The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 231 - Hollywood Rallies For Baby Killing

00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a Hollywood actress tries to use God to justify abortion. 0.56

00:00:05.340 It's as insane as you would expect. We'll talk about that. Also, should schools teach abstinence

00:00:11.160 or should they teach safe sex? How about neither? That's my suggestion. And now the left is coming

00:00:16.920 after Thomas Jefferson. We knew it would happen and now it is. We'll talk about that as well today

00:00:21.640 on the Matt Walsh Show. So this is exciting. I just happened to see that the band Green Day

00:00:31.500 is writing a book, apparently. You may remember Green Day from the 90s. They're apparently writing

00:00:36.820 a book called The Last of the American Girls and it's supposed to be an homage and handbook for women. 0.85

00:00:46.320 Now, how do you think that's going to go over? A handbook for women written by dudes. How do you 1.00

00:00:52.860 think people are going to respond to it? Why would a publisher sign off on an idea like that in this

00:00:57.880 day and age? But if publishers will sign off on that, then perhaps I too will also write a handbook

00:01:05.320 for women. And I expect it to be received very well. And it would just be a book of advice and

00:01:13.560 instructions, guidelines for women. That's all from me. And I think feminists would find it very 0.62

00:01:19.260 useful, I suspect. So be on the lookout for that. All right. A bunch of, speaking of feminists, a 1.00

00:01:25.800 bunch of Hollywood actors are having a humongous hissy fit because of the bill in Georgia that would

00:01:32.220 ban abortions once a heartbeat is detected. And the bill has not been signed yet, but these actors

00:01:40.020 are all pledging to boycott the state. A great, great chat tragedy for Georgia. If they lose these,

00:01:45.720 these people, Mark Hamill and Natalie Portman are the latest actors to sign off on it. And I am being

00:01:51.620 very generous to Mark Hamill by calling him an actor, because honestly, I, I, I, in fact,

00:02:00.660 just recently I tried to, I've never been a, I've never been a star Wars fan myself. And I'm not just

00:02:06.240 saying that now because Mark Hamill is a pro abortion wacko, although he is, and he's always 0.86

00:02:10.420 been that. Um, but I've never been a big star Wars fan. I, I don't see the big deal with,

00:02:17.460 with the whole series. Uh, I, I just don't, I don't, it's okay. I don't see it as some groundbreaking

00:02:25.400 thing that should, uh, elicit, uh, religious fervor out of us. But I tried recently to go back and give

00:02:34.260 it another shot. And I said, I'm gonna, you know, everyone loves star Wars. I must be missing

00:02:38.500 something. I tried to go back and watch the original movies and my Lord, I mean, the acting

00:02:45.620 is so terrible, especially on Mark Hamill's part. I can't, it's unwatchable to me. I don't know how

00:02:51.660 people do it. I guess you had to watch it for the first time, I guess, when you were very young. So

00:02:56.920 that you, uh, so that this sort of affection grows for it. And, uh, and so now you have that

00:03:02.940 nostalgia, which causes you to overlook just how, just how absolutely terrible the acting and the

00:03:08.540 writing is in pretty much all of these movies. Um, anyway, that's beside the point. So, uh, Mark

00:03:14.860 Hamill and Natalie Portman are, are the latest to join the protest. Um, Ben Stiller also is, uh,

00:03:20.620 protesting Deborah Messing, Minnie Driver, Alec Baldwin, um, Amy Schumer, Rosie O'Donnell,

00:03:27.060 Sean Penn, Brie Larson, Patricia Arquette, a, a literal murderer's row of people whose opinion

00:03:33.680 I couldn't care less about. Speaking of, although I got to say, I mean, when I found out, you know,

00:03:42.100 that Deborah Messing, uh, is, is, is against this bill, it really made me for a minute. I don't know

00:03:50.520 about these other people, but for a minute, I really did have to rethink my entire position

00:03:55.480 on abortion. I mean, because if Deborah Messing, I mean, this is Deborah Messing we're talking about

00:04:01.000 star of, uh, you know, um, some shows, I, you know, she's a great, huge star of a lot of

00:04:07.100 different, I mean, if she doesn't, if she's in favor of abortion, then there must be something

00:04:10.480 to it. Right. Um, so you've got all these people, but maybe the most irrelevant voice of

00:04:18.520 all is that of, um, Alyssa Milano, who is heading this backlash against Georgia. And she tweeted

00:04:25.120 something a couple of days ago, trying to find spiritual, um, religious, uh, justification.

