutes so please excuse the error.
In this conversation, Jason and I sit down with Peter Hiett, a universalist pastor based in Colorado. Hiett's biblical interpretations are some of the most interesting I have encountered and I strongly encourage checking out his website, relentless-love.org youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/PeterHiett podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sanctuary-downtown-relentless-love/id499682116?ign-mpt=uo%3D4&mt=2 church website: https://thesanctuarydenver.org/ Jason's YouTube channel (Almond Tree): https://youtube.com/channel/UCcL1sJjhPDHONZo6GiSttkw Mentions:
Christopher Langan George MacDonald Georg Hegel David Bentley Hart Jordan Peterson TS Eliot Sam Lebens Bernardo Kastrup Richard Rohr Karl Barth Julian of Norwich Jason Pratt Luke Thompson
"Abstract": Standard approaches to the problem of evil seem to treat good and bad events as objective and rank-ordered on an absolute scale. Intuitively, however, whether something is good or bad depends on what you value, and what you value in turn depends on what kind of person you are and the events that have shaped the course of your life. In desiring any significantly different existence, therefore, you risk wishing away the very circumstances that make it possible for you to appreciate whatever it is you are wishing for. Conversely, the best of all possible worlds--or at least the best possible past--has a way of being whatever actually happened, almost purely in virtue of the fact that it happened. These reflexive observations make the problem of evil--effectively the question of whether our circumstances bespeak divine providence or negligence--"inevaluable" as standardly posed. Such "inevaluability" is the key theme that this episode circles around. For it and other insights I am indebted to my friend Luke Thompson, to whom this episode is dedicated.
Wayne Fair ("Sovereign Love") invites me to share my spiritual journey. Sovereign Love YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/user/MrHwaynefair
(In which I descend into the chaos of metaphysical speculation once again.) This episode is a sequel of sorts to "Saying Yes to God" and, like its predecessor, deals with the likelihood of confident versus hopeful universalism. As a result it also touches on topics such as the nature of sin/love, time/eternity, possibility/actuality, free will, and causation. Apologies for the characteristically terrible audio quality toward the end.
Almond Tree stalwarts Jason and Mitch join me in responding to Andrew Hronich's biblical case for restorationism as presented on Cameron Bertuzzi's YouTube channel, Capturing Christianity. Link to original video: https://youtu.be/1f_9jCX7NHc
Most will not understand this episode at all. Those who do will most likely not be happy with it (as neither will many of those who did not understand it). I am not happy with it. My dog, who resented the random pauses during our morning walk, was not happy with it. But I am posting it anyway. Relevant notes: In my thought, the limit that the Manifest God (or Second Person) approaches is the Unmanifest God (or First Person). The limit that your higher self approaches is Christ or the Second Person. The limit that your momentary experience approaches is your higher self.
Michael Sartori and I discuss creation, possible worlds, and universal salvation. Michael's channel: https://youtube.com/user/mlts9984
In this unintentionally somewhat comical episode, I indulge my oratorical side, giving a 24-minute debate-style statement to an audience of no one except my one-year-old son, who lends his own voice to the first few minutes. This monologue was recorded on a windy morning in an otherwise secluded park, with a noisy freeway not too far from us. Given that this talk was also recorded using the microphone of a cheap pair of wired earbuds, the resulting audio quality was (at least at times) as hellish as its subject matter. If you dare to listen to this recording, you will have to excuse the occasional unintelligible phrase as well as extreme microphone popping. Again, caveat auditor.
The recording is in two segments because, at the end of the first, another car pulled up to the park for a minute only to leave as inexplicably as it arrived. (Perhaps the driver saw me and concluded that I was a lunatic.) In terms of substance, this address weaves together many universalist themes from stalwarts such as George MacDonald, Thomas Talbott, and (to a subtler extent) David Bentley Hart. I must also thank the YouTube annihilationist Mark Corbett for the two citaitons from Hebrews which support my/Talbott's interpretation of Matthew 25:46, tending as they also do to support the conditionalist interpretation of that verse. The extemporaneous nature of the speech is evident at various points but most especially in its ending, which even I have to admit falls a bit flat.
The reason I decided to post this audio despite its numerous flaws is that it does a good job of conveying my recent thinking, including a few new insights which are perhaps original to me. It is the distillation of almost two years' reflection on theology following 12-14 years of atheism/materialism. I pray that God will give me many more years in which to make up for the lost time.
In this conversation, I talk with self-described evangelical universalist and trinitarian apologist Jason Pratt. (Following my guest's penchant for abbreviation, I will hereafter refer to him as JPratt to distinguish him from my other friend named Jason.) In this episode, we discuss debating strategies for universalists as well as the trinitarian logic underpinning JPratt's cumulative case for evangelical universalism.
