All Episodes
Previous Next
April 3, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
41:35
Ep. 231 - Hollywood Rallies For Baby Killing

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a Hollywood actress tries to use God to justify abortion. It’s as insane as you expect. Also, should schools teach abstinence or safe sex? How about neither? Finally, the Left is coming for Thomas Jefferson. We knew it would happen. Date: 04-03-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a Hollywood actress tries to use God to justify abortion.
It's as insane as you would expect.
We'll talk about that.
Also, should schools teach abstinence or should they teach safe sex?
How about neither?
That's my suggestion.
And now the left is coming after Thomas Jefferson.
We knew it would happen and now it is.
We'll talk about that as well today on The Matt Wall Show.
I just happened to see that the band Green Day is writing a book, apparently.
You may remember Green Day from the 90s.
They're apparently writing a book called The Last of the American Girls, and it's supposed to be an homage and handbook for women.
How do you think that's going to go over?
A handbook for women written by dudes.
How do you think people are going to respond?
Why would a publisher sign off on an idea like that in this day and age?
But if publishers will sign off on that, then perhaps I too will also write a handbook for women.
And I expect it to be received very well.
And it would just be, you know, it would just be a book of advice and instructions, guidelines for women, that's all, from me.
And I think feminists would find it very useful, I suspect.
So be on the lookout for that.
All right, a bunch of, speaking of feminists, a bunch of Hollywood actors are having a humongous hissy fit because of the bill in Georgia that would ban abortions once a heartbeat is detected.
And the bill has not been signed yet, but these actors are all pledging to boycott the state.
Great tragedy for Georgia if they lose these people.
Mark Hamill and Natalie Portman are the latest actors to sign off on it.
And I am being very generous to Mark Hamill by calling him an actor, because honestly,
in fact, just recently, I tried to, I've never been a Star Wars fan myself,
and I'm not just saying that now because Mark Hamill is a pro-abortion wacko,
although he is, and he's always been that.
But I've never been a big Star Wars fan.
I don't see the big deal with the whole series.
I just don't.
It's okay.
I don't see it as some groundbreaking thing that should elicit religious fervor out of us.
But I tried recently to go back and give it another shot.
And I said, you know, everyone loves Star Wars.
I must be missing something.
I tried to go back and watch the original movies.
And my lord, I mean, the acting is so terrible, especially on Mark Hamill's part.
It's unwatchable to me.
I don't know how people do it.
I guess you had to watch it for the first time, I guess, when you were very young.
So that this sort of affection grows for it and so now you have that nostalgia which causes you to overlook just how absolutely terrible the acting and the writing is in pretty much all of these movies.
Anyway, that's beside the point.
So, Mark Campbell and Natalie Portman are the latest to join the protest.
Ben Stiller also is protesting.
Debra Messing, Minnie Driver, Alec Baldwin, Amy Schumer, Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Penn, Brie Larson, Patricia Arquette.
A literal murderer's row of people whose opinion I couldn't care less about.
Speaking of, although I gotta say, I mean, when I found out, you know, that Debra Messing Uh, is, is, is against this bill.
It really made me, for a minute, I don't know about these other people, but for a minute, I really did have to rethink my entire position on abortion.
I mean, because if Debra Messing, this is Debra Messing we're talking about star of, uh, you know, um, some shows, I, you know, she's a great, huge star of a lot of different, if she doesn't, if she's in favor of abortion, then there must be something to it.
Right.
Um, So you've got all these people but maybe the most irrelevant voice of all is that of Alyssa Milano who is heading this backlash against Georgia and she tweeted something a couple of days ago trying to find spiritual
Religious justification, it would seem, for her quest to ensure that babies with heartbeats are still murdered.
And I'll show you her tweet.
This is what she said.
I love God.
I believe in God.
But I don't believe my personal beliefs, of which we can't confirm, should override scientific facts and what we can confirm.
And then she quotes John 3.12.
If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Okay, I'm trying to decipher this.
Is she implying that abortion is a heavenly thing?
I think that's what's going on here.
So this is pure Satanism, of course, which I'm not surprised to hear that coming from a pro-abortion Hollywood actress.