00:04:32.360 It would seem for her quest to ensure that babies with heartbeats are still murdered. 0.93

00:04:38.160 And, uh, I'll show you her tweet. This is what she said. I love God. I believe in God,

00:04:42.900 but I don't believe my personal beliefs of which we can't confirm should override scientific facts

00:04:49.740 and what we can confirm. And then she quotes John 3, 12. If I have told you earthly things

00:04:56.080 and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Uh, okay. I'm trying

00:05:03.900 to decipher this. Is she implying that abortion is a heavenly thing? Is that, I think that's what's 0.77

00:05:08.400 going on here? So this is pure, pure Satanism, of course, which I'm not surprised to hear that

00:05:14.320 coming from a pro-abortion Hollywood actress. Um, but even, so I don't need, I don't get,

00:05:22.380 because it seems that her personal belief is that abortion is good, right? So she says personal

00:05:28.200 beliefs can't override scientific facts. I agree with that. Uh, so her personal belief in the validity

00:05:33.020 of abortion and the legit moral legitimacy of it can't override scientific facts. I agree there,

00:05:39.700 but I don't think she's trying to say that. I think she's trying to say that personal beliefs

00:05:44.660 about the immorality of abortion should not override scientific facts. So is she saying that

00:05:50.080 her personal beliefs are opposed to abortion? I don't know, but let's not get hung up on particulars.

00:05:56.700 Um, I just want to use this tweet as a jumping off point because this, you hear this kind of stuff

00:06:01.060 all the time. And there are two big problems here, aside from the, from the general incoherence of,

00:06:07.240 of, uh, of it, but there's two other problems. First, um, opposition to abortion is not simply

00:06:16.280 a personal belief and it certainly is not a religious belief. Okay. And this, and this frustrates

00:06:23.740 me to no end with the people that say, well, that's just your religion. You're just saying that

00:06:27.560 because you're a Christian, even if I were not a Christian, even if I were not religious at all,

00:06:34.240 even if I had no faith, um, I would still oppose abortion, uh, because it's the murder of babies. 0.90

00:06:43.040 And, and, and there's nothing, there's no scenario where I would ever be in favor of that.

00:06:48.180 Um, I didn't learn in the Bible that abortion is wrong. I didn't, I, I didn't have to check the Bible

00:06:57.220 to find out whether or not abortion is wrong. Uh, I came to that conclusion without, without checking

00:07:03.160 it at all. I, I just, I just know that it's wrong. It does. So it's, it's, I don't need to find chapter

00:07:09.060 and verse for that. Um, I can find chapter and verse. I can find biblical justification,

00:07:13.720 certainly for my belief that abortion is wrong, but even if I couldn't, I would still believe it. 0.97

00:07:21.920 Uh, even if there was nothing in the Bible, for instance, saying, don't kill people, don't murder

00:07:27.180 there is, but even if there wasn't, I would still be against it. Um, so this is not a religious point

00:07:34.940 of view. I cannot emphasize that enough. And I get really tired of this whole, well, stop trying to

00:07:41.580 impose your religion on me thing when it comes to abortion, because you may as well say that I'm

00:07:47.700 forcing my religion on you by opposing armed robbery and arson and rape. Um, these are fundamental

00:07:54.840 moral issues and any person religious or not is capable of seeing the truth in these matters.

00:08:01.440 Moreover, um, pro-abortion people also like to claim that the Bible, uh, doesn't even really say

00:08:07.740 anything about abortion in the first place. And, and they're right in a way, um, the Bible doesn't

00:08:13.420 specifically mention abortion. It does mention not to murder people, which, which, uh, which

00:08:18.640 really covers that base anyway. So it doesn't need to be specific about, uh, you know, if it says don't

00:08:24.720 murder people, then you wouldn't think that it needs to also specify, uh, yeah, by the way, that includes

00:08:30.440 babies. Um, so, but it doesn't, it's true that it doesn't deal specifically with the practice of

00:08:38.180 abortion. So there's kind of, it, it, it, it, it's the pro-abortion people are trying to have it both

00:08:44.400 ways. Where on one hand, they, they say you're imposing your religion on us. And then on the other

00:08:50.180 hand, uh, they say, well, that's not even really in your religion. Well, then which is it? It can't,

00:08:55.180 it can't, we can't be imposing our religion on you with something that isn't in our religion,

00:08:58.760 according to you. Um, because in that case, if that were true, that our, our pro-life beliefs

00:09:08.000 are not really in keeping with the Bible, then that would mean that we are imposing our moral

00:09:15.740 opinion onto the Bible. And then according to you onto you, but it wouldn't be our religion then in

00:09:24.460 that case, would it? Now, again, that's not true. This, this belief is entirely consistent.

00:09:35.460 Uh, not only consistent with what the Bible says, but it is in the Bible, uh, because it says do not

00:09:42.040 murder, but you're trying to have it both ways. You know, the pro-abortion people, when it comes to

00:09:49.700 their arguments that they make, they're constantly making contradict, self-contradictory arguments

00:09:55.300 with no attempt to even come up with some sort of coherent, cogent narrative. Um, and then the

00:10:04.120 second thing here is that, of course, putting the issue of religion to the side entirely for a minute,

00:10:10.100 science is completely and totally on the side of pro-lifers. And there's just no question about

00:10:16.260 that whatsoever. Um, and in fact, the more and more that we learn about science, the more that we

00:10:25.140 learn about what's happening in the womb, the more that we learn about the development of human beings,

00:10:30.040 um, in the womb, uh, the more and more validity it lends to the pro-life side.

