Latest Comments

Linda Hilton

In response to: Ethics: Social Justice

Linda Hilton [Visitor]
Social justice is such a hot topic right now. You have to be careful what you say so you don't cause a huge controversy.
PermalinkPermalink 08/17/11 @ 15:54
Chris Graves

In response to: On the Fringe: Part 3

Chris Graves [Visitor]
Commenting on some Evangelicals becoming open to the view that all people will eventually be saved, besides the clear teaching on this matter in the Bible, there is good reason to doubt it. It very well may be the case that people in Hell could choose to leave. But to do that they must do there what they refused to do here in their lifetime on earth, and that is submit willingly to God.

In Jean Paul Sartre's play *No Exit,* the leading male character, Garcin, comes to the point of desperation and demands release in the midst of the psychological torment he is being subjected to in what turns out to be Hell. To his and his companions' surprize, the door flies open providing a possibility of escape. But even in the throes of his agony, he makes the choice not to leave his misery in Hell.

Even though Sartre was an atheist existentialist, there are subtle Christian themes running throughout his writings, and this is one of them. Here we see that if given the opportunity to exit Hell, people there would not take advantage of the offer. They would have no interest in leaving even though they are suffering beyond endurance. In fact, no amount of pain could pry them away from the place they have chosen to spend eternity in. In the play, all of the three characters are drawn back into the fray as they continue to inflict psychic torture on one another. In this scene, we see the desire to develop and work through one's failings, but in this there is also a desire to control, and ultimately, continue in the refusal to submit to the only One who can truly save. To step out of Hell would mean losing control, venturing out into what seems to be the uttermost darkness, taking the leap of faith--in God and leaving oneself and control of oneself behind. Garcin can trust his most severe tormentor more than he can trust the only Person who can truly save him.

"GARCIN: Open the door! Open,blast you! I'll endure anything, your red-hot tongs and molten lead, your racks and prongs and garrotes-- all your fiendish gadgets, everything that burns and flays and tears-- I'll put up with any torture you impose. Anything, anything would be better than this agony of mind, this creeping pain that gnaws and fumbles and caresses one and never hurts quite enough. Now will you open? (THE DOOR FLIES OPEN: a long silence.)
INEZ: Well, Garcin? You're free to go.
GARCIN: Now I wonder why that door opened.
INEZ: What are you waiting for? Hurry up and go.
GARCIN: I shall not go.
INEZ: And you, Estelle? So what? Which shall it be? Which of the three of us will leave? The barrier's down, why are we waiting? But what a situation! It's a scream! We're inseparables!
ESTELLE: Inseparables? Garcin, come and lend a hand. Quickly. We'll push her out and slam the door on her. That'll teach her a lesson.
INEZ:(Struggling with Inez) Estelle, I beg you, let me stay. I won't go, I won't go! Not into the passage.
GARCIN: Let go of her.
ESTELLE: You're crazy. She hates you.
GARCIN: It's because of her I'm staying here.
INEZ: Because of me? All right, shut the door. It's ten times hotter here since it opened. Because of me, you said?
GARCIN:Yes. YOU, anyhow, know what it means to be a coward.
INEZ: Yes, I know.
GARCIN: And you know what wickedness is, and shame, and fear. There were days when you peered into yourself, into the secret places of your heart, and what you saw there made you faint with horror. And then, next day, you didn't know what to make of it, you couldn't interpret the horror you had glimpsed the day before. Yes, you know what evil costs. And when you say I'm a coward, you know from experience what that means. Is that so?
INEZ: Yes.
GARCIN: So it's you whom I have to convince; you are of my kind. Did you suppose I meant to go? No, I couldn't leave you here, gloating over my defeat, with all those thoughts about me running in your head.
NEZ: Do you really wish to convince me?
GARCIN: THat's the one and only thing I wish for now. I can't hear them any longer, you know. Probably that means they're through with me. For good and all. The curtain's down, nothing of me is left on earth-- not even the name of coward. So, Inez, we're alone. Only you two remain to give a thought to me. She- she doesn't count. It's you who matter; you who hate me. If you'll have faith in me I'm saved.
INEZ: It won't be easy. Have a look at me. I'm a hard-headed woman.
GARCIN: I'll give you all the time that's needed.
INEZ:Yes, we've lots of time in hand. ALL time."

So, tragically, people in Hell chose to go to Hell and they will always choose to remain there.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/11 @ 21:20
Chris Graves

In response to: Listeners' Questions and Comments: Exclusivism and the Gospel

Chris Graves [Visitor]
I have to disagree that Civil Rights legislation and court decisions along the same lines are compatible with liberty and conservative principles. Court decisions have arrogated enormous power to the judiciary that has used this power to socially engineer a "more just society" attempting to force individuals into egalitarian patterns. Patterned principles of social justice treats people as if they were interchangeable cogs in a machine, which is itself unjust. The same rationale has been used in efforts to strip religion out of public life in the U.S. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has argued that Roe v. Wade should have been written from an egalitarian basis. Cases involving homosexual "rights" have been decided in these same terms. There is no end to judicial activism in pursuit of equality of result on a number of fronts once we have turned down this path.