This is a long and somewhat disorganized episode on the topic of eternal punishment with special reference to Matthew 25:31-46. It is a meta-episode cobbled together out of smaller episodes, some of which were released previously as standalones but then retracted for reasons explained at the outset. Suffice it to say, I make quite a few mistakes in this episode, both logical and "empirical" (with respect, for example, to Biblical Greek--toward the beginning of the episode I say "aidios" means endless whereas the correct term is "ateleutos" among others). I hope these errors will not necessarily detract from the substance of what I have to say here.
This episode is a response to an article by Fr. Lawrence Farley titled "David Bentley Hart's That All Shall Be Saved: A Review and Rejoinder" (link below). More accurately, this episode is a series of reflections prompted by reading Fr. Farley's article. In this episode, I sometimes respond to Fr. Farley as though he were Protestant or evangelical, which he is decidedly not. What I'm really doing in those instances is responding to similar arguments that could be made within the more Protestant world that I inhabit. As such, the Calvinist annihilationist Chris Date also receives several mentions. Fr. Farley's article is excellent and well-written, and I encourage everyone to check it out even if I remain on the side of David Bentley Hart. "Here I stand, I can do no other." https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/david-bentley-harts-that-all-shall-be-saved-a-review-and-rejoinder/
Two approaches to scripture and to Christian Universalism. Miscellaneous reflections thereafter.
Jason Schweizer and I respond to a biblical argument from Jason Pratt, and, later, Jason's friend Mitch jumps in to pose some questions for universalism. Topics include universal salvation in scripture, the nonduality of love, and the nature of repentance/forgiveness as well as spiritual death. My apologies for the jumpy editing as there were a few interruptions.
Having discussed the Hitler Dilemma for Annihilationism, Rajat and I move on to discuss various philosophical questions pertaining to annihilationism as well as what constitutes a meaningful afterlife. By way of clarification, I should point out that Rajat is a theist but does not subscribe to any one religious tradition. Accordingly, his questions and answers tend to come from an uncorrelated philosophical point of view, while mine are largely within the Christian frame.
Since the first thirty minutes of our conversation were mostly dedicated to my in-depth presentation of the so-called "Hitler Dilemma for Annihilationism, " I decided to package it as a standalone episode. The rest of the conversation is available as a part two.
In this episode, I lay out two fairly comprehensive arguments, one against annihilationism and one against eternal conscious torment, noting interesting parallels in their internal logical structure. Both arguments begin with some intuition about justice or fairness whose violation incurs unwelcome consequences for God's goodness, with attempts to avoid these violations also incurring negative consequences for God's goodness. The conclusion that this "meta-argument" tends toward is that both annihilationism and eternal conscious torment should be rejected in favor of universal reconciliation.
P.S. While this episode is listenable, I apologize for the poor audio quality. I also misspeak confusingly at 9:56, saying that an annihilationist could attempt to say that annihilation does not represent finite punishment (which is not a view I would argue against; i.e., I think annihilation amounts to an infinite punishment). I really meant to say that an annihilationist could attempt to say that annihilation does not represent infinite punishment; i.e., the annihilationist could attempt to say that annihilation is in its way a finite sentence or penalty, a view which I go on to argue against. I apologize again for the confusing language and hope everything is clearer in its overall context.
In this episode, I have my first full-length conversation with Sam, a Biblical Unitarian friend of mine from the Paul Vander Klay online community. Sam is the host of the Transfigured podcast, in which he discusses Christology and patristics from a unitarian point of view (link below). In this conversation, we discuss a number of topics, including Trinity, Christology, annihilationism, and universal reconciliation.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/transfigured/id1559094234
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
Jason joins me as I continue to explore Revelation's implications for biblical universalism. We discuss similar topics as in my conversation with Jon (e.g., hermeneutics, open theism, value theory); however, this time, there is more emphasis on eschatology in the context of the whole Bible. P.S. The following thought occurred to me after recording this conversation: Why does John persist in referring to the damned as "dogs outside the city"? Answer: Perhaps it is an Easter egg of sorts. Dogs are unexpected vessels of mercy as in Jesus' encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman. P.P.S. The (still unattributable) quotation for which I was groping at the end of the episode returns to me: "The God who is simultaneously the reflection of one's true self as well as the intimate stranger."
In this episode, I revisit the question of whether Revelation admits of a universalist interpretation with my friend Jon. In addition, we discuss hermeneutics, good and evil, free will, value theory, open theism, and the dialectical nature of identity, the infinite, and (arguably) God.
In this episode, I chat with Kolten from the Bridges of Meaning Discord about Calvinism and Reformed Theology broadly. Kolten has a lot of zeal for God which comes through in this conversation.