00:10:38.540 The, the pro-abortion side has always been morally untenable, but it was much more tenable

00:10:45.840 50 or 60 years ago than it is now, because we knew a lot less, um, 50 or 60 years ago than we do

00:10:53.620 now. We still knew enough 50 or 60 years ago. We knew enough 500 years. We knew enough 5,000 years

00:10:59.720 ago to know that, uh, abortion is wrong because you're killing a human person. Because what else

00:11:05.660 could it be when a, when a human man and a human woman get together and reproduce, the only thing they

00:11:10.900 can produce is a human. And that human is going to, by definition, be separate and apart from

00:11:15.600 themselves. But, um, as I said, the more that we've learned, just the more credibility it lends

00:11:22.480 to the pro-life case. And, uh, so if you're a pro-abortion person, that ought to make you uncomfortable

00:11:27.560 when you look and realize that, uh, I mean, gee, every single scientific discovery in this area,

00:11:33.840 every single scientific advancement in this area, um, goes against us. Well, that should tell you that

00:11:39.940 something is wrong with your position. Um, all right. So I thought this was interesting from

00:11:48.160 the daily wire. It says a small school district in Michigan is pushing back against those who would

00:11:53.080 alter its sex ed program by incorporating discussions of sexual and gender identity for the last eight

00:11:58.600 years, Allendale, Michigan, a town of roughly 26,000 people has offered a sex ed program titled

00:12:04.060 willing to wait, which holds fast to the benefits of abstaining from sex until marriage. And, um,

00:12:09.940 does not address the issues of gender and gender identity, but, uh, you've got the progressive

00:12:16.860 indoctrinators who now want to introduce that stuff into the program. And so there's that whole

00:12:22.160 debate. And this brings up the, the, the, the safe sex versus abstinence debate. And I know that

00:12:28.560 this is where you probably think I'm going to launch into a whole thing where I defend abstinence only,

00:12:33.080 um, programs, but maybe I'm going to surprise you because I'm not going to do that.

00:12:40.500 I won't defend, uh, I'm not going to defend abstinence only programs. I'm also not going to

00:12:46.020 defend safe sex programs. Um, because here's my point when it comes to sex ed in schools,

00:12:54.320 I don't want teachers talking to kids about using condoms and so on. That's not an appropriate

00:13:05.820 discussion for that forum. I also don't want teachers talking to kids about saving sex for

00:13:12.480 marriage. I don't want either of those things. Neither of those things are an appropriate

00:13:20.000 discussion for, for, for a classroom. Uh, I, I want them saying nothing on the matter at all.

00:13:28.700 That's how sex ed should be handled. Talk to kids about biology, talk to them about 1.00

00:13:33.920 anatomy, about human reproduction. These are academic subjects and it's stuff that kids need

00:13:40.180 to learn at a certain age. So yeah, they're going to learn about sex in that sense. Um, but I don't

00:13:47.440 need school officials giving any lessons, any advice at all, one way or another about, about a

00:13:55.760 child's sex life or lack thereof, because it's none of their business. But why have we just taken

00:14:04.620 it for granted that, well, the school's got to say something about this. I mean, the kids are there

00:14:09.900 for a few hours a day. I mean, they got to talk to them about sex, don't they? Why, why do they need

00:14:14.660 to talk? Just stick with the, stick with the academic subjects. I don't need your moralizing

00:14:19.940 one way or another. I don't need your theories about when people should have sex and how they

00:14:24.660 should do it. And what's the appropriate context. I don't need that. Whether you think it's appropriate

00:14:29.380 for teenagers to have sex or whether you think they should save it for marriage. Why do you think

00:14:34.080 that it's your place as a teacher in a school to talk to my kids about it? It's none of your

00:14:40.680 business. So say nothing about it. That's, that's the solution here. Um, I, so no, I'm, I'm not a fan

00:14:50.420 of the absent abstinence programs in school because I don't trust schools to, to make the case for

00:14:55.800 abstinence. That is a very morally complex issue. Uh, and it is a moral issue. Now there's a practical

00:15:03.940 element to it also, of course, where, okay, if you don't have sex right now, then you're not going to

00:15:09.120 get STDs and you're not going to get pregnant. So fine. Yeah. There's that practical, but, but,

00:15:14.000 um, you can't try to simply scare kids away from sex. That doesn't work. So if you try to have an

00:15:20.840 abstinence program that doesn't get into the morality aspect, but it only focuses on STDs and

00:15:28.280 everything, um, well, that's just not going to work because then you're, you're just trying to scare

