To The Daily Sun,
E. Scott Cracraft starts out his column of Feb. 24, "I think that Jesus was quite likely a historical character." Please! If he were talking about Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great would he make such a disclaimer or would he just go on and write about them.
Yes, some writers have challenged Jesus' existence, but it's a silly challenge, for to do so is to put the reality of all recorded history in doubt. If his intent is to write a scholarly piece about Christianity, why would he lead us to believe that Jesus existence is somewhat tenuous. Writing a scholarly piece about Christianity is not his intent, but to disparage orthodox Christian doctrine is his intent.
Scott goes on to demonstrate his ignorance of what Scripture is, elevating it seems all "Christian" writing from the early church period to equal genuine scripture for trustworthiness and authority. In this he makes a grave mistake.
He writes as though Christian doctrine evolved through the centuries, rather than being distilled. The difference is huge, and it renders all of his skeptical points about the debate over who Jesus is as non sequiturs, for those who don't want get out your dictionaries, worthless BS.
The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't merely decided at the council in Nicaea in 325 AD it was recognized and protected as a distillation of the true teaching of the Scriptures and of the true church.
Critics of the Bible like to have it both ways. They like to depict it as hand-me-down stories that have been added to and altered and not authentic accounts. Then as Mr. Cracraft does here; they complain about part of the process that has kept it pure and they try to introduce extra canonical texts and heresies and say why weren't these included?
Was there debate over who Jesus was? You bet. He was executed because most of he Jewish leaders did not believe He was who He said He was. Was there debate between Paul and Peter and the rest of the 12 about this? No, there wasn't. Jesus received worship. Only God can receive worship otherwise it is idolatry. (John 20:26-29; Rev. 5; John 1:1-18; Rom. 1:1-5)
Were there others who did not believe this and would corrupt the true teaching? Yes. Did their teaching need to be weeded out and rejected as not canonical and some as even heretical? Yes. Would Mr. Cracraft try to second-guess the process by which heresies were rejected and canonical teaching was protected, and would he elevate these heresies -- that have been rejected by our church fathers, in order to protect sound doctrine which is a correct distillation of Biblical teaching — to equal to true Biblical teaching? I think so.
Mr. Cracraft, please, it is my understanding that you are a quite amiable person. You have a column in a respected local newspaper. Please do not write so as to cause those who might believe in Christ to stumble. It is the God of the whole Earth that you are disparaging. I write this in love sir. Please be more careful in what you write. Of all the things you could write about you chose to disparage God's church. This is not a small thing that you should wave off. Please consider carefully what it is you are doing. For though God is slow to anger. Do not mistake his forbearance for impotence.
Would it not be better to know Him in His mercy? That is why Jesus came and died and was raised, to bring a salvation that only God Himself could bring. The truth is simple sir. A child can understand it. It's not way up there so that only the very intelligent can understand it. But it's down in the heart where even the simple can grasp it. Please don't let your great intelligence — for it is as nothing compared to God's — prevent you from receiving the truth. (2 Peter 3:9-18)
Put your knowledge down for a minute sir and hear God. Please sir take a Sunday and go to a Bible preaching church, not as a critic, but to hear what God would speak to you. If you go expecting to hear from God and with a pure heart you will not be disappointed.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 March 2015 10:21
To The Daily Sun,
Guess I get under L.J. Siden's skin because I won't play his/her games. I refuse to "prove" what is common knowledge, established fact, or someone's opinion. Readers can almost hear him/her screaming hysterically as he/she slams his/her keyboard keys as he/she slanders, smears and lies about me personally instead of debating issues. Typical leftist tactic, detract readers from facts and issues and just spew hate and lies.
L.J. is particularly aggrieved that I presented an article written by an editor from The Blaze. Apparently to Siden's warped thinking, no conservative source can ever be quoted or taken account of. Siden's favorite MSNBC, (lowest of the lowlifes) is just fine though I bet. Well Siden, I never said the article was from other than from The Blaze and everyone already knows Glenn Beck is the owner of it. What a shock!