In this roundtable discussion, Jason, Abigail, Shari, and I discuss a range of topics including evil, forgiveness, psychological integration, and the dialectical nature of love and the infinite. Views expressed by other discussants do not necessarily reflect my own. Abigail's YT channel: https://youtube.com/c/ErulasseAranel Jason's YT channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UCcL1sJjhPDHONZo6GiSttkw
In this episode, Rajat and I engage in some meta-commentary, responding to a YouTube response video ("Contra Green"). The response video by Original Win Productions features a panel of amateur theologians (John, Alex, Christian) defending the doctrine of eternal conscious torment against objections originally leveled by the atheist YouTuber and podcaster Emerson Green. Rajat and I deliver some counter-objections to their objections and close by watching some clips from Emerson's original video. Links to the response video and the original video, respectively, are given below.
Note: For unknown reasons, Zoom failed to record about 10 minutes of audio/video around the 1:25:00 mark. I apologize for the jarring transitions there and elsewhere, as our conversation as a whole was interrupted multiple times.
https://youtu.be/a5sejzBUuug
https://youtu.be/iYXI9e8M6d4
In this conversation we discuss biblical interpretation, universalism, and different thinking styles.
This is a hard conversation to follow in many ways, and the fact that I am putting it up at all highlights the degree to which this podcast is a personal project rather than a commodity or consumer product. This episode is a conversation between me and my friend Luke, a discussion largely animated by my recent concerns over my young son's development and whether he may have an autism spectrum disorder. Regular listeners will note that, prior to my ever having such concerns, autism was a recurring topic on this podcast--partly due to my training as a speech therapist and partly because of what I take to be its theological implications. More than anything else, though, my lifelong fascination with autism probably owes to my own psychological affinities with that condition, affinities which I note despite never having received an official diagnosis of autism.
This episode begins with something like a voice message that I left on Luke's phone a few weeks prior to our actual conversation. In the message, I discuss different possible topics and struggle to express certain intuitions and concepts. Throughout the message and the conversation that follows, I sometimes fail to clarify the connections between my thoughts, and I do not always word topics sensitively or clearly distinguish my own views from ironic positions and/or caricatures. I hope that, whenever possible, listeners will give me the benefit of the doubt, assuming coherence and lack of intent to offend wherever my language may seem questionable. In that vein, I hope that listeners will also excuse my swearing in this episode's "introduction"--I considered editing it out, but couldn't find a smooth or graceful way to do so. With all that being said, I'd like to thank my listeners for their continued patience and support. Any messages, feedback, or prayers you'd like to send my way are highly appreciated. Video links are forthcoming.
Highly speculative thoughts on the incarnation as the overlap between God and creature. Christology. Fractality. Synecdoche.
Rajat and I are two friends united by a mutual interest in philosophical theology but separated by circadian rhythms. (I am a morning person; he is a night owl.) However, we finally got a chance to talk, and we discussed the similarities and differences between my Christian universalism and Rajat's more philosophically driven "optimistic theism." There are a couple things I regret about this conversation: First, I really need to upgrade to a proper microphone sometime soon. Second, in my excitement over the topics Rajat brought up, I interrupted him too frequently. Hopefully in the near future we will get a chance to converse again at greater length. In the meantime, here is the link to Rajat's YouTube channel, which explores theology and political philosophy from a libertarian perspective:
Unorthodox Libertarian Theology
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUnBXHg3M6AZ6z-PLLyAmAQ
Christian universalists will be interested to learn that Rajat interviews the brilliant Eric Reitan on this channel along with several other high-caliber thinkers in more secular areas.
Wayne Fair is a database manager and former pastor who, like myself, moonlights as an amateur theologian. Both his and my amateurishness become apparent at many points during this conversation, and we both struggle to stay on topic at times. That being said, this ended up being one of my all-time favorite conversations, and I strongly recommend you check out Wayne's YouTube channel, Sovereign Love. (I myself have watched every video.) Below are links to all the YouTube videos and podcasts that we reference throughout this conversation. I particularly recommend listening to John Milbank's appearance on the Grace Saves All podcast by David Artman.