00:15:33.900 kids by saying, Oh, well, you know, you don't want herpes, do you? Doesn't work. And, um, and it's

00:15:41.740 also, I, I'm not trying to, we don't want to make people terrified of sex. We don't want them to make

00:15:47.320 this immediate where they think of sex. They immediately associate it with, with chlamydia. I

00:15:51.620 mean, that's not what we want to do either. So if you want to effectively make the argument, make the

00:15:57.880 case for abstinence, you have to make a moral case where you're talking about, uh, respect of the

00:16:04.200 human person, the proper ordering of sexual relationships, proper context. Uh, if you're

00:16:10.420 going to give someone, give yourself to someone, uh, you should only do that in a context of love and

00:16:17.200 devotion and all that, you know, all of that is good. All that's true, but that is a moral, um,

00:16:23.860 a very moral thing. And I simply don't trust a health teacher to, to effectively communicate

00:16:33.280 that. Um, so yeah, with my kids, you can leave that to me. I will handle that. I don't need you

00:16:39.040 doing it. And, uh, no, I don't want schools to throw sexual morality out the window either and

00:16:45.980 say, Oh yeah, well, everyone's having sex. So don't worry about it. Here's a condom. No, see what's

00:16:52.240 wrong. What part of this does the school system struggle to understand? It's none of your business.

00:17:01.680 Okay. The kids attitudes about sex, uh, you know, their approach to it, the way families deal with it.

00:17:09.100 None of that is your business. Why would you think that it is just because the kid is sitting in your

00:17:14.700 classroom doesn't make it all of a sudden your business. So let's just leave it alone. Um,

00:17:22.240 and, uh, and then I know the answer is going to be, well, uh, well, yeah, but, uh, but, but parents

00:17:30.180 don't talk about it. And well, you know, parents should talk about it with their kids, but if they

00:17:36.580 don't, um, that's unfortunate, but that doesn't give you carte blanche. Just like you can't just walk

00:17:44.580 up to a kid on the playground and say, Hey kid, I'm sure you're, I'm sure your parents aren't talking

00:17:48.420 about sex. So, uh, so here, let me tell you a few things. If you do that, you'll be arrested as a

00:17:53.840 sex offender, right? Uh, all right, let's see. Okay. I have to show you this, uh, because I just,

00:18:02.480 I just have to. So brace yourself. Um, I'm not going to give any, not going to give you any setup.

00:18:10.580 Just watch this.

00:18:40.580 Uh, okay. First of all,

00:18:59.580 don't swaddle your baby like that. Uh, you, uh, he will die. Uh, don't, don't tie your baby inside of

00:19:08.520 a pillowcase and roll him around on the ground. Second, any man who chooses to be swaddled as a

00:19:17.260 form of therapy should indeed be swaddled and then should be stuffed into a cannon and shot into the 0.97

00:19:24.500 sun with all due respect, nothing personal. I just think it would be best for everyone involved. 0.85

00:19:31.640 All right. Um, this is, uh, from Fox news. It says Hofstra university student activists are calling

00:19:42.300 for the removal of a statue of Thomas Jefferson from campus near New York city, because they say

00:19:47.460 that, um, the third American president represents racism and slavery. So this, this statue of Jefferson

00:19:55.760 has already been defaced multiple times and now they want to get it torn down. Um, the only thing I'll

00:20:00.880 say about this is that, uh, uh, you know, I, I am opposed to tearing down Confederate statues. I've

00:20:07.300 said that many times. And I think that one leads to the other. It's not a coincidence that we started

00:20:14.480 with Confederate statues. Then we moved on to this, but this is really sort of a, an entire, a whole

00:20:20.380 different ball game. Um, because at least with the Confederate statues, although I opposed tearing them

00:20:26.200 down, there was an, I don't think it's a very good argument, but the argument that was made in favor of

00:20:33.300 tearing them down was that, um, well, you know, it's, it's not just that these guys had personal

00:20:39.300 flaws. It's that they were fighting for slavery and that's what the war was about. And so we, there's

00:20:46.160 no reason why we should make an effort to honor them for that. Well, I think that's a very reductive

00:20:52.140 and simplistic way of looking at the civil war. Uh, it was a much more complicated thing than that.

00:20:59.860 And certainly the personal motivations of the people that were actually fighting for the

00:21:03.340 Confederacy many times had absolutely nothing to do with slavery at all. Um, but you know, so

00:21:09.520 at least there's that argument. Um, but if we're getting into tearing down statues of the founding

00:21:17.520 fathers, well, you don't have that argument anymore because nobody thinks that the revolutionary war

00:21:22.360 was fought so that the colonists could have slaves. They did have slaves, but that's not what the war

00:21:27.480 was about. So now this really is, um, something where even though these, these men, these were great

00:21:34.660 men who achieved great things, um, they had this serious personal flaw, which is that they supported

00:21:40.900 slavery. And so therefore we're just going to tear down their statues. And if we're doing that,

00:21:45.800 um, then we really are just basically canceling history. If that is now the litmus test, then there

00:21:55.620 are very, very, very few historical figures who would be able to survive it because almost every

00:22:04.520 great historical figure had serious flaws and many of them had flaws in the area of slavery because for

00:22:11.180 thousands of years of human history, almost nobody was against slavery across the world, all races,

00:22:18.260 all genders, ethnicities, slavery was everywhere taken for granted as just a perfectly normal thing.

