I agree with the other two comments

This webinar begs the question of whether the example set by its panelists upholds and reflects the principles of the Institute for Human Ecology, Catholic University of America, the National Catholic Partnership on Disability… or, more concisely, the tenets of basic Catholic social justice. To wit, throughout this webinar can be seen: -Failure to uphold the right to privacy of (1) nonspeaking autistic people; (2) children and minors; (3) persons not present on the webinar panel. -Failure to presume capacity to consent, and to seek that consent, from those about whom personal information is openly shared by name. If such consent was obtained, that needs to be mentioned at the outset. -Failure to presume competence in nonspeaking individuals. Panelists repeatedly declare their own, subjective assumptions about the thoughts, motives, aspirations, and capabilities (among many other things) of autistic people who were not present to corroborate or refute what is stated about them presumptively as fact. -Failures in the duties of panelists to protect confidential information and exemplify professional conduct. It is poor form for any psychologist to discuss client vulnerabilities in a public forum with said client as part of the panel (or, at all). -Presumption that disabled people do not have the same agency or capacity for vocational discernment as nondisabled people. A panel discussion on fostering autistic vocations would do well to start by asking what we can learn from autistic people, and how autistic people experience the discernment process, particularly those who do not speak and those who depend on sensory and perceptual processing accommodations to do what neurotypical people take for granted. Instead, this panel speaks for those who are nonspeaking and easily overwhelmed, suggesting simplistic vocations for them in the absence of their firsthand contributions. Panelists also speak in the broad hypothetical without much practical intent (e.g., imagining abandoned convents filled with ‘profoundly autistic’ people without discussing what their discernment, formation or community living processes would entail, and without addressing the fact that a majority of neurodivergent people are still turned away by religious orders the moment they disclose their autism diagnosis). In sum: This webinar falls far short of what would be expected from its title, the panelists, and their sponsoring agencies. We can do much better. We MUST do better.

"The only thing worse than being talked about... is not being talked about!" - Oscar Wilde With all due respect to the brilliant Oscar Wilde, there is something worse than not being talked about. And that is... being poorly talked about, without empathy or a sense of justice or fairness. Speaking as an autistic priest, that is what I come away with after seeing this webinar. "How can this be?" you may ask. The panel consists of several credentialed experts, two of which have adult autistic children of their own. The moderator is a deacon, psychologist, and a seminary staff member. The panel includes an autistic priest. The panel gets some of the foundational notions correct. They say that autism is not evil nor is it a disease, but it is the way the Lord intended for His autistic children to be. They say that autistic people are human and deserve to be shown the dignity that every human being can expect to receive. Yet... something happens whenever the panel moves from theory to specific examples. The high ideals do not carry over. It's as though there's a misfiring synapse somewhere. Autistic people are not spoken of, or even to, with basic human dignity. A few examples (there are many): The two panelists who have adult autistic children tell potentially embarrassing stories about them, stories that most adult children would not want told without their express permission. Did the autistic children consent to this? If the rejoinder is that they are non-speaking, does that mean that they lack the means to understand and communicate consent? Did anyone even try? Why or why not? When asked what vocation their non-speaking autistic children might have, one panelist said that his daughter smiled at people at Mass, making them feel good. Nothing wrong with that as such, but is that it? Whenever church communities have set up opportunities for "neurotypical" parishioners to meet and get to know non-speaking autistic parishioners, the neurotypical ones all reported that they were made much better Christians by these encounters than they ever thought possible. Here is where talk of vocation for these non-speaking autistic people should have begun. The one autistic person on the panel is a recently-ordained priest who, while in seminary, was mentored by the moderator. Note the power differential. Yes, he's a priest, but he has no degree credentials and he had been under the tutelage of one of the other panelists. If they wanted to have autistic people on the panel, they should clearly be the equals of everyone else. There are a number of autistic people with all the requisite degrees.. And the autistic person should not be presented as a "pet on a leash" of one of the other panelists. Too harsh? At one point in the webinar, the moderator told the priest that, at one seminary faculty meeting, the faculty wasn't going to recommend the autistic seminarian for ordination, but the moderator stood up for him. Does anyone else not see how grossly inappropriate that statement was? Even if the moderator had said this - which is the kind of thing usually held in confidence.- before the seminary community alone, he would have been disciplined by the rector. But on a public webinar? This is treating the autistic priest with basic human dignity? I really, really felt sorry for Father John. May the Lord have mercy on everyone else. I could say more - much more - but I've made my point. If anyone from the Institute for Human Ecology is reading this, you've sponsored something that, in spite of any expectations to the contrary, has undermined the human dignity of autistic people. This is a scandal. This emperor never had clothes. Need I say more?