But even, so I don't need, I don't get, because it seems that her personal belief is that abortion is good, right?
So she says personal beliefs can't override scientific facts.
I agree with that.
So her personal belief in the validity of abortion and the moral legitimacy of it Can't override scientific facts.
I agree there, but I don't think she's trying to say that.
I think she's trying to say that personal beliefs about the immorality of abortion should not override scientific facts.
So is she saying that her personal beliefs are opposed to abortion?
I don't know.
But let's not get hung up on particulars.
I just want to use this tweet as a jumping off point because this, you hear this kind of stuff all the time.
And there are two big problems here, aside from the general incoherence of it, but there's two other problems.
First, opposition to abortion is not simply a personal belief.
And it certainly is not a religious belief.
Okay, and this frustrates me to no end, with people that say, well, it's just your religion, you're just saying that because you're a Christian.
Even if I were not a Christian, Even if I were not religious at all, even if I had no faith, I would still oppose abortion.
Because it's the murder of babies.
And there's no scenario where I would ever be in favor of that.
I didn't learn in the Bible that abortion is wrong.
I didn't have to check the Bible to find out whether or not abortion is wrong.
I came to that conclusion without checking it at all.
I just know that it's wrong.
I don't need to find chapter and verse for that.
I can find chapter and verse.
I can find biblical justification, certainly, for my belief that abortion is wrong.
But even if I couldn't, I would still believe it.
Even if there was nothing in the Bible, for instance, saying, don't kill people, don't murder, there is, but even if there wasn't, I would still be against it.
So this is not a religious point of view.
I cannot emphasize that enough.
And I get really tired of this whole, well, stop trying to impose your religion on me thing when it comes to abortion.
Because you may as well say that I'm forcing my religion on you by opposing armed robbery and arson and rape.
These are fundamental moral issues and any person, religious or not, is capable of seeing the truth in these matters.
Moreover, pro-abortion people also like to claim that the Bible doesn't even really say anything about abortion in the first place.
They're right in a way.
The Bible doesn't specifically mention abortion.
It does mention not to murder people, which really covers that base anyway.
So it doesn't need to be specific about, you know, if it says don't murder people, then you wouldn't think that it needs to also specify, yeah, by the way, that includes babies.
So, but it doesn't, it's true that it doesn't deal specifically with the practice of abortion.
So there's kind of, it's the pro-abortion people are trying to have it both ways.
Where on one hand, they say, you're imposing your religion on us.
And then on the other hand, they say, well, that's not even really in your religion.
Well, then which is it?
We can't be imposing our religion on you with something that isn't in our religion, according to you.
Because in that case, if that were true, that our pro-life beliefs are not really in keeping with the Bible, then that would mean that we are imposing our moral opinion onto the Bible and then, according to you, onto you.
But it wouldn't be our religion, then, in that case, would it?
Now, again, that's not true.
This belief is entirely consistent.
Not only consistent with what the Bible says, but it is in the Bible because it says do not murder.
But you're trying to have it both ways.
You know, the pro-abortion people, when it comes to their arguments that they make,
they're constantly making self-contradictory arguments with no attempt to even come up
with some sort of coherent, cogent narrative.
And then the second thing here is that, of course, putting the issue of religion to the side
entirely for a minute, science is completely and totally on the side of pro-lifers,
and there's just no question about that whatsoever.
And in fact, the more and more that we learn about science, the more that we learn about what's happening in the womb,
the more that we learn about the development of human beings in the womb,
the more and more validity it lends to the pro-life side.
We'll see you next time.
The pro-abortion side has always been morally untenable, but it was much more tenable 50 or 60 years ago than it is now, because we knew a lot less 50 or 60 years ago than we do now.
We still knew enough 50 or 60 years ago.
We knew enough 500 years ago.
We knew enough 5,000 years ago to know that abortion is wrong because you're killing a human person.
Because what else could it be when a human man and a human woman get together and reproduce, the only thing they can produce is a human.
And that human is going to, by definition, be separate and apart from themselves.
But, as I said, the more that we've learned, Just the more credibility it lends to the pro-life case.
And so if you're a pro-abortion person, that ought to make you uncomfortable.