00:22:26.260 Doesn't make it right. Doesn't mean that, um, it doesn't, it's not a, it's not a full on excuse for

00:22:32.560 those people, but it does put things into a certain perspective. And it does show that, well, okay,

00:22:38.980 if we're doing this, then, uh, you know, we got basically tear down all the statues because,

00:22:43.400 uh, it's gotta be a total now whitewashing of history. And, um, I think that is not only a

00:22:50.820 pointless exercise, but also harmful and absurd. All right. Uh, let's move on to emails. Cause I got

00:22:57.240 a lot of great emails and I won't be able to answer all of them, but, um, I want to give it some

00:23:02.820 time. Anyway, this is from Aaron, A-R-Y-N. It's an interesting spelling there says, hi, Matt. I

00:23:08.300 love your show. Uh, and your religious theology is usually on point, but yesterday you made a

00:23:11.880 serious blunder about God, allowing people into heaven based on their capacity to biblically love.

00:23:15.940 You said that if a person is capable of truly loving their spouse or whomever it may be, but they

00:23:19.880 go to hell, how do you reconcile that? Um, with the fact that there is, uh, supposed to be no love in

00:23:26.860 hell. First of all, Romans, uh, eight, one through seven, it doesn't matter how loving this person is

00:23:33.780 if they are not in the spirit of God through the repentance of heart and forgiveness of sins

00:23:38.480 through Christ Jesus, their acts of love mean nothing. Second, Abraham who had, uh, yet to see

00:23:46.540 the Messiah was justified only by his faith. Also lot who became as wicked as the city around him and 0.82

00:23:52.560 offered up his own virgin daughters to be raped was, uh, justified in his faith and saved from 0.93

00:23:57.820 death by God in his mercy. Faith is the main point of the Bible. But I got to stop you right there. Um, 0.80

00:24:05.340 I, I don't know if I agree with your interpretation of the old Testament, especially, I don't think

00:24:10.700 faith is the main point of the old Testament at all. Actually, I think the main message in the old

00:24:17.060 Testament is obedience. Um, there really wasn't a question of faith. Everybody in old Testament times 0.97

00:24:24.360 believed in some kind of God. Uh, there may be a few mentions in the old Testament, a few references

00:24:29.860 to something like atheism, but that wasn't really the problem back then. Um, so everyone just took it

00:24:36.940 for granted that there was a God or many gods. Um, the issue was obedience, which is why all throughout

00:24:44.180 the old Testament, God passes down, I mean, hundreds and hundreds of, of commandments and laws,

00:24:52.060 many of them just very minute and particular. Um, and, and so I think what was the point of that?

00:25:00.860 The point was obedience. It was getting the Israelites, his chosen people to obey. Um, 0.96

00:25:07.520 and so that's how I would interpret it. So I don't know. Anyway, I'm not going to, we won't get

00:25:13.520 sidetracked on that. Uh, it says third, of course, an intellectual pronunciation of Jesus is God will

00:25:19.280 have bearing on salvation. Um, for God, it has always been about the heart because if you confess

00:25:24.780 with your heart that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart, that God raised him from the dead,

00:25:28.280 you will be saved. For with the heart, one believes and is justified. And with the mouth,

00:25:31.720 one confesses and is saved from, uh, faith from the heart must be present in order for

00:25:36.480 salvation to take place, which leads to my last point. The problem you described as a loving

00:25:43.440 person being in hell. So you're going to say, okay, so if he can't go to heaven because he never

00:25:48.200 believed in Jesus, then there's still the problem of a loving person being in hell. I would argue

00:25:51.720 this. God is the embodiment and epitome of love. We experience his love and grace, the things which

00:25:57.240 he embodies here on earth as a part of his mercy and kindness in our physical forms. Well, we have the

00:26:01.760 time to accept Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and be saved. Scripture speaks of a circumcision of the

00:26:06.160 heart, which only takes place through surrender. Denying Jesus is not surrender. Uh, once we have

00:26:11.280 consistently denied Jesus, no matter how outwardly loving we may appear, there is no truly biblical

00:26:16.220 love to be found within our hearts because we do not have God's Holy Spirit living within us.

00:26:20.700 Therefore, no truly biblically loving person can be found in hell, especially when you consider that 0.82

00:26:25.560 hell is the absence of God's presence. So all good things are absent. So love within anyone would be

00:26:30.880 absent anyway, because the only reason we experience love is because of God. Uh, I do love your show.