This really triggered me into thinking I will suffer forever

It's worth having hell so Milton could be right? That has to be one of the lamest arguments for eternal damnation I've ever heard, especially from a Catholic. Certainly those old guys who constitute another part of the infernalist argument believed Milton was damned because he was not only a Calvinist but one who argued for divorce and remarriage. .

What about following what Jesus said✝️

1:24:19 bookmark

3:52 Phenomenology of the Human Person. 54:01 Apophatic knowledge 2:05:41 bookmark

Luke Foster cannot speak without pausing continuously.

This was good. Something I’ve been contemplating is if God wishes all to be saved or non to perish, and he will restore the cosmos, then how does the incense of their burning please him unless the burning is a restorative process? If it’s just pleasing to him cause he’s happy the wicked are burning and suffering then does that mean his hatred of evil and sin override his love for his creation? If so what does that imply about him allowing things to come to that point? A lot is going to depend on your view on free will, Calvinists don’t even worry about it you guys believe something entirely different from every other Christian just about, but for everyone else it’s something to contemplate in regards to apokatstasis being correct or not.

(Mysteries that are hidden in plain sight) We have been led to believe about a future judgment of nonbelievers, of hell and eternal torment. Jesus said “if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” No where did Jesus condemn anyone to a hell with eternal torment, for non-belief. That all changed by the Roman influence by Augustine in 380 with the introduction of eternal conscious torment in hell, to keep the illiterate masses under control. He did not believe in universal reconciliation, which was the dominant belief in that day by the early church fathers. The Bible teaches that this (Gehenna) hell was an actual place forsaken by God, with a beginning and an ending.

57:44 Monsignor Sokolowski 1:25:25 D.C. Schindler on a radical rethinking of what imagination is. The idea of _conversio ad phantasmata_ intrigues me _- returning back into the phastasm._ 1:37:57 to have developed an established style is already a kind of declension. ..the ever-threatening danger of the calcification of a work into mere style...

Apparently Gods wrath is what creates hell forever. So god is angry with sinners forever. Kind of makes me feel bad for god to have be angry forever. He can’t turn off his omnipresence either, so he’s there in hell with them being mad at them forever. Although, revelation says gods wrath is completed, so somethings not quite adding up here.

A person can't be abstracted only experienced. Nice

Watching a guy from the American Enterprise Institute complaining about hyperindividualism is pretty rich.

2019 was the greatest economy ever? Lmao!

I wonder how many people are genuinely able to feel "Blessed" by having children. As I sometimes like to reply "Ask CPS agents about how blessed everyone feels." How are you going to get belief out of people who just can't believe religious things? For a certain number of people, trying to believe religion to them is like trying to believe 2+2=5.

The number one reason for the modern fertility collapse is actually higher education among women. They spend their most fertile years getting a degree. Yes, women entering the workforce en masse was very important, and so was contraception and the entire sexual revolution, but higher education is the root cause. The only "solution" I can think of, that doesn't involve going full Taliban, are technologies like artificial wombs. However, I doubt even the most totalitarian government will be able to deploy them at the scale required to reverse this fertility collapse. What do we do then? Nothing. The most fertile people are the most conservative, and they'll just inherit the Earth eventually. Evolutionary selection pressures will just remove all the modernists from the gene pool. It will take over a century, but it's inevitable. The past is a future country. Reactionaries just have to keep breeding and...wait.

Are the treatments of bwrt and edmr okay and approved by the Catholic Church?

Thank you very much for this, a fascinating countercultural narrative, so full of life and promise

They look like bizarro versions of each other battling it out

St.Maximus on Ninevah! There, there it is.

Thoughtful Universalism does not reject the experience of Hell (outside of God) just its stated "purpose" - as a punishment - "God's damnation". Horrible teaching. Rather, if scripture points to it at all, the experience is part of the process of reconciliation. The purifying fire. My repentance being the voluntary casting of that dead thing I am into "the abyss" - to willingly mount the cross. Then, Glory!Sanctification, Resurrection in Christ. Love how, Jordon here, reminds how scripture actually emphasises this as the nature of God's salvation. Its been my effort for 40+ years to articulate this reading of scripture. "Eternaty" viewed through a temporal lens (as without "end") is error. Eternaty AS God must be something altogether different from that!

Cross reference hell from various translations and you'll get sheol, hades, and Gehenna (not an underground torture chamber). The first two reference the grave, and Gehenna was/is a valley.

In regard to Matthew's opinion on Universalism being "...appealing", I would agree, but not in a strictly emotional way as he inferred early in the discussion. One has to ask themselves is any punishment that never produces a single good result in anyone beneficial? If justice means to make something right, does torture seem just and right in your mind? Is this a father and creator we can trust and love with all our heart? If not, most of us are in some serious trouble.

