Jump to content

Talk:Annihilationism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lack of references

[edit]

This page needs references to back it up. Otherwise it is not verifiable. Ansell Review my progress! 07:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it as best as I can, maybe others can help. 199.106.86.2 23:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References needed for:

Removed until citations added. Pbarnes 17:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that unreferenced facts do not necessarily need to be moved straight to the talk page. This is only if they are dubious. Colin MacLaurin 10:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionalism

[edit]

This article keeps using the term Traditionalism in a very specific sense which means something in the context, but is not actually covered by the Wikipedia article to which it links. Myopic Bookworm 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is precisely correct. The "Traditionalism" envisioned in the article is the tradtional Evangelical Protestant and Catholic concept of eternal Hell (a similar concept being held by most Muslims), not the one countenanced in the Wikipedia article of that title, making the linkage misleading at best, useless at worst. This should be rectified, preferrably with the input of the article's original contributors and editors. Rlquall 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the problem fixed Pbarnes 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that many writers term belief in eternal conscious torment "the traditional view". This terminology could be used, with the first occurrence linked to the article on hell. Agreed that "Traditionalism" with a capital letter is not appropriate. Colin MacLaurin 10:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "punishment"

[edit]

Please change the definition of the term "punishment". An English definition is not convincing - please replace with a definition from Strong's Concordance or elsewhere - in the original languages. Colin MacLaurin 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong? Give us a break. The standard NT Greek dictionary is BDAG. see HALOT for the OT. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Merger

[edit]

I propose that the Annihilationism and Conditional immortality articles be merged. I understand that the two do have slight differences, however in practice they seem to go hand-in-hand. Editorial confusion could happen easily, and material could be repetitive between the pages. The different nuances could be discussed under a heading in a combined article. Colin MacLaurin 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Expand the section on conditional immortality on the annihilationism page to include conditional immortality page content —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbarnes (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I do agree that the 2 terms are often used interchangeably, and that there may be potential for editorial confusion. However, I think that the concepts are sufficiently different to merit separate articles. Conditionalism is an anthropological concept -- it has to do with the nature of the soul, whether there can be genuine human existence apart from the body, the interaction between Hebrew and Greek anthropological ideas, and so on. Annihilationism is specifically to do with one's view of hell, i.e. whether it lasts for eternity or comes to an end. If there was to be a merge, I think that "conditional immortality" should be the main article, and annihilationism a sub-topic within it (rather than vice versa, as is currently suggested), since conditional immortality is a broader and deeper topic. However as I said I'm not yet convinced there should be a merge... Tonicthebrown 02:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a major factor is whether they are distinguishable as points of view held. That is, are there any scholars who hold to one and not the other? A major part of the articles is listing the major scholars who hold to each POV. I think it is redundant if the lists are identical, so let's find out if they would be. Colin MacLaurin 07:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No It is a rather advanced topic, I don't think merging will help anything.Macktheknifeau 11:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your reason. The question is not whether it is "advanced" but whether the two are sufficiently similar. Colin MacLaurin 07:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree as well. While there are similarities, conditionalists find the differences important, and will often be unhappy at being described as annihilationists. The ACUTE report mentioned in the article devides current opinion on the nature of Hell into a spectrum of 5 beliefs, or which conditionalism and annihilationism are 2 of them, thus seeing a clear distinction. Generally, annihilationists will believe in an immortal soul whereas conditionalists will not - this is a substantial difference. --Pagaboy (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree also, as I'm a Conditionalist and we do see very important differences with annihilationists as clearly noted in the comments above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gepepper (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is not to merge, and I have removed the remaining merge tag. The pages do need some work, however. I was originally concerned about overlapping material (e.g. popular advocates, and history), so we will need to clearly define the scope of each article. In particular, the "Popular advocates" section will need to be split between each article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is annihilationism exclusive to the SDA denomination?

[edit]

I thought Jehovah's Witnesses taught the same thing, and aren't there others? What about Billy Graham, didn't he say hell will not last for eternity?

And where did this idea come from?

"They claim the verses in Revelation only refer to the eternal suffering of the devil, the beast and the false prophet (Rev. 20:10), as well as those who received the mark of the beast or worshiped his name (Rev. 14:9-11) and not all sinners. They continue to say that descriptive terms like "eternal fire" (Matt. 18:8, 25:41) and "unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:12, Luke 3:17) do not necessary imply that all sinners are eternally present in the fire; rather, sinners are thrown into the same fire which is eternally burning because of the devil and his followers."