00:26:37.640 I watch it every day, but this made me cringe. You're a great guy, brothers. Keep, keep searching

00:26:41.780 for the truth. Um, all right, Aaron, thanks for the email. Thank you for really, um, engaging with my

00:26:49.140 points and expressing your disagreement in a non-pretentious, non-insulting way. Uh, and I mean

00:26:54.040 that sincerely, so I thank you for that. I'm going to skip to the last point you made. Um,

00:27:01.260 I don't want to restate what I've already said the last two shows, but with your last point,

00:27:06.080 I think you really moved the discussion forward and offered a new, uh, thought, uh, on this.

00:27:12.200 So, uh, I don't want to straw man you. I think what you're saying here is, is you're agreeing with,

00:27:17.140 with, with me that someone who really loves, who truly loves, you call it biblical love,

00:27:22.220 true love, biblical love, same thing, right? A truly loving person cannot go to hell, uh,

00:27:27.320 because then you would have love in hell. Hell is the absence of love. So how could it be there?

00:27:30.620 It's not possible. So you seem to agree with me there. Um, but you say that, well, uh, so my point

00:27:40.980 was if love can't exist in hell, then what about someone who doesn't consciously accept Jesus,

00:27:46.380 doesn't consciously believe in Jesus yet does have love. Where do they go? It seems to me that they

00:27:50.840 couldn't go to hell. They would have to go to heaven. Um, and the way you deal with that is

00:27:56.260 you say, well, you, you can't really love if you reject Christ. To reject Christ is to essentially

00:28:00.980 reject love. And so that's how you deal with the problem. I hope I summarized you accurately,

00:28:06.120 accurately there. Well, I think there are a couple of problems with your point. Number one,

00:28:13.180 throughout history, I'm sure you would agree. There have been many people, probably hundreds of

00:28:18.420 millions who never believed in Christ yet did not consciously reject him, um, because they just

00:28:24.160 never heard about him. So from the year 33 until, until today, there have been, as I said, hundreds

00:28:30.140 of millions of people who just never heard about Jesus. Think about everyone who lived in the far

00:28:36.800 East or in the West across the Atlantic and the first few hundred years of the Christian era. Um, 0.81

00:28:42.580 they couldn't have possibly believed in Jesus. Nobody told them about Jesus, right?

00:28:48.420 So how could they have known? Uh, therefore it can't be said that they rejected him.

00:28:55.920 And remember, if somebody lived in, um, in, let's say, you know, uh, North America in the year 100,

00:29:03.820 well, that's someone who could not have possibly ever heard about Jesus Christ. And, um, and that's

00:29:09.320 also someone who they're in North America because God put them there. That's someone who was born in North

00:29:15.660 America, uh, which means they were born. It means they were created. That was an act of creation,

00:29:21.180 a conscious act of creation by God. God saying, I'm going to put this person right here, uh, thousands

00:29:28.820 of miles away with a huge ocean separating him from the news of, of Christ. So it really doesn't make

00:29:37.560 sense that God would then say, well, I put you here, but now I'm going to send you to hell because you 0.98

00:29:41.540 were there. Uh, that, that, that becomes very hard to believe. So, um, so you don't really account for

00:29:49.980 them and you're saying, well, someone who denies Christ doesn't have Christ. You couldn't really

00:29:54.580 love. So none of those people could love the millions of people throughout history, incapable

00:29:59.940 of loving. Um, but if you allow for them, if you say, well, no, no, no. Well, yeah, they could go to

00:30:07.500 heaven because they didn't ever heard about it. And so we'll make an exception there. Well, if you do

00:30:12.140 that, then you're admitting a couple of things. You're admitting number one, that a person could

00:30:15.900 go to heaven, um, without consciously believing in Jesus. Number two, that therefore they could

00:30:21.540 enter through the door who is Jesus Christ, uh, the way, the truth and the life without consciously

00:30:26.300 knowing it. Um, and so if you're accepting that, then it seems that you're, you're not far from my

00:30:35.000 conclusion, but okay, let's put those cases to the side for a minute. Uh, let's talk about people

00:30:41.540 in modern society, uh, who, who have heard about, um, Jesus and, but yet belong to a different religion.

00:30:50.160 Well, uh, of them, it seems like you certainly are saying that they could not really love even their

00:30:57.200 own children, right? Um, well, I just, I don't think that there's any evidence for that. I don't

00:31:07.980 think that's true at all. Um, I think that it's really quite presumptuous and insulting, uh, to say

00:31:14.680 that non-Christians can't love their kids or their spouse. Uh, now I don't, I know you don't mean it as

00:31:20.040 an insult. I'm not attacking you, but you have to think, how would you take it if a Muslim said to you

00:31:25.480 that you can't love your kids because you're not a Muslim? You would just say, well, that's absurd. 0.96

00:31:29.720 What are you talking about? Of course I love my kids. Um, so I absolutely believe that non-Christians 1.00

00:31:34.840 can love their children and their spouses and can love anyone. Um, just, just as I can.