Great discussion! Thanks for putting it together for us!

Thanks to the organizers, panelists and audience for this important, contentious and yet civil debate!

I think the major Universalist assumption is that God's greatest goal in creation is to be with us. It's not. His greatest goal is to destroy sin and bring all things under His authority. A big part of this is that He has set an ultimatum. He will not strive with man forever. He has set a day in our future where He will put an end to sin and establish His kingdom. We are welcomed into His kingdom, and He would love to have us there, but we are not required to be there. Whether He could do this or that and make someone believe is irrelevant. He's given us every opportunity to repent now, but a time is coming where we will no longer have the opportunity, He will take His judgment off hold, and He will move His remaining creation into whatever He has planned for it.

For more Jordan Daniel Wood, a one on one interview: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZytaqxnbs16fJI

Awesome debate. I really think that Matthew's case lacks the foundational weight that he thinks it does. You can't use a made up modern term like "hell" that has been forced onto other words, like Gehenna, and then say that it means what you want it to. Sure, maybe that term does, but that word isn't actually in the original language of the Bible. So what does Scripture actually say?

55:00 I've wondered, in the Roman Catholic context, why hasn't any of the speakers mentioned Roman Catholic Mysticism or Christian/Jewish Spiritualism? Many parallels are present between the two points in time (to some extent). I'd love to have theologians admit that mainstream belief systems have had and will always have aspects of popular, local belief systems (i.e. superstitions, philosophies, new denominations, etc.) . Thanks 😊🇺🇸❤️🦅⭐🗽

Have listened to Tara Isabella Burton on several lectures now. Good critiques, but I would like to say that belief systems have been around for a long time and each is influenced by others over time. Many beliefs (esp. monotheistic systems) are heavily influenced by one another. It is okay to like she has said before have inspiration or find their own way back to Hashem and Yeshua. I believe we are in a moment of revitalization and people should find their way back home with The Divine. Thanks 😊🇺🇸❤️✡️✝️🕉️

Why should we love our enemies when God tortures his enemies??

I appreciate Matthew’s attempts to cast the less rigorist version of eternal damnation in a greater light, but implicit in the assumption of lagrange for example, that the kingdom of satan must be numerically smaller than the kingdom of God, is the universalist position. If God is infinitely greater than Satan, His kingdom must be infinitely greater in number. God isn’t 1% greater than satan. This position is ridiculous if you think about it for too long. An infernalist would either have to be totally agnostic about the population of hell relative to heaven (could be 99% or could be 1%) , or take the rigorist position.

If you find yourself here with a final hope for Christianity, Good. It’s a challenge to be “outside the Church” (not aligning with any particular tradition) because the sacrament is so beneficial, but I want you to know, this path is valid if you happen to find yourself on it. It’s a path that is as noble as it is treacherous.

IF GOD WOULD TORTURE ALL PEOPLE FOR EVER BUT THOSE HE LOVES THEN HE IS TOTAL HARTLESS. ANY ONE WITH A HEART THAT IS NOT INSANE WOULD NEVER DO THAT TO ANYONE

As an Atheist, I really enjoyed this debate. I really liked the idea of the debaters stating the opposing person's view as well. Well done to both speakers to civil exchange. Not surprisingly, I felt Dr. Wood had the more compelling case, but Matthew had a fine case as well.

I thought it was Voltaire that said "Hell is other people"?

The Shaffer-Herzog Encyclopedia of religious knowledge asserts that the universalist position was the predominant position for the first 500 years of the church, post-Christ. So how does that factor into Church Tradition? I'm also not quite sure why the assertion was made here that its re-emergence didn't take place until the nineteen century. Did I misunderstand that or what is meant (or being referred to) by that? Are we talking within Catholicism only? (As a non-Catholic Christian Universalist, I'm excited to see this conversation taking place even within the RCC.)

Good job jordan

From my own experience, delving into this topic requires significant reflection and study to grasp the perspective of reconciliationists. Every counterargument you might think of has a compelling response, but it takes time and effort to fully comprehend it. Typically, the viewpoint of infernalists tends to be simplistic, relying on statements like "well, Jesus talked about it, so that settles it," without engaging in deeper exploration. However, a concept as profound as this necessitates thorough study and meaningful conversation, rather than a cursory dismissal, anything less is criminal based on what's at stake for human beings. It's always striking to see how traditionalists can provide contemplative and profound responses to nearly every question about the Bible. Yet, when it comes to this particular topic, their approach often appears shallow and infantile in it's intellectual rigor at best. It's surprising how quickly they dismiss the complexities involved, spending no more than 30 seconds on it. It's disheartening to witness individuals whom I deeply respect and admire for their knowledge and insight across various subjects suddenly seem to struggle when discussing this particular topic. Their responses often feel limited to just a sentence or two, lacking the depth and nuance they typically bring to other discussions. In my opinion its partially brainwashing and a reluctance to actually deal with this, while also a tiny bit of glee at the thought of the people they don't like suffering forever, though they will never consciously admit it.

What debate ? Jesus spoke way more about hell than Heaven .

Jordan's approach is really helpful on this issue. It is a nice compliment to the more syllogistic accounts.

The question of what we “lose” if we lose ECT is heartbreaking. It seems to imply that people, or even one particular person, is of less worth than church culture and church authority. Considering that Christ considered even one person worth divine death, this seems almost anti-Christian. I would have hoped that we the church would be willing to jettison everything if necessary to see even one soul saved.

For all we know, the worst case scenario is actually the case. The default existence of a perfect evil.

It seems once you get passed the superficial infernalist talking points about 'respecting tradition/scripture more than universalists' it seems their main argument is they WANT eternal conscious torment to be true.

(1) Yahweh, blind chief of the false Elohim from Genesis 2-3, doesn't even exist after death. Kinda makes his promises of heaven and threats of hell seem empty: Psalm 115 Names of God Bible 17 Those who are dead do not praise Yah, nor do those who go into the silence of the grave. Psalm 116 Names of God Bible 9 I will walk in Yahweh’s presence in this world of the living. (2) Yahweh is merely an up-jumped Elohim (adopted) whose followers are decieved enough to think is El: Exodus 15 Names of God Bible 2 Yah is my strength and my song. He is my Savior. This is my El, and I will praise him, my father’s Elohim, and I will honor him. (3) The LORD = Baal: 2 Samuel 5 Names of God Bible 20 So David went to Baal Perazim and defeated the Philistines there. He said, “Yahweh has overwhelmed my enemies in front of me like an overwhelming flood.” That is why that place is called Baal Perazim [The LORD Overwhelms]. Hosea 2 Names of God Bible 16 “On that day she will call me her Ish,” declares Yahweh. “She will no longer call me her Baal. 17 I won’t allow her to say the names of other gods called Baal. She will never again call out their names. (4) The anger of the Yahweh = Satan: Compare the following two verses: 2 Samuel 24 Names of God Bible 1 Again the anger of the Yahweh burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.” and 1 Chronicles 21 Names of God Bible 1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. (5) The LORD of flies: Isaiah 7 Names of God Bible 17 “Yahweh will bring on you, your people, and your ancestor’s family a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah. He will bring the king of Assyria. 18 On that day Yahweh will whistle for the flies that are at the distant branches of the Nile River in Egypt and for the bees that are in Assyria. 19 All of them will come and settle in the deep valleys, in the cracks in the cliffs, on all the thornbushes, and at all the water holes. Pre-Babylonian captivity: El = God Elohim = sons of El Post-Babylonian captivity: El = God Elohim = God That's called "syncretization" and, if allowed, makes the Bible near-unsolvable. Generates a lot of contradictions and the Bible won't make sense. Elohim needs the original meaning so you can tell true Elohim from false Elohim. Note how in verse 3 the Ruach Elohim says there's a true Elohim. Which means there's false Elohim. Spoiler Alert: Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2-3 are the false Elohim. 2 Chronicles 15: 1-7 Names of God Bible 15 The Ruach Elohim came to Azariah, son of Oded. 2 Azariah went to Asa and said to him, “Listen to me, Asa and all you men from Judah and Benjamin. Yahweh is with you when you are with him. If you will dedicate your lives to serving him, he will accept you. But if you abandon him, he will abandon you. 3 For a long time Israel was without the true Elohim, without a priest who taught correctly, and without Moses’ Teachings. 4 But when they were in trouble, they turned to Yahweh Elohim of Israel. When they searched for him, he let them find him. 5 At those times no one could come and go in peace, because everyone living in the land had a lot of turmoil. 6 One nation crushed another nation; one city crushed another. Elohim had tormented them with every kind of trouble. 7 But you must remain strong and not become discouraged. Your actions will be rewarded.”

0:00 - Introduction 3:22 - Jordan Daniel Wood (JDW) states his opponent's position ("hell is eternal punishment") 8:28 - Matthew Walther (MW) states his opponent's position ("universalism") 18:36 - JDW states his own position 27:54 - MW states his own position 39:06 - JDW responds to MW 47:48 - MW and JDW discuss 59:40 - Q&A Begins

1:23:26 Jordan's closing statement is so good.

39:08 This is a great response, from JDW, calling conservative / traditional Catholics to recognize the complicated mess that is our own epistemological situation when it comes to the development of doctrine over the centuries. Bravo!