Seekers of Unity: Eriugena
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zszjA21plE
Milbank's appearance on Grace Saves All (see especially 34:40 - 45:00)
https://www.davidartman.net/podcast/ep-77-john-milbank-on-radical-orthodoxy-paradox-david-bentley-hart-apocatastasis-mystery-and-practicality
Seekers of Unity: Interview with Ihsan Alexander (Jewish-Muslim interfaith dialogue)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLu9_EoYbM&list=PL_7jcKJs6iwVlsj4eCjvj-DJDLo-wZEeN&index=5
Robert Hart's appearance on Grace Saves All
https://www.davidartman.net/podcast/ep-80-robert-warren-hart-jr-on-the-universal-virtue-limit-with-a-brief-appearance-from-his-dog-savannah
Wayne's Youtube channel, Sovereign Love
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrHwaynefair
Finally, two beautiful quotations from Nicholas of Cusa, selected by Wayne:
“For Thou, the Absolute Being of All, art as entirely present to all as though Thou hadst no care for any other… Thou, Lord, dost regard every living thing in such wise that none of them can conceive that Thou hast any other care but that it alone should exist… and that each thinketh all other existing things exist for the purpose of serving this end, namely, the best state of him whom Thou beholdest.” (Pg. 14-15)
“Thou art the Father of the whole world, and of each individual. Each saith Our Father, and because of it Thy fatherly love comprehendeth each and all of Thy sons. For a father so loveth all his sons as he doth each one, because he is as much the father of all as he is of each one. He so loveth each of his sons that each may imagine himself to be favored above all.” (Pg. 34)
-- Nicholas of Cusa, The Vision of God
Since the summer of 2020 when I regained my faith in God, I have been fascinated by the testimony and character of Howard Storm, an American artist who had a near-death experience (NDE) in France in 1985. His story has been well-publicized and beautifully portrayed in Mr. Storm's own book, My Descent Into Death: A Second Chance at Life. The first link below is to an early interview of Mr. Storm in which he discusses the details of his experience. If you are unfamiliar with them, I suggest watching the video because our conversation does not dwell much on the content of Mr. Storm's NDE. The second link is to Mr. Storm's website, which showcases his beautiful original artwork and provides details on his ministry work in Belize, which currently involves building a community center that will double as a hurricane shelter. The third link is to the construction project's GoFundMe page. My sincerest thanks in advance to all who donate to or help publicize this beautiful project, and I hope you find this conversation as uplifting as I did.
P.S.: The conversation begins "in medias res" or in the middle of things, as many of my episodes increasingly tend to do. ("When you're learning the infinite, any starting point is as good as any other.") I think the subject matter becomes clear pretty quickly, however. I felt it more important not to miss anything than to provide a smooth introduction. Please note also that this episode contains some profanity although it is not especially harsh or distasteful. Thank you as always for your indulgence! P.P.S.: Some will note that I quoted Terrence Malick's To the Wonder in my closing prayer without attribution. I want to take this opportunity to give credit where credit is due for the beautiful wording. (See fourth YouTube link for the scene from which the words were originally taken, and thanks to my friend Luke Thompson for first sharing it with me!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi3e16JY6UM
https://howardstorm.com/
https://www.gofundme.com/f/community-center-in-san-victor-belize?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=poster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJCfS_OyxGk&t=183s
In this episode, I get to speak with a new friend from Bulgaria, Atanas Nikolov. I consider him a brother and kindred spirit in many ways. Very broadly, we discuss systematic theology as amateur theologians. Below is the link to the conversation in which I first heard Atanas share his views on theology, and I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to check it out as well.
https://youtu.be/_t4R0XVkW2I
In this episode, Lance and I talk about our spiritual journeys, the interpretation of Scripture, and, of course, universal salvation. Lance closes by reading a striking passage from The Ethics of Beauty by Timothy G. Patitsas and shares his understanding of it in connection with creation and the atonement.
This episode begins and ends somewhat abruptly, so this description will have to serve as both introduction and conclusion. This episode is my reading and commenting on the opening of Jonathan Edwards' A Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World. Despite the exasperated tone in which I sometimes respond to this essay, I have deep respect for Edwards as a theologian, and I consider this work in particular to be a gem of Reformed theology. This episode concludes with some remarks on time as well as protology or first things, with special reference to God's love for each individual. If anyone would like to me to read and comment on more of this dissertation, please let me know, and I may make it an ongoing series. Otherwise, I will let this episode stand on its own although I'm sure that I'll have more to say about Edwards in the future.
I originally recorded this conversation with Luke sometime last fall; however, I didn't initially upload it here because I thought I wasn't at my sharpest in this exchange. Recently, though, my reflections on Scripture have made me think of Matthew Korpman's appearance on the Reluctant Theologian podcast, on which he discussed his book Saying No to God. It was a brilliant performance, one that has had a lasting effect on me. Rather than record a new reaction to it, I thought I would air the original conversation I had with Luke about it. Luke is characteristically perceptive here, and his command of scripture shows the extent to which he has taken the Bible seriously in attempting to answer many of the same questions as Korpman. The link to Korpman's original conversation with Ryan Mullins on the Reluctant Theologian podcast can be found here: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS8yNjU4ODAucnNz/episode/ZDQxOTlmZGYtNGVmMi00NGMxLTgyMDMtMWE0ZDM2YjFkY2I1?ep=14
In this episode, I chat with Josiah Gorter, a young Reformed pastor, about Calvinism and Reformed theology broadly. Although I probe and critique some Calvinist doctrines, I also try to highlight the motivations--biblical and theological--behind them in order to give Calvinism a more balanced treatment than it usually gets on my podcast. I let Josiah lay out his views at some length and distinguish his personal hunches and predilections from what you might call "orthodox" Reformed theology, for which he does not claim to be a spokesperson (although his credentials seem strong to me). Hopefully there will be more conversations like this to follow.