Again we see things that are NOT taught in the SDA church in an SDA artical. That's a real shame. And I suppose if I made corrections, they will all be undone before I had the change to make them look right, and the errors restored. Well here's the truth:

Eze 28:16,18 "and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. </ br> therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee."

" The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They "shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah." {GC 673.1}

Where did the idea come from? That is part of the debate. If you want to understand Biblical sources, look up the terms in a concordance, like at BibleHub. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Global point of view?

[edit]

I seriously doubt the use of "minority" represents a global point-of-view. While UK and US christians usually believe in eternal torment after the King James Bible. But the KJB is rather unique in its idea of "hell", most translations disagree with it on this issue. German and Scandinavian protestants to not believe in hell, neither does non-US Catholics, Orthodox Christians, etc. 129.142.143.67 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Please find a reliable source which says that and improve the article by adding the content. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: What about Augustine of Hippo? It's not like Americans invented hell. BillMasen (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John 3:16

[edit]

The John 3:16 needs a translation reference. It seems to be misquoted, at least from the NIV translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.171.103 (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed New King James is definitely better as it's one of the first (I am of course discounting the first person that got killed for translating the Latin to English). I think I'll sort that out now. Edit: Ooops, already been done. I should pay more attention to the sign dates. Dared111 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

(The Fudge link is actually broken). I have recently published a new book, entitled "Out of the Dust: Understanding Heaven, Hell, and the Resurrection of the Dead". Chapter 14 of this book "blows the lid" off the eternal torment/annihilationism debate. Focusing exclusively on all of the relevant scriptures, both for and against eternal torment; I believe that Out of the Dust delivers a decisive and overwhelming argument in favor of annihilationism. This section avoids alot of the musings and hypotheticals often associated with this debate, and cuts right to heart of the matter, breaking new ground in the process. Non-denominational and online for free, http://www.cupofwrath.com/OD14-lake-fire.htm 76.119.240.83 (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I[reply]

Scriptural Texts Cited to Oppose Annihilationism?

[edit]

I notice that there is a section that lists "Scriptural Texts Cited to Defend Annihilationism", however, there is no section that lists texts people use to argue against it. In comparison, the article on the "Faith Alone" belief lists passages that people use to argue against it and passages people use to argue for it. It just seems rather one-sided the way it's presented. Lord Seth (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem imbalanced. Maybe you could improve its neutrality, and by citing reliable sources. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, there's no real point to that, as those viewpoints already have their own articles (for example, texts people cite in defense of universalism are technically arguments against annihilationism, but no point in bringing them over here as they're already in that article). That said, this article does seem to have a small bias in favor of it, but we don't need to try to adjust it with a new section like I suggested. So pretty much, ignore what I said. Lord Seth (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proves against annihilationism, use and incorpore this into the article:

195.228.240.75 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do of course have the fact that Death itself is thrown into the lake of fire and this of course: Isaiah 66:24 Dared111 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of any Criticism

[edit]

Really, I'm a little disappointed. As an editor who was looking for information on this topic, I'd just like to point out that this article seems appallingly one sided. You have sections for references, historical support, justification, popular advocates, but nothing for those who oppose it. Pstanton (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-primary citation requests

[edit]

The article quotes Arnobius in favor of annihilationism:

Your interests are in jeopardy,-the salvation, I mean, of your souls; and unless you give yourselves to seek to know the Supreme God, a cruel death awaits you when freed from the bonds of body, not bringing sudden annihilation, but destroying by the bitterness of its grievous and long-protracted punishment.

In fact, it gives this quote a lot of weight: "However, Arnobius (d. 330) is often recognized as the first to defend annihilationism explicitly. One quote in particular stands out in Arnobius' second book of Against the Heathen", and the quote above follows.

Now, call me thick, but doesn't this say "not bringing sudden annihilation", instead talking of "grievous and long-protracted punishment"? Now, certainly, this is not completely irreconcilable with annihilationism, but nothing in it at all seems to make the claim; it merely makes the interpretation possible. It certainly doesn't "stand out".

I don't think this quote can carry the weight given here, certainly not without secondary sources to show us how it is to be understood. The other Church Fathers quoted also require secondary sources; it's not at all clear that any of them hold to anything like annihilationism.