But even in the case of the Civil Rights Act, which was passed by the U.S. Congress, the power of the Federal government has increased in efforts to pursue equality that includes a host of intrusive attempts to equalize life for all people. These actions include constant monitoring of businesses, state & local governments, & universities. Many of these efforts have destroyed neighborhoods, public schools, and college sports programs. For a discussion of numerous infringements of personal liberty based on Civil Rights legislation, please see
*You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws* by David E. Bernstein. Prof. Bernstein teaches law at George Mason University.

Government mandated integration is grossly inconsistent with the right of the individual to freedom of association. This liberty provided the justification for the Boy Scouts being allowed to determine their own membership, and as left liberal members of the Supreme Court observed at the time, is inconsistent with other anti-discriminatory rulings of the Court. Civil Rights laws also undermine localism and a natural evolution of social institutions.
PermalinkPermalink 06/22/11 @ 00:41
Chris Graves

In response to: An Introduction to Interpretation

Chris Graves [Visitor]
While I agree that non-therapeutic abortions that amount to nothing more than after-the-fact birth control cannot be morally justified, I disagree that abortions in the cases of rape & incest are unjustified. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson presented the following thought experiment to justify abortion even granting that the unborn child has the right to life:

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."

I agree with Ms. Thompson's intuition that it is up the person whose body is being used to sustain the incapacitated violinist whether to continue the treatment or to unplug him. If the person whose kidneys are being appropriated without his permission decides to leave the violinist plugged into his body, then that generous decision is supererogatory, i.e. the decision is above and beyond the call of duty. Ms. Thompson sees this hypothetical case as analogous to the case of abortion. While I disagree with her that her parable demonstrates the moral permissibility of abortion for any reason, I do see the parallel with abortion in the case of rape or incest since the woman did not consent to sex and did not assume the risk of conceiving a child and carrying the child to term.

Abortion in the case of rape or incest appeals to the principle of "double effect." Here the woman and the doctor are not primarily killing the child as much as they are protecting the woman. The same principle applies in the case of abortion for therapeutic reasons.
PermalinkPermalink 06/21/11 @ 23:55

In response to: Candy Canes, Poems and the 1st Amendment

bcreamer [Member]
See a listener comment on this broadcast here.
PermalinkPermalink 05/24/11 @ 05:47
Christine Causey Hutchins

In response to: Answers for Inquiring Skeptics: The Ethics of it all

Christine Causey Hutchins [Visitor]
My brother wrote you about my friend "Friday", the atheist, who posed the questions that you answered today. What a sweet brother I have to think to send these to you! I actually wrote you last year on FB and told you about my friend who has been attending church who is an atheist and how much your program meant to me...still does. You read this on air - to my surprise! Ha! Your show is an encouragement. Praise God for your work and all those on your staff! For 3 years now, my family and "Friday's" family have been meeting once a month for a pot luck. She finally decided, on her own, to attend our sunday school class and church last June. I proposed that I needed to grow in my faith in December and would she pose questions to me so that I could answer from a Christian perspective. Very quickly, I realized that I did not have the time to give her an answer OR to answer the 20 questions she would have about my one answer. I sent her to "Bob" our Sunday school teacher, but he is answering her questions in a way that I am not 100% on board with. For example he has said, "Friday, I don't even believe that Job was a real person, but that doesn't take away from the principals behind the book." OR "Friday, what I just taught in class could be real or not or the writer could have gotten some of the parts wrong, but that does not take away from the principals of God." (if you want I can send you those emails - with names and emails removed of course; I love and I still respect him, but I disagree strongly) YIKES. She wrote back a few emails, asking me if I felt the way he did. I said no - in a nice way - with out disrespecting "Bob". She, on her own, has set up a meeting with our pastor this Super Bowl Sunday. I have made sure that our pastor is in the "know" with all her questions and unfortunately, with what she has been told about the principals thing (I omitted Bob's name). Last communication, she communicated to me that she is frustrated. How can she argue with someone who doesn't believe everything in the Bible is real? Good question!! UGH! To conclude, I know all this did not go down as smoothly as I would have planned it (I can't answer the questions and my Sunday school teacher minimizes the Word - shocking!) but God is sovereign, in control - and I will continue to pray and petition Him to crazy convict her hard heart. Lee Strobel's wife prayed Ezk 36:26 for him for two years, so I have been praying this for close to 3 years now for Friday and her hubby. I will just keep on having dinners with them every month (she, her husband, and son), loving them, and talking about what Jesus is doing in my life. Feel free to talk about any of this. Again, you have faithful listeners who appreciate you.
PermalinkPermalink 01/31/11 @ 21:17