In this episode I revisit the question of how "Biblical" universalism is and try to honestly examine some of the weaknesses in that case. I conclude with some higher level thoughts on the nature of interpretation as well as the relationship between the spirit and the letter of scripture.
Part two of my response to Dr. Bignon and whether Calvinism makes God the author of evil. Link to the discussion between Eli Ayala and Dr. Guillaume Bignon: https://youtu.be/EGUi5ZZkAzs
A commentary on Dr. Bignon's defense of Reformed/Calvinist theology, itself a response to the recent debate between James White and William Lane Craig on whether Calvinism makes God the author of evil. Link to the discussion between Eli Ayala and Dr. Guillaume Bignon: https://youtu.be/EGUi5ZZkAzs
Thoughts on intellectual humility, the creator/creature distinction, creation from nothing, and--of course--NDEs. Link to article by David Bentley Hart quoted in the episode: https://www.google.com/amp/s/afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/01/20/if-god-is-going-to-deify-everyone-anyway-why-not-deify-everyone-immediately/amp/
As regular listeners of this podcast will know, I have sifted through hundreds of NDEs in an effort to make sense of them. In this episode I react to the coolest NDE I have ever come across--the interview given by Steve Gardipee on the NDE Radio podcast hosted by Lee Witting.
Original Interview from NDE Radio:
https://www.talkzone.com/episodes/204/11265.html
My reaction to "Fallen Earth Creationism," a novel theological paradigm developed by aerosol scientist Weston Schaper and his father. Links referenced in the video:
Weston's blog:
https://www.fallenearthforum.com/what-is-fec
Weston's conversation with Paul Vander Klay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujBV-9SHiXA&t=306s
"Sasquatch Sierra Sounds"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGfIIjN-P7o
Thoughts on what constitutes just punishment for sins in the afterlife. Special attention is given to the argument that finite sins are nonetheless transgressions against an infinitely holy God and as such are justly punished by an eternity in hell (or an eternity of nonexistence, as some would argue).
In this episode I talk with Jonathan Mize, a self-published author who shares my interest in Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). We discuss the CTMU, its contrasts with mainstream theology, and Jonathan's books and papers.
Warning: I unwisely/unnecessarily used some profane language at a couple points in this discussion. My apologies for marring an otherwise clean episode.
Attempting to imagine the consciousness of God. Post-script: At the end of this meditation, I belatedly came to the following set of recognitions--(1) the experience of successive change presupposes memory or something very like it, (2) within what might be called the memory of God, causal relationships exist among meta-temporal states, (3) within a consciousness, memory cannot encompass an actually/already infinite series of events, therefore (4) this implies the existence of some earliest represented event with no preceding event to which we can draw a causal line. It occurs to me now, again belatedly, that rather than "confabulate" some slightly earlier event in retrospective fashion, the meta-temporal freedom afforded by God's consciousness allows for the following move: feeding the current state back into the past as its new cause or beginning, thereby effecting a causal loop which itself serves as the starting point for a new mental operation at a recursively higher level of reference. Accordingly, God's consciousness would be characterized by both circular and linear movement--circular at a lower order of reference and (infinitely) linear on the dimension of recursion. (Note that such activity is not necessary to explain the system's existence, only to answer questions of state or value at different levels of structure.) In this episode as in most of my previous episodes, I make frequent reference to the work of C. M. Langan, on whom I am not an expert and for whom I do not speak. However I can say at a minimum that the above description sounds similar to (and is inspired by) remarks that Mr. Langan has made online. My views by no means necessarily represent his; yet, at the same time, I cannot claim credit for them as my own original inventions. This episode can be seen as my attempt to partially understand the work of C. M. Langan. What is the state of the earliest represented event? There is no preceding event that may be turned to in order to decide the question. Therefore specify the state now and cite the present as cause/beginning of the process that led to that selection. This paradoxical kind of self-determination is possible because God is self-causing with respect to state (what) but causeless with respect to His underlying existence (that). He always exists Now as a matter of logical necessity and is thus free to edit to His own causal timeline.
In this final episode of Season One, I return to the topic of Calvinism, often seen as a bete noire by Christians who emphasize the loving nature of God. I go over what I consider to be its strengths and weaknesses as well as discuss my plans to interview "card-carrying" Calvinists in Season Two.