00:31:42.600 Remember, Jesus says in scriptures, um, greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his

00:31:51.360 life for his friends. Well, what about a Jew or a Hindu who lays down his life for his country or his 0.99

00:31:58.360 wife or his kids, uh, his family, his friends? Jesus says that is the greatest love, the greatest.

00:32:08.240 He didn't say greater love hath no man than this, a Christian lays down his life for his friends. He

00:32:13.420 didn't say that. He says a man who lays down his life for his friends. Now, how could we say then

00:32:19.440 that not only is that? So if we think about a person of another religion who lays down their

00:32:25.800 life, let's say for their family, Jesus seems to say that's the greatest love. But what you seem

00:32:31.820 to be saying is not only is that not the greatest love, it's not even love at all. Well, then what is

00:32:37.360 it in that case? A non-Christian who makes a great personal sacrifice for those he cares about. I mean, 1.00

00:32:44.360 even if it's not dying for them, which many non-Christians have sacrificed their lives for 0.95

00:32:48.680 those they love many times. Um, but a non-Christian who lives a life of self-sacrifice for those that 0.99

00:32:56.280 they care about, if that's not love, then what is it? Uh, and if that's not love, then I don't even

00:33:03.040 know what love is. I don't even, I don't know how we could even use the term anymore because I would

00:33:08.480 say that's the definition of love. Um, love is, uh, is, you know, Aquinas says, said that love is

00:33:18.080 willing the good of the other. And of course, the, the greatest way to will the good of the other is

00:33:23.940 to give your life for the good of the other. And so if someone is willing the good of the other to

00:33:30.480 the best of their ability and of their knowledge and, you know, in the best way they know how,

00:33:35.660 then I would call that love. I read a story, you know, I don't want to, I'm not trying to make

00:33:43.000 this an emotional argument, but I do think we, we should just, when you, you know, it's easy for us

00:33:48.840 when we're talking about these issues to just say, Oh yeah, well, if a Christian does, can't really 1.00

00:33:53.180 love and it's easy for us to say that, but let's, let's talk about what we're really saying when we

00:33:57.640 say that. So I read a story a while ago about a mother in Auschwitz, Jewish mother, whose children

00:34:08.040 were being sent to the gas chamber and she could have been selected for, because she was young

00:34:13.500 enough and healthy enough. She could have been selected for labor and maybe survived, but she 0.98

00:34:18.060 chose to go to the gas chamber with her kids so that she could comfort them in their last moments.

00:34:24.100 And she decided that her kids were going to have several moments of terror and pain and suffering.

00:34:35.160 And she would rather give up her entire, the rest of the rest of her entire life. She'd rather give

00:34:39.420 that up just so that she could comfort her children in those moments.

00:34:43.180 So are you going to tell me that this mother who went to the gas chamber with her child and comforted

00:34:53.680 her child until the end was then sent to hell for all eternity? Are you going to tell me that mother 0.76

00:34:59.820 didn't love her child? If that's not love, let me tell you something. If that's not love, then I don't

00:35:03.940 love anyone. I have no love. And I doubt you do either. Because if that's not love, I mean,

00:35:08.820 if that doesn't qualify, then it's hopeless for all of us. No, I would say that that is the greatest

00:35:20.340 love. And I think that's what Jesus said. So when I read the Gospels and I read about the Lord who

00:35:27.900 said there is no greater love than self-sacrifice, I just don't see a Lord who sends a woman to hell

00:35:33.520 forever, who gave up her life for her child because she believed the wrong thing. I don't see it.

00:35:42.420 And it really is as simple as that for me.

00:35:49.280 But, you know, I understand the attempt at a, you know, I appreciate you're trying to deal with

00:35:55.740 the issue and come up with some sort of solution. All right, this is from Maria, says, Matt,

00:36:02.680 I have appreciated your discussion about the question of whether love can exist in hell. I

00:36:06.080 think the answer is no, it cannot. But I also don't think that anyone who figured out how to

00:36:09.980 love on earth will necessarily go to heaven. Let me explain why. If a person who does not know Christ

00:36:13.860 manages to love in life, that doesn't mean he will carry that with him into the afterlife. It could be

00:36:19.680 that he goes to hell, but his love doesn't come with him, if that makes sense. So rather than his love

00:36:24.680 carrying him into heaven, it could be that he goes to hell without it. No goodness can exist in hell,

00:36:30.180 but even bad people have a little goodness in them. Okay, Maria, that's an interesting thought.