When you look and realize that, I mean, gee, every single scientific discovery in this area, every single scientific advancement in this area goes against us.
Well, that should tell you that something is wrong with your position.
All right.
So I thought this was interesting.
From the Daily Wire, it says, a small school district in Michigan is pushing back against those who would alter its sex ed program by incorporating discussions of sexual and gender identity.
For the last eight years, Allendale, Michigan, a town of roughly 26,000 people, has offered a sex ed program titled Willing to Wait, which holds fast to the benefits of abstaining from sex until marriage and does not address the issues of gender and gender identity.
But You've got the progressive indoctrinators who now want to introduce that stuff into the program.
And so there's that whole debate.
And this brings up the safe sex versus abstinence debate.
And I know that this is where you probably think I'm going to launch into a whole thing where I defend abstinence only programs.
But maybe I'm going to surprise you because I'm not going to do that.
I won't defend... I'm not going to defend abstinence-only programs.
I'm also not going to defend safe sex programs.
Because here's my point when it comes to sex ed in schools.
I don't want teachers talking to kids about using condoms and so on.
That's not an appropriate discussion for that forum.
I also don't want teachers talking to kids about saving sex for marriage.
I don't want either of those things.
Neither of those things are an appropriate discussion for a classroom.
I want them saying nothing on the matter at all.
That's how sex ed should be handled.
Talk to kids about biology, talk to them about Anatomy, about human reproduction.
These are academic subjects.
And it's stuff that kids need to learn at a certain age.
So yeah, they're going to learn about sex in that sense.
But I don't need school officials giving any lessons, any advice at all, one way or another, about a child's sex life, or lack thereof.
Because it's none of their business.
Why have we just taken it for granted that, well, the school's got to say something about this?
I mean, the kids are there for a few hours a day.
I mean, they got to talk to them about sex, don't they?
Why?
Why do they need to talk?
Just stick with the academic subjects.
I don't need your moralizing one way or another.
I don't need your theories about when people should have sex and how they should do it and what's the appropriate context.
I don't need that.
Whether you think it's appropriate for teenagers to have sex or whether you think they should save it for marriage, why do you think that it's your place as a teacher in a school to talk to my kids about it?
It's none of your business.
So say nothing about it.
That's the solution here.
I, so no, I'm not a fan of the abstinence programs in school because I don't trust schools to make the case for abstinence.
That is a very morally complex issue and it is a moral issue.
Now, there's a practical element to it also, of course, where, okay, if you don't have sex right now, then you're not going to get STDs and you're not going to get pregnant.
So fine, yeah, there's that practical, but, but, um, You can't try to simply scare kids away from sex.
That doesn't work.
So if you try to have an abstinence program that doesn't get into the morality aspect, but it only focuses on STDs and everything, well, that's just not going to work.
Because then you're just trying to scare kids by saying, oh, well, you know, you don't want herpes, do you?
Doesn't work.
And And it's also, I'm not trying to, we don't want to make people terrified of sex.
We don't want them to make this immediate, where they think of sex, they immediately associate it with chlamydia.
I mean, that's not what we want to do either.
So if you want to effectively make the argument, make the case for abstinence, you have to make a moral case where you're talking about respect of the human person, the proper ordering of sexual relationships, proper context.
If you're going to give yourself to someone, you should only do that in a context of love and devotion.
All of that is good.
All that's true.
But that is a moral, a very moral thing.
And I simply don't trust a health teacher to effectively communicate that.
So, yeah, with my kids, you can leave that to me.
I will handle that.
I don't need you doing it.
And, no, I don't want schools to throw sexual morality out the window either and say, oh, yeah, well, everyone's having sex, so don't worry about it.
Here's a condom.
No.
See, what's wrong?
What part of this does the school system struggle to understand?
It's none of your business.
Okay?
The kids' attitudes about sex, you know, their approach to it, the way families deal with it, none of that is your business.
Why would you think that it is?
Just because a kid is sitting in your classroom doesn't make it all of a sudden your business.
So let's just leave it alone.
And then I know the answer is going to be, well, yeah, but parents don't talk about it.