—Felix the Cassowary 23:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table of terms regarding the intermediate state

[edit]

I've drawn up a table of terms at Talk:Christian mortalism#Table of terms regarding the intermediate state following intensive discussions there. Editors may wish to comment on the accuracy of the table. StAnselm (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JW material removed WP:WEIGHT

[edit]

I just reversed a large section of material by JW-topiczone editor BlackCab. Why? Because of WP:WEIGHT. There's nothing particularly notable about JW views of soul sleep since that is Luther, though not Lutheran, there's nothing particularly notable about JW views of annihilation, since a swathe of mainstream conditionalist Protestants have argued that, as the article shows. The only notable thing about JWs is their size today (fine okay) and the interesting variant that 144,000 don't soul-sleep, or something. Apart from that it's overweight and not significantly notable to have anything more than a link to a JW belief article. IMHO at least. Other non JW-topiczone editors feel free to input. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you left the longer section on Seventh Day Adventists, which is badly written, with some of it only obliquely referring to the subject of the article. I hadn't seen this article before; I found it only after an annihilationist religions category was added to the JW article. The mention of the JWs under their own heading invited an expansion of the material, rather than the existing redirect to a much broader article encompassing all JW beliefs. I did so. BlackCab (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well we'll see what other editors think, again I'm not sure why we need such a big SDA section either, there's even less distinctive about their version of soul death than the JW version. It's pointless repeating the same content for half a dozen churches. But we'll see what other editors think. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the inclusion of JW's here as problematic, nor do I see the length given to the subheading as being excessive. I know I edit mostly on the topic, so I'm not likely the person you are looking towards for a comment, but the views of JW's as a religion are certainly relevant here and I don't think the edit gives undue weight to the religion. Willietell (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, let's hear from an out of topic zone editor. I take that edit summary was a good faith mistake. Reverted, but feel free to remove the unsourced little bit. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I only removed the "unsourced little bit" in the first place, I fail to see why you reverted that removal. The [citation needed] has been in place since March 2011 on a very questionable statement. I removed this statement, because it simply does not ring true when considering scholarly opinion on the subject. Therefore the better question is why did you revert the edit? I will again remove the unsourced material per your statement.. Nevermind, I see that the edit added the content under discussion, I'm not exactly sure how that happened, but it was unintended. Willietell (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, it happens. Thanks :) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you don't really have any say about who is "free to input". However, you are quite correct that the JW view is not particularly distinct from other Adventist groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh-day Adventist position on annihilationism isn't stated with clarity here; it is a bit of a cross between annihilationism and everlasting. Although SDAs teach that hell is a fire that will eventually burn out when the last person has been tortured long enough, the duration of torture depends on how bad the person was. As long as a tiny particle of flesh remains unconsumed, God won’t allow the person to die or lose consciousness. Thus the wages of sin aren’t just death (when we first die of natural causes), but torture (when we are resurrected to be killed again, in agony commensurate to how sinful we were). The torture will be made to continue unmitigated for a period certain—until the suffering of each individual has matched the crimes of that individual. This doctrinal interpretation is made by the Seventh-day Adventists' prophet, Ellen G. White, who's word is final on biblical interpretation, quote: “Fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and the mighty men, and the noble, and poor and miserable men, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering was there. Said the angel, The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon.“ <ref> Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, page 217 <ref> ChicagoLarry (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh-day Adventist are not considered part of Christianity. In fact, they are considered heretics. To conflate 7th day to Christianity and use them as a reference to what is Christian doctrine or not, is just flat out wrong and misguided. 173.73.126.72 (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Witherington III

[edit]

Dr. Witherington is listed as a proponent, but I wonder if he should be moved to the "agnostics" category, or at least out of this category, because he appears to have hedged somewhat on the issue. Here [1] he wrote that either view is possible and that he admits to leaning toward annihilationism but not being dogmatic about it. What would be the best way to handle this? Either way I think he should be mentioned somewhere due to him being a "heavyweight" theologically. Kansan (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben's not a proponent. When I last spoke with him about it he indicated that he thought the Bible certainly does not teach annihilationism. GPeoples (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor change for accuracy

[edit]

I changed one of the opening lines to this "apart from salvation the final punishment of human beings results in their total destruction (annihilation) rather than their everlasting torment." Originally it had said that the death of human beings results in their total destruction, but actually most annihilationists do believe in the resurrection of the dead, and they believe that it is the final punishment of he lost that results in their total destruction. What happens at death has more to do with the intermediate state and the doctrine of soul sleep. GPeoples (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

(Full disclosure: I am User:Kansan, who wrote earlier on the talk page/have edited the article before (I changed my name to be less of a geographical identifier), and I am affiliated with the Rethinking Hell site).