00:36:36.140 I'm not sure if it works, though. First of all, what does it really mean for a person to leave

00:36:41.560 their love behind? Does God conduct some sort of like posthumous spiritual surgery, separating them

00:36:48.840 from their love so they can leave that and go and be damned? And if those kinds of adjustments are

00:36:54.580 being made, why wouldn't God take the good and throw out the bad? That's what C.S. Lewis was

00:37:01.100 talking about in The Great Divorce, that whatever little bit of good is there, whatever little bit

00:37:05.540 of love, God will take that, fam those flames, turn it into a great fire, good kind of fire.

00:37:12.880 That to me makes sense. It makes less sense if God is seizing onto the bad stuff and throwing out the

00:37:18.760 good so that the bad can be chucked into hell. If we're making posthumous adjustments of any kind

00:37:25.960 so that a person can fit one place or the other, it just makes more sense that it would go north

00:37:34.000 rather than south. But the bigger problem is a logical one, I think, is that, so let's say that

00:37:39.260 I go to hell. I hate to make myself the example here, but so just to, you know, frame it here.

00:37:45.740 But let's say that I, God forbid, I'm the unlucky guy here. Okay. Well, I can't, my love for my

00:37:51.780 children can't come with me. My love for my wife can't come with me. My love for my family, for

00:37:55.580 everything, everything that I love, none of that can come. All of that is shed like snakeskin, I guess.

00:38:01.400 And then whatever, whatever other meager good parts of me, there's not a lot, but whatever's there,

00:38:05.840 that all goes too. And then the rest is, is sent to hell. Well then what exactly is in hell? Is that 0.62

00:38:12.640 even still me? Can it even be said at that point that I am in hell? I mean, who is that person? Is

00:38:18.500 it, would I even recognize that person as being me? Would I have any, would I, would I have any memory

00:38:22.960 of anything? You've just taken the most essential aspects of my being and chucked them. And then what,

00:38:31.340 so what the heck is down there in hell? And if that thing down there in hell is, is, is hardly even a

00:38:39.240 conscious being, then what's the point of hell anymore? Now it seems like you're getting into

00:38:44.960 annihilationism where really the, the, the person who doesn't go to heaven is essentially just

00:38:49.640 annihilated. Um, I don't believe that, but that seems to be more of what you're talking about.

00:38:56.500 But if I am conscious of myself, if I, if I am a conscious self in hell, then, uh, but then again,

00:39:02.960 how, how could I remain a conscious self after these most crucial aspects of myself have what

00:39:08.680 been taken? Um, it's, so I just, there, there are some logical issues there that I can't quite

00:39:16.140 get around. All right. Let me just do one more. Um, uh, let's see a couple of good, quite, uh,

00:39:27.580 responses from teachers. Okay. This is from Bob and Michelle, uh, two people teaming up on an email

00:39:31.380 says, Matt, in regards to your question about gender-based participation in classes, school

00:39:35.740 classrooms, says my wife and I are both teachers. Um, our combined experience covers just over 30

00:39:41.740 years of grade school, uh, high school, college. We also both run a tutoring business and see many,

00:39:47.400 many students at varying ages and nearly every imaginable topic and subject matter.

00:39:51.840 The following are our collective opinions on the matter. During certain age spans, participation

00:39:56.840 will be, will be weighted toward the boys, uh, ages or grades, eight, I guess, ages eight through

00:40:02.360 12, while at other ages, the girls, uh, 14 through 18. When it comes to certain subjects, geometry,

00:40:08.340 history, phys ed, boys tend to relate more and therefore participate slash question more. When

00:40:12.940 it comes to other subjects, algebra, science, sociology, girls tend to relate more and therefore

00:40:17.480 participate in question more. Also the specific time of any particular year can play a small role

00:40:22.560 for the genders as to their general motivation and attentiveness. However, my wife and I both agree

00:40:27.740 that girls tend to raise their hands, participate in discussion and turn in work projects, et cetera,

00:40:33.620 more. After some discussion with other teacher friends over the weekend, we believe that it's

00:40:38.320 probably a three to two girl to boy ratio. Hope this is of some help. Um, yeah, that is. In fact,

00:40:45.900 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

00:40:49.080 of responses from teachers as I raised the question yesterday of, uh, do boys or girls tend to be

00:40:55.340 more to participate more and be more excited in classroom and a lot of interesting answers to

00:41:02.080 that. But I think we're going to, we're going to cut it off here and, uh, do all the rest of the

00:41:07.140 emails tomorrow. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Godspeed.

00:41:19.080 I'm Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles show. A 61 year old woman has just given birth to

00:41:28.560 her own granddaughter who was conceived by combining her daughter's egg with the sperm of her son's gay 0.99

00:41:33.660 lover. We will examine modern love. Check it out at dailywire.com. 0.96

00:41:37.140 We'll see you next time.

The Matt Walsh Show - April 03, 2019

Ep. 231 - Hollywood Rallies For Baby Killing

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript