The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Mail
Print Email

Reader Mail

Doubters and Skeptics

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Re: Quin Hillyer's Supreme Dream:

"... is a battle Bush, and conservatives, can win."
What? Who?

Quin, you gotta get outside the Beltway. There aren't three conservatives in the country that would ever again stand with George W. Bush. Bush has betrayed those who elected him too often. A good economy doesn't make up for his pansy-ass war plan or his comprehensive plan to destroy the GOP and America.

I would personally stand with the Democrats if they wanted to impeach Bush (for anything) -- but why should they? He's given them everything they could possible hope for. He's even made the Carter and Clinton presidencies look respectable.
-- Jack Hughes
Chicago, Illinois

Mr. Hillyer, great idea. Alice Batchelder would be a wonderful nominee. But the big question is really more about President Bush. Would he be able to articulate the reasons she is such a good choice?

Plus, you must remember the President doesn't much like conservatives right now. He views us as a bunch of loud, knuckle-dragging troglodytes.
-- Judy Beumler
Louisville, Kentucky

Quin Hillyer replies:
In response to Ms. Beumler, the good news is that a real troglodyte wouldn't be able to spell "troglodyte," so it's obvious that if that's the way Bush sees people like the good Ms. Beumler, he's dead wrong! I would note, however, that in the past I myself have come to the defense of cave dwellers. Seriously, I do think it is absurd that the president and his allies continue to resort to name-calling against the people who have supported him for so long on so many other issues."

HOW DO WE KNOW?
Re: Lisa Fabrizio's History's Greatest Liar:

Without substantive comment on the content, I wish to say that this may be the only forum in this country where and article like this one could be found. There are articles aplenty in other publications, but usually dedicated to secularism or "proving" why Christians are idiots.

This is a view of a book written by a religious scholar with an abiding belief and faith in Christ with no other axe to grind. I commend Ms. Fabrizio's courage for writing it and the Spectator's for printing it.
-- Jay W. Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina

Like most who feel compelled to look on the Bible as either completely accurate historical document or meaningless fiction, Lisa Fabrizio backs herself and the Bible into a corner. Despite the fact that the oldest of the synoptic gospels, Mark, was written at least a generation after the death of Jesus and the stories of Jesus relied on oral tradition, she leaves no room for the possibility that the later loosely pieced together writings by multiple authors which have undergone countless transcriptions, interpretations and translations could be anything other than precise reporting of historical events of the life of the son of God. After reading the New Testament, the only conclusion one can come to is that Jesus was a moral philosopher and to believe in his past existence does not take a great leap of faith. To assume that the only conclusion a thinking person could come to as Ms. Fabrizio appears to, either that he was God or a pathologic liar, is myopic.
-- John Sorboro

Lisa Fabrizio replies:
Given the constrictions of space, let me say this: the gist of Pope Benedict's book -- indeed, of Christian belief for some 2,000 years -- is precisely that, to understand who Jesus was, one cannot only read the New Testament; one must look for his coming predicted in the Old as well. And it is not his "past existence" which is at issue, but his present and eternal one.

As far as his "moral" philosophy, the pope writes: "Unless there had been something extraordinary in what happened, unless the person and the words of Jesus radically surpassed the hopes and expectations of the time, there is no way to explain why he was crucified or why he made such an impact." Excluding some early Gnostics, not many dispute that Jesus was crucified, not only for political reasons, but because he claimed to be God, a crime punishable by death under Jewish law.

And as regards my myopia in stating that Jesus was either who he constantly claimed to be, or a prolific and/or pathological (as in related or resulting from disease) liar, this is indeed a tough statement, but nonetheless a true one. It may be myopic to believe him, but billions have and will continue to do so.

FEELING THE HEAT-
Re: G. Tracy Mehan, III's An Industry of Mutual Degradation:

Page: 1 2 3   Last ›

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Trade, Vladimir Putin, Bill Clinton, Business, Entitlements, Sports, Islam, Environment, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Immigration, Oil, Unions

Comments

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

ADVERTISEMENT

Are you in a mob?

The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?

         

Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Re: Defending Cao

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

Defending Cao

Quin Hillyer

* * * *

The Elite Search for Non-Meaning at Fort Hood

Robert Stacy McCain

* * * *

Members to Watch

Philip Klein

* * * *

The 39 Democrats Who Voted "No"

Philip Klein

* * * *

Pelosi's Pyrrhic Victory?

Philip Klein

* * * *

One Step Forward, Two Races Back

George Neumayr

* * * *

Divisive Unanimity

Daniel J. Flynn

* * * *

Joe Wilson, Call Your Office

Larry Thornberry

* * * *

ACORN's Big Spender

Matthew Vadum

* * * *

The Spirit of 1989

Doug Bandow

* * * *

The Somali-Kenya Connection

George H. Wittman

* * * *

Tex Mess

William Murchison

* * * *

Feeding the Beast

Philip Klein

* * * *
ADVERTISEMENT