And well, you know, parents should talk about it with their kids.
But if they don't, that's unfortunate.
But that doesn't give you carte blanche.
Just like you can't just walk up to a kid on the playground and say, hey kid, I'm sure your parents aren't talking to you about sex, so here, let me tell you a few things.
If you do that, you'll be arrested as a sex offender, right?
All right, let's see.
Okay, I have to show you this because I just have to.
So, brace yourself.
I'm not going to give you any setup. Just watch this.
I'm going to show you how to do it.
First of all, don't swaddle your baby like that.
He will die.
Don't tie your baby inside of a pillowcase and roll him around on the ground.
Second, any man who chooses to be swaddled as a form of therapy should indeed be swaddled And then should be stuffed into a cannon and shot into the sun.
With all due respect.
Nothing personal.
I just think it would be best for everyone involved.
All right.
This is from Fox News.
It says Hofstra University student activists are calling for the removal of a statue of Thomas Jefferson from campus near New York City because they say that the third American president represents racism and slavery.
So this statue of Jefferson has already been defaced multiple times, and now they want to get it torn down.
The only thing I'll say about this is that I am opposed to tearing down Confederate statues.
I've said that many times.
And I think that one leads to the other.
It's not a coincidence that we started with Confederate statues, then we moved on to this.
But this is really sort of a whole different ballgame.
Because, at least with the Confederate statues.
Although I oppose tearing them down.
There was an, I don't think it's a very good argument, but the argument that was made in favor of tearing them down was that, well, you know, it's not just that these guys had personal flaws, it's that they were fighting for slavery, and that's what the war was about.
And so there's no reason why we should make an effort to honor them for that.
Well, I think that's a very reductive and simplistic way of looking at the Civil War.
It was a much more complicated thing than that. And certainly the personal motivations of
the people that were actually fighting for the Confederacy many times had absolutely
nothing to do with slavery at all.
But, you know, so at least there's that argument. But if we're getting into tearing down statues of
the Founding Fathers, well, you don't have that argument anymore, because nobody thinks that the
Revolutionary War was fought so that the colonists could have slaves.
They did have slaves, but that's not what the war was about.
So now this really is something where even though these men, these were great men who achieved great things, they had this serious personal flaw, which is that they supported slavery.
And so therefore we're just going to tear down their statues.
And if we're doing that, Then we really are just basically cancelling history.
If that is now the litmus test, then there are very, very, very few historical figures who would be able to survive it.
Because almost every great historical figure had serious flaws, and many of them had flaws in the area of slavery.
Because for thousands of years of human history, almost nobody was against slavery.
Across the world.
All races, all genders, ethnicities.
Slavery was everywhere, taken for granted as just a perfectly normal thing.
Doesn't make it right.
It's not a full-on excuse for those people.
But it does put things into a certain perspective.
And it does show that, well, okay, if we're doing this, then, uh, you know, we get basically tear down all the statues because, uh, it's gotta be a total now whitewashing of history.
And, um, I think that is not only a pointless exercise, but also harmful and absurd.
All right.
Uh, let's move on to emails.
Cause I got a lot of great emails and I won't be able to answer all of them, but, um, I want to give it some time.
Anyway, this is from Aaron.
A-R-Y-N.
Interesting spelling there.
Says, Hi Matt, I love your show and your religious theology is usually on point, but yesterday you made a serious blunder about God allowing people into heaven based on their capacity to biblically love.
You said that if a person is capable of truly loving their spouse, or whomever it may be, but they go to hell, how do you reconcile that with the fact that there is supposed to be no love in hell?
First of all, Romans 8, 1-7, it doesn't matter how loving this person is, if they are not in the Spirit of God through the repentance of heart and forgiveness of sins through Christ Jesus, their acts of love mean nothing.
Second, Abraham, who had Yet to see the Messiah was justified only by his faith.
Also Lot, who became as wicked as the city around him and offered up his own virgin daughters to be raped, was justified in his faith and saved from death by God in his mercy.
Faith is the main point of the Bible.
Well, I got to stop you right there.
I don't know if I agree with your interpretation of the Old Testament, especially.
I don't think faith is the main point of the Old Testament at all, actually.