I think the external link to the Rethinking Hell site should be restored because I believe it does meet WP:ELNO; one of the contributors, Glenn Peoples, is one of the leading publishers of academic material on the subject in the last few years; the site also has endorsements from clearly notable conditionalists such as Edward Fudge and John Stackhouse (as well as some guest content from Fudge). Because I am affiliated with the site, I cannot put it up myself but would like to bring it here for consideration. Against the current (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Glenn Peoples is listed in the article, but it isn't clear that he's notable enough for a wikipedia article. However, the endorsements to make me lean towards inclusion. If no-one else objects in the next couple of days I will be happy to put it back in. StAnselm (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

I've removed some that was tagged in 2014 and added in 2011 as obvious OR. Most of the Justifications section seems to be OR also, editors choosing what passages back what beliefs. @@@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annihilationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is Largely Polemical, not an objective description of a POV supported by citations

[edit]

IMHO a great deal of this article should be deleted if it cannot be supported with citations. Statements about what the majority of persons believed throughout church history or what many believe are difficult to support since one is unlikely to have sufficient evidence for support. How would anyone know what the majority believed say in 1017? Was there a Gallop poll that year? Has anyone taken a poll of persons to support what many believe as opposed to what few believe? The topic is worthy of presentation, probably with classification and sub-categories supported by citations. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Annihilationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed changes

[edit]

Information to be added or removed: Please add "Christopher M. Date" to the list of North American advocates. Explanation of issue: I cannot make the change myself, but I have published articles on the topic in academic journals (https://fuller.academia.edu/ChristopherDate), two books on the topic (https://amazon.com/author/chrisdate), have been cited on the topic in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/us/tormented-in-the-afterlife-but-not-forever-conditionalism-gains-ground.html) and National Geographic (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/160513-theology-hell-history-christianity/), and have been interviewed on NPR's 1A (https://the1a.org/shows/2019-01-08/hell-and-how-we-think-of-it).

DateChris (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, as the article on you does not exist. We would however welcome you improving the article in other ways. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Original Research on Annihilationism Possible?

[edit]

Boiler plate is on this article since 2016 accusing of original research. I Don't see how original research on this topic is possible, since it concerns the fate of the damned, which it is impossible to observe personally. To do original research would require that you had something like a Dr. Who tardis & could go & watch either each person's fate after death or in the future after some judgment. And after death, it is impossible to interview people as to what happens to them. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

unintelligible sentence fragment

[edit]

Article has a string of words which is not a sentence & thus not quite intelligible:

"Other New Testament texts including Matthew 10:28 where Christ speaks of the wicked being destroyed "both body and soul" in fiery hell, John 11:11 "our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep", and 1 Thessalonians 4:15 "we shall not precede those who have fallen asleep"."

The editor who wrote it is invited to make an intelligible sentence out of it. "Other New Testament texts including Matthew 10:28" do what? (PeacePeace (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

It seems to be a listing of texts but not meant to be a complete sentence. Halcyon grun Sproutz Halcyon grun Sproutz (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obtuse quote could be improved by some explanation

[edit]

Article says:

One quote in particular stands out in Arnobius' second book of Against the Heathen:
Your interests are in jeopardy,-the salvation, I mean, of your souls; and unless you give yourselves to seek to know the Supreme God, a cruel death awaits you when freed from the bonds of body, not bringing sudden annihilation, but destroying by the bitterness of its grievous and long-protracted punishment.[24]

The only thing which seems to "stand out" in this quote is that it is obtuse. What on earth does Arnobius mean? (PeacePeace (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Does this article violate NPOV? Is its emphasis an argument for annihilationism?

[edit]

The treatment seems to be unbalanced as emphasizing arguments in favor of annihilationism. And it even fails that, for it does not sufficiently focus on and expose clearly the texts which might be cited on one side or the other. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Should the emphasis be on soul or spirit ? Dichotomy vs Trichotomoy?

[edit]

In presenting material of the eternity of the "soul", does eternity of the spirit require presentation? One POV is that soul (nephesh, psyche) is a functional (non-metaphysical) term for life or person or self, while spirit (ruach, pneuma) is a metaphysical term. Thus the real issue would be the spirit, not the soul. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Clearly violated NPOV

[edit]

Wayyyyy too much emphasis on Annihilationist arguments. Gonna scrape some sources for some extra criticism of Annihilationism to balance this article out.

Jasper0333 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annihilationism&oldid=1198776855"