In this conversation, Jed Paschall and I discuss God, consciousness, and the unity of opposites. We also discuss his spiritual story and his views on the necessity of universal salvation.
In this episode, Jem Dillon turns the tables and interviews me about my own spiritual journey. Warning: mild profanity.
In trying to describe this episode, I am reminded of Wittgenstein's Blue Book, which he prefaced with some words to the effect that it would only be understood by readers who had already thought along similar lines themselves. In that vein, listener beware: This episode is unusually rambling and associative even by my own standards because it seeks to articulate something which lies on the edge of my current understanding. My thanks in advance to anyone willing to give this challenging episode a listen.
In this episode, philosopher and farmer Jem Dillon relates his journey to faith in Jesus as well as his reasons for believing in universal salvation. Note: At several points, this episode contains mild profanity (my own fault).
This episode explores the question of what implications, if any, the existence of intelligent non-human life might have for Christianity, specifically for the uniqueness and finality of Jesus of Nazareth.
This episode consists of an (abridged) conversation followed by a solitary mediation. The conversation concerns metaphysics, specifically the relationship between consciousness and time/change. During the conversation, I unintentionally quoted Langan without attribution when I described his notion of "informational nil constraint"/"UBT" as "a limit of syntactic transformations," an error which I am seeking to remedy here. The subsequent meditation mostly concerns the question of universal salvation. The full conversation can be found on Matthew's YouTube channel here: https://youtu.be/A3HphmQYQDk As a reminder, Langan's work (mentioned extensively throughout the episode) can be found most comprehensively on hology.org
This conversation first appeared in edited form on the Elmo's World Podcast, a podcast for the discussion of spiritual and philosophical ideas. This conversation discusses the CTMU, for an authoritative exposition of which please visit the CTMU author's website at hology.org. The Elmo's World Podcast can be found here at https://redcircle.com/shows/elmos-world-podcast
In this episode I respond to a talk given by Dr. Instone-Brewer at the Rethinking Hell Conference some years ago. In his talk, Dr. Instone-Brewer argued that Jesus preached a conditionalist view of Hell in which those without faith in Him would eventually be annihilated. In my response, I argue that any strict literalist and/or Semiticist hermeneutic should be abandoned in favor of the hermeneutic of love. Despite my disagreement with Dr. Instone-Brewer, I find his presentation extremely valuable, compelling, and insightful. I highly recommend it to everyone. This is the link to his presentation on YouTube: https://youtu.be/YGvel-fEcj8
This episode talks about the possibility of demonic deception in spiritual and near death experiences.
A shorter episode in which I lay out what I consider to be the major problems faced by adherents of presuppositional apologetics.
In this conversation with my friend Matthew, we discuss Christopher Langan's CTMU and close by debating universal salvation. Note: This episode contains mild language (my fault). Langan's work is available on hology.org. The original video of Matthew's and my conversation can be found on Matthew's YouTube channel here: https://youtu.be/suGXQiDo2kY
This is a more philosophical episode, and I would not recommend it to those interested in the "juicy details" of specific NDEs. This is basically me thinking out loud about different ways the afterlife could be and how NDE differences might be reconciled by various hypotheses. Here is an excerpt from my own wtiting that I read in the episode: "What does the afterlife look like? Is it a fixed terrain, or a protean landscape which changes to suit the psyche of the NDEr? I have personally sought to understand NDEs through the framework of at least five competing hypotheses which run the gamut from minimal to maximal objectivity. These hypotheses are: 1. NDEs are wholly subjective in that they can be regarded as nothing more than the spasms of a dying brain. 2. NDEs are semi-subjective in that they are characterized by dreamlike patterns of mental activity. However, they are objective in the sense that they are generated in conditions when one's characteristic "brain language" has been translated into a paraphysical dimension or domain. This can potentially explain the sense of physical embodiedness frequently reported by NDErs even when they find themselves "outside" their deceased remains. 3. NDEs are objective in the sense that they are not constructed by the subconscious at all, but are, rather, visions constructed for the NDEr's spiritual benefit (or, sometimes, detriment) by one or more otherworldly intelligences. However NDEs are subjective in the sense that they are not characterized by true intersubjective interaction with the rest of the afterworld's denizens. 4. Similar to online multiplayer video games, NDEs occur in "servers" with shared syntactic rulesets governing all of the server's participants. The servers do not necessarily exist permanently and may be "deleted" at the end of the experience. If true, this hypothesis could potentially reconcile the supposed objectivity of NDEs with the fact that many people's NDEs vary widely. 5. Each location described in each NDE exists as a stable terrain. That is, the places described in NDEs both pre- and post-exist the NDEr's temporary visitation of them."
This somewhat flippant title is inspired by Mike Duran's 2011 article, "13 Problems with Universalism," which came out in the wake of Rob Bell's famous/infamous Love Wins. This episode is intended as a (belated) refutation of Duran's article.
Part personal and part philosophical, this episode tells the story of how I lost my faith in materialism and naturalism, abandoning them in favor of a renewed (panpsychic and broadly psychedelic) vision of God. I conclude by voicing my suspicion that my own shift in consciousness parallels a wider shift in the same direction currently unfolding in humanity at large.
NDEs are compelling yet contradictory. In this episode, I explore the possible reasons for variance across NDEs and why they don't offer a unified picture of the afterlife and/or ultimate reality.
A miscellaneous episode in which I think out loud on a number of topics. I start by clarifying unclear points from previous episodes and finish with a meditation on whether and how we can know the provenance of spiritual experiences--i.e. whether they come from positive or negative sources.
I will let Shari's powerful story speak for itself. Please note that this episode contains one brief instance of profanity, as well as content that might be difficult to hear for some listeners (descriptions of child abuse).
In this episode I explore the possibility that human souls might sin forever in the afterlife rather than accept a hypothetically ever-present offer of post-mortem redemption. I record my reasons for doubting that this could ever happen while admitting that I ultimately have to remain agnostic on the question.
The conclusion of my deep dive into the Mar Saba letter controversy. Link to academic email thread referenced in the episode: https://de-de.facebook.com/468328229927087/posts/addendum-hobbs-critique-and-morediscussion-on-crosstalk-1996addendum-on-secret-m/709721079121133/ A summary of my reasoning, as laid out on a friend's Facebook page: "For me, the main interest of the Mar Saba letter lies in the surreal fact of its acceptance by a majority of scholars in the relevant fields. The Mar Saba letter seems especially incredible when you think about the chances that a so-called secret gospel, itself unattested anywhere, should turn up in a a fragment of a letter that gives us every bit of information we would need to contextualize and make proper sense of its 'discovery,' almost as if the letter's author knew the exact sorts of questions that skeptical scholars would ask. For example: 'How do we know what the secret gospel actually said?' The gospel is quoted at length in the letter. 'How do we know that its statements can be connected to Jesus with any plausibility?' The letter says it's by Mark. 'How do we know it's actually by Mark and not some gnostic pretender?' The letter says it's by Clement, a known foe of the gnostics. 'How do we know the letter is by Clement?' From the fact that the letter is really keen to point out its own authorship in the small fragment that we possess from it! 'But if there was a longer gospel by Mark how come we never heard of it?' Also explained in the letter! Does this seriously fail to arouse suspicion? What other gospel fragment have we found in this way, where it's attested by only one find, but that one discovery, as if to make up for the dearth of information available elsewhere, happens to be a scholarly mother lode all by itself?"
Part 1 of a deep dive into the Mar Saba letter and its associated controversies. For those unfamiliar: The Mar Saba letter is a supposed epistle from Clement of Alexandria discovered by Morton Smith in 1958 at the Mar Saba Monastery in Jerusalem. Controversy has raged over its authenticity ever since it was first discovered. In this episode I lay out the letter, the surrounding debate, and my reasons for considering it inauthentic. Note: In my discussion of the rabbinic manuscript of Matthew, I mistakenly said that the rabbi commented that Jesus taught "the mystery of" the Kingdom of God in Bethany, making the parallel to "Secret Mark" appear stronger than it really was. In actuality, the rabbi only comments that in Bethany Jesus was teaching and/or seeking the Kingdom of God. Those interested in Viklund's paper can find his own treatment of it here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/a-fourteenth-century-text-in-which-jesus-taught-the-kingdom-of-god-during-the-night-at-bethany-does-it-demonstrate-that-secret-mark-is-an-ancient-text-and-not-a-modern-forgery/amp/
In Part 1 of this series of personal interviews, I interviewed my friend Luke. Toward the end of that conversation we referenced a mutual friend, Nate, whom I interview at length here. Most of this episode relates to Nate's journey to belief in God and universal salvation. Broader philosophical discussion begins around 1:24:00. I should here take the opportunity to point out what I failed to mention in our conversation--that my tendency to seek answers to theological questions via imaginary "rabbinic dialogue" with Jesus is directly inspired by Brad Jersak's Her Gates Shall Never Be Shut.
In this episode, which concerns the claim that God became incarnate as the historical Jesus, I lay out my reasons for believing the incarnation possible and indeed likely, at least under certain assumptions. Note: Upon relistening to this episode, I discovered to my dismay that I misnamed one of the scholars I referenced, Robert Price, mistakenly calling him "Richard Price." I apologize for the error.
In this first installment in my series of personal interviews, I talk with my friend Luke about his journey to belief in universal salvation. Note: In the episode, Luke engages in a brief word study, citing the following link for those interested in further details: https://rethinkinghell.com/2012/06/19/eternal-punishment-and-the-polysemy-of-deverbal-nouns/
In which I review atonement theories and argue for the moral exemplar theory of Socinus as against the penal substitution theory of John Calvin.
In this episode I discuss the phenomenon of NDEs, offering an interpretive framework in which to make sense of them and reading a few accounts of disturbing NDEs (sources in episode). Note: Prior to this episode, I did not realize that Anchor allows you to produce episodes longer than one hour, which is why my longer past episodes have all been split in two before the one hour point and why this episode's segments are titled as if they were two distinct episodes. I will avoid these errors going forward.
This episode explores the problems created by certain conceptions of God vis-a-vis the possibility of personally relating to Him, as well as the problems created by more "relatable" conceptions vis-a-vis whether or not they end up seeming ultimate" enough to actually be identifiable with God. A good companion episode to listen to with this would be #9 ("Trinity, Pantheism...").
This episode is in many ways a synthesis of all my previous episodes and probably cannot be understood without listening to at least most of them. This is not a good episode to start off with unless by some fluke you already share many of my own intuitions. Caveat lector (auditor?).
The fifth and final(?) installment in my series on the Law of One, which I conclude with yet another meditation on the incoherence of reincarnation and why I think that gives us further grounds to doubt the veracity of the so-called "Ra Material."
In which I read and comment on Session 3 of the Law of One and speculate as to the book's true authorship.
In this third installment of my series on the Law of One, I delve into "the Ra Material" and comment on it as I go. The material has been made available for free online by its producers in both transcript and pdf book form.
In this second installment of my series on the Law of One, I give further information on the story of the book's composition. Afterward, I offer my philosophical reasons for doubting one of the book's central claims--that ultimate reality is beyond logic and one's immediate experiences are illusory. My arguments in this connection are necessarily difficult, so if you don't care for deeper-level philosophy I suggest you skip past this episode after the first five minutes or so.
The Law of One is a popular book in New Age circles. In this series I explore its material and offer reasons to doubt the metaphysical accuracy of its contents. This first episode, however, is more concerned with background details on the book's composition. Edit: In this episode I mention a spiritual thinker named Scott Mandelker (and mispronounce his name slightly). In this episode I am imply that he accepts the teachings in the Law of One uncritically, but in relistening to his videos I have realized that his stance toward them is sometimes questioning and critical. His views do not admit of easy summarization, so I invite those curious about him to check out his YouTube channel and website for themselves.
Technically the third time I have dealt with this issue in depth, the other two times being Episode 10 and Episode 21.
A meditation on the nature of good, the problem of evil, and whether nonexistence can ever rationally be desired.
Considerations of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was/is divine inevitably depend on the frame from which one looks at the available evidence. In this episode, using first principles rather than faith, I try to motivate the case for seeing the core claims of Christianity as presumptively true.
A very strange assortment of topics is discussed in this episode. There is a sort of internal logic to it but not one which can easily be described.
Part 2 of a two-part episode in which I look at what, if anything, we can glean about the duration of hell from the book of Revelation.
Part 1 of a two-part episode in which I look at what, if anything, we can glean about the duration of hell from the book of Revelation.
This episode and its predecessor are hard to categorize. Very broadly, they deal with issues that lie beneath ethics. The previous episode dealt with the Euthyphro dilemma, and this one deals with works-based soteriology (Pelagianism) in the context of (my understanding of) Christopher Langan's CTMU.
This episode and its sequel are hard to categorize, but they both deal with issues beneath ethics. This first part seeks to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma in the context of (my understanding of) Christopher Langan's CTMU.
In which I again try to make sense of reincarnation (unsuccessfully) and conclude that it might be a confabulation of sorts.
In which I investigate the strength of the biblical warrant for the idea of an eternal hell.
In which I lay out my reasons for self-identifying as Christian. Edit/post-scriptum: For the Christology which I express in this episode, I am heavily indebted to the theologian Oliver Crisp, whom I mentioned in the episode but did not sufficiently credit.
In which the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is explored, a model of the Trinity is put forward, and speculation is offered on whether "God is love" is true necessarily.
In which I lay out my reasons, from first principles rather than scripture or tradition, for being skeptical of reincarnation.
Divine simplicity revisited. Change and stasis and whether the former can be reduced to the latter. Problems with certain New Age views.
A sustained argument against Augustinian/Calvinist theologies which hold that God does not love all.
In which I clarify some things said in previous episodes and then proceed to snipe at forms of spirituality based on meditation
Meeting some standard objections, both from atheism and from traditional/Augustinian Christianity
In which I lay out the skeleton of my worldview without delving too much into supporting arguments.