I think the main message in the Old Testament is obedience.
There really wasn't a question of faith.
Everybody in Old Testament times believed in some kind of God.
There may be a few mentions in the Old Testament, a few references to something like atheism, but that wasn't really the problem back then.
So everyone just took it for granted that there was a God, or many gods.
The issue was obedience, which is why all throughout the Old Testament, God passes down, I mean, hundreds and hundreds of commandments and laws, many of them just very minute and particular.
And so I think what was the point of that?
The point was obedience.
It was getting the Israelites, His chosen people, to obey.
And so that's how I would interpret it.
So I don't know.
Anyway, I'm not going to, we won't get sidetracked on that.
It says, third, of course, an intellectual pronunciation of Jesus is God will have bearing on salvation.
For God, it has always been about the heart, because if you confess with your heart that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Faith from the heart must be present in order for salvation to take place.
Which leads to my last point.
The problem you described as a loving person being in hell.
So you're going to say, okay, so if he can't go to heaven because he never believed in Jesus, then there's still the problem of a loving person being in hell.
I would argue this.
God is the embodiment and epitome of love.
We experience his love and grace, the things which he embodies here on earth as a part of his mercy and kindness in our physical forms.
Well, we have the time to accept Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and be saved.
Scripture speaks of a circumcision of the heart, which only takes place through surrender.
Denying Jesus is not surrender.
Once we have consistently denied Jesus, no matter how outwardly loving we may appear, there is no truly biblical love to be found within our hearts because we do not have God's Holy Spirit living within us.
Therefore, no truly biblically loving person can be found in hell.
Especially when you consider that hell is the absence of God's presence, so all good things are absent.
So love within anyone would be absent anyway, because the only reason we experience love is because of God.
I do love your show.
I watch it every day, but this made me cringe.
You're a great guy, brothers.
Keep searching for the truth.
All right, Aaron.
Thanks for the email.
Thank you for really engaging.
With my points and expressing your disagreement in a non pretentious non insulting way.
And I mean that sincerely.
So I thank you for that.
I'm going to skip to the last point you made.
I don't want to restate what I've already said the last two shows.
But with your last point, I think you really moved the discussion forward and offered a new thought on this.
So I don't want to straw man you I think what you're saying here is you're agreeing with with me, that someone who really loves, who truly loves, you call it biblical love, true love, biblical love, same thing, right?
A truly loving person cannot go to hell because then you would have love in hell.
Hell is the absence of love, so how could it be there?
It's not possible.
So you seem to agree with me there.
But you say that, well, So, my point was, if love can't exist in hell, then what about someone who doesn't consciously accept Jesus, doesn't consciously believe in Jesus, yet does have love?
Where do they go?
It seems to me that they couldn't go to hell.
They would have to go to heaven.
And the way you deal with that is you say, well, you can't really love if you reject Christ.
To reject Christ is to essentially reject love.
And so that's how you deal with the problem.
I hope I summarized you accurately there.
Well, I think there are a couple problems with your point.
Number one, throughout history, I'm sure you would agree, there have been many people, probably hundreds of millions, who never believed in Christ, yet did not consciously reject Him because they just never heard about Him.
So, from the year 33 until today, there have been, as I said, hundreds of millions of people who just never heard about Jesus.
Think about everyone who lived in the Far East or in the West, across the Atlantic, in the first few hundred years of the Christian era.
They couldn't have possibly believed in Jesus.
Nobody told them about Jesus.
Right?
So how could they have known?
Therefore, it can't be said that they rejected Him.
And remember, if somebody lived in, let's say, North America in the year 100, Well, that's someone who could not have possibly ever heard about Jesus Christ, and that's also someone who, they're in North America because God put them there.
That's someone who was born in North America, which means they were born, it means they were created, that was an act of creation, a conscious act of creation by God.
God saying, I'm going to put this person right here, thousands of miles away, With a huge ocean separating him from the news of Christ.
So, it really doesn't make sense that God would then say, well, I put you here, but now I'm going to send you to hell because you were there.
That becomes very hard to believe.
So you don't really account for them.
You're saying, well, someone who denies Christ doesn't have Christ, who couldn't really love, so none of those people could love?
Millions of people throughout history were incapable of loving?
But if you allow for them, if you say, well, no, no, well, yeah, they could go to heaven because they never heard about it, and so we'll make an exception there.
Well, if you do that, then you're admitting a couple of things.
You're admitting, number one, that a person could go to heaven without consciously believing in Jesus.
Number two, that therefore, they could enter through the door, who is Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life, without consciously knowing it.
And so if you're Accepting that, then it seems that you're not far from my conclusion.
But, okay, let's put those cases to the side for a minute.
Let's talk about people in modern society who have heard about Jesus, but yet belong to a different religion.
Well, of them, it seems like you certainly are saying that they could not really love even their own children, right?
Well, I just... I don't think that there's any evidence for that.
I don't think that's true at all.
I think that it's really quite presumptuous and insulting to say that non-Christians can't love their kids or their spouse.
Now, I know you don't mean it as an insult.
I'm not attacking you.
But you have to think, how would you take it if a Muslim said to you that you can't love your kids because you're not a Muslim?
You would just say, well, that's absurd.
What are you talking about?
Of course I love my kids.
So I absolutely believe that non-Christians can love their children and their spouses and can love anyone, just as I can.
Remember, Jesus says in scriptures, greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Well, What about a Jew or a Hindu who lays down his life for his country, or his wife, or his kids, his family, his friends?
Jesus says, that is the greatest love.
The greatest.
He didn't say, greater love hath no man than this.
A Christian lays down his life for his friends.
He didn't say that.
He says, a man who lays down his life for his friends.
Now, how could we say, then, that not only is the... So, if we think about a person of another religion who lays down their life, let's say, for their family, Jesus seems to say, that's the greatest love.
But what you seem to be saying is, not only is that not the greatest love, it's not even love at all.
Well, then what is it, in that case?
A non-Christian who makes a great personal sacrifice for those he cares about, even if it's not dying for them, Which many non-Christians have sacrificed their lives for those they love, many times.
But a non-Christian who lives a life of self-sacrifice for those that they care about, if that's not love, then what is it?
And if that's not love, then I don't even know what love is.
I don't know how we could even use the term anymore.
Because I would say that's the definition of love.
Aquinas said that love is willing the good of the other.
And of course, the greatest way to will the good of the other is to give your life for the good of the other.
And so if someone is willing the good of the other to the best of their ability and of their knowledge and in the best way they know how, then I would call that love.
I read a story, you know, I don't want to, I'm not trying to make this an emotional argument, but I do think we should just, when you, you know, it's easy for us when we're talking about these issues to just say, oh yeah, well, if a Christian does, can't really love, and it's easy for us to say that, but let's, let's talk about what we're really saying when we say that.
So I read a story a while ago about a mother in Auschwitz, Jewish mother, whose children were being sent to the gas chamber.
And she could have been selected for, because she was young enough and healthy enough, she could have been selected for labor and maybe survived.
But she chose to go to the gas chamber with her kids so that she could comfort them in their last moments.
And she decided that her kids were going to have several moments of terror.
And pain and suffering.
And she would rather give up the rest of her entire life.
She would rather give that up.
Just so that she could comfort her children in those moments.
So, are you going to tell me that this mother who went to the gas chamber with her child, and comforted her child until the end, was then sent to hell for all eternity?
Are you going to tell me that mother didn't love her child?
If that's not love, I mean, let me tell you something.
If that's not love, then I don't love anyone.
I have no love.
And I doubt you do either, because if that's not love, I mean, if that doesn't qualify, then it's hopeless for all of us.
No, I would say that that is the greatest love.
And I think that's what Jesus said.
So, when I read the Gospels, and I read about the Lord who said, there is no greater love than self-sacrifice, I just don't see a Lord who sends a woman to hell forever, who gave up her life for a child because she believed the wrong thing.
I don't see it.
And it really is as simple as that for me.
But, you know, I that's a I understand the attempt at a, you know,
So bye.
I appreciate you're trying to deal with the issue and come up with some sort of solution.
All right, this is from Maria, says, Matt, I have appreciated your discussion about the question of whether love can exist in hell.
I think the answer is no, it cannot, but I also don't think that anyone who figured out how to love on earth will necessarily go to heaven.
Let me explain why.
If a person who does not know Christ manages to love in life, that doesn't mean he will carry that with him into the afterlife.
It could be that he goes to hell, but his love doesn't come with him, if that makes sense.
So rather than his love carrying him into heaven, it could be that he goes to hell without it.
No goodness can exist in hell, but even bad people have a little goodness in them.
Okay, Marie, that's an interesting thought.
I'm not sure if it works, though.
First of all, what does it really mean for a person to leave their love behind?
Does God conduct some sort of like posthumous spiritual surgery, separating them from their love so they can leave that and go and be damned?
And if those kinds of adjustments are being made, Why wouldn't God take the good and throw out the bad?
That's what C.S.
Lewis was talking about in The Great Divorce.
That whatever little bit of good is there, whatever little bit of love, God will take that, fam those flames, turn it into a great fire.
A good kind of fire.
That, to me, makes sense.
It makes less sense if God is seizing onto the bad stuff and throwing out the good so that the bad can be chucked into hell.
If we're making posthumous adjustments of any kind so that a person can fit one place or the other, it just makes more sense that it would go north rather than south.
But the bigger problem is a logical one, I think, is that, so let's say that I go to hell.
I hate to make myself the example here, but so just to, you know, frame it here.
Let's say that I, God forbid, I'm the unlucky guy here.
Okay.
Well, my love for my children can't come with me, my love for my wife can't come with me, my love for my family, for everything that I love, none of that can come.
All of that is shed like snakeskin, I guess.
And then whatever other meager good parts of me, there's not a lot, but whatever's there, that all goes too.
And then the rest is sent to hell.
Well then, what exactly is in hell?
Is that even still me?
Can it even be said at that point that I am in hell?
Who is that person?
Would I even recognize that person as being me?
Would I have any memory of anything?
You've just taken the most essential aspects of my being and chucked them.
So what the heck is down there in hell?
And if that thing down there in hell is hardly even a conscious being, then what's the point of hell anymore?
Now it seems like you're getting into annihilationism, where really the person who doesn't go to heaven is essentially just annihilated.
I don't believe that, but that seems to be more of what you're talking about.
But if I am conscious of myself, if I am a conscious self in hell, then, but then again, how could I remain a conscious self after these most crucial aspects of myself have, what, been taken?
It's so I just there, there are some logical issues there that I can't quite get around.
All right, let me just do one more.
Let's see.
A couple good responses from teachers.
Okay, this is from Bob and Michelle, two people teaming up on an email.
Says, Matt, in regards to your question about gender-based participation in classes, school classrooms, says, my wife and I are both teachers.
Our combined experience covers just over 30 years of grade school, high school, college.
We also both run a tutoring business and see many, many students at varying ages and nearly every imaginable topic and subject matter.
The following are our collective opinions on the matter.
During certain age spans, participation will be weighted toward the boys, ages 8 through 12, while at other ages, the girls.
14 through 18.
When it comes to certain subjects, geometry, history, phys ed, boys tend to relate more and therefore participate slash question more.
When it comes to other subjects, algebra, science, sociology, girls tend to relate more and therefore participate and question more.
Also, the specific time of any particular year can play a small role for the genders as to their general motivation and attentiveness.
However, my wife and I both agree That girls tend to raise their hands, participate in discussion, and turn in work, projects, etc.
more.
After some discussion with other teacher friends over the weekend, we believe that it's probably a 3 to 2 girl to boy ratio.
Hope this is of some help.
Yeah, that is.
In fact, I got a bunch of, I don't have time to get into them, I'll have to save them for tomorrow, but I got a lot of responses from teachers as I raised the question yesterday of Do boys or girls tend to participate more and be more excited in the classroom?
And a lot of interesting answers to that.
But I think we're going to cut it off here and do all the rest of the emails tomorrow.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
A 61-year-old woman has just given birth to her own granddaughter who was conceived by combining her daughter's egg with the sperm of her son's gay lover.
We will examine modern love.
▲
Export Selection