Now just so Siden understands, I do indeed hate Obama. I hate him because he's a proven liar. I believe him to be a Marxist socialist who does not have good intentions for America and her people. He has lied, stonewalled investigations if he ever ordered those investigations, or withheld any results from them. His minions lied to Congress or took the Fifth, He stirred racial divisions resulting in riots looting burning and cops being killed by radical racists thugs. Oh yea, Siden I really hate what Obama is and Obama does, but I do not lie.
I see Netanyahu won his election in Israel the other day. What, no congrats from our president? Guess he's pouting in the Oval Office anteroom. All his underhanded efforts to affect the election over there went for naught. It wouldn't have mattered anyway because the Jewish people will defend themselves and their nation from the hordes of Obama's Muslim buddies dedicated to destroying Israel and every living Jew in the world no matter who is prime minister. Just another thing Obama doesn't understand about the world.
Well, Siden, chew on this for awhile and dream up some more of your lies. You will not intimidate me into silence.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 March 2015 10:10
To The Daily Sun,
My response to Mr. Eddy will be as follows: I want to say, "No," I by no means tried to put words in your mouth. I was returning to offer to you that you offered Mr. Hoyt, which was if he doesn't want to be exposed to opposing viewpoints in the pages of The Sun, stop reading them and leave the rest of us alone.
I felt that for you to point him out and not mention any of the others by name was as they are all right-wingers. I have read a few of your past letters tonight and though I don't agree with all you write. I don't believe I ever mentioned you in a letter before. I can accept your right to an opinion as long as it is based a known subject which many would have different opinion.
I am watching Fox News now — The Kelly File. I admire your mention of your life experiences around the world. I have written about this before, however in brief. I joined the Army right after high school, 17 years old. I served from 1958 till 1978. I served 9.5 years overseas in France, Germany, Thailand and Vietnam. My point being, raised in the 1940s, we were taught to respect our elders. I'm sure you know that their is no such thing as "freedom of speech "in the military.
A week after I retired I realized this country is full of protesters, whiners and other names which I am not free to write. I worked the next 20 years as a cross-country truck driver, traveled through 46 states and seen enough of this country to know that if you listen to those who complain about illegal immigrants that in fact do the jobs Americans want no part of. If anyone feels differently, travel Interstate 10 from Florida to California, Interstate 5 north to Bellingham, Wash., and see for yourself.
I understand you want your right to free speech, Messrs. Meade, Wiles, Earle can get together and fill The Daily Sun full of garbage, and if you doubt that reread my letter March 21, plus those by Wiles and Earle. Enough said.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 March 2015 09:39
To The Daily Sun,
Don't say we weren't warned.
President George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us to avoid "entangling alliances".
President Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned of the danger of the emergent "military-industrial complex".
We heeded neither warning. Now, U.S. bears the bitter fruits of both.
Elementary: nations do not have permanent allies, nor permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
U.S. international play has burdened our nation with horrible costs and unsustainable burdens, with vast damages resulting, to our nation's self interests.
U.S. military adventures long have resulted in countless, needless losses of life, treasure and opportunity costs, and now, the costly, permanent posting of military, diplomatic and economic assets across the globe: Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other nations — to our costs, loss and peril.
One example: U.S. attacked Iraq, surely not a perfect nation, but one that protected religious freedoms and diversity and treasured historic archeological sites, and established regional military and political stability — and turned Iraq instead into a tragic mess.
The costs of our foreign relations follies, in blood and national wealth, are destructive and unacceptable.
U.S. financially is "broke." We continue to "float" the illusion of solvency by borrowing money from China and other nations.
If America was an American household, America wouldn't qualify to obtain a gas station credit card.
Isn't it time that we heed the presidential warnings, and tend to our own "home place" and national interests first?
Michael Harris, Ph.D.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 March 2015 09:35
To The Daily Sun,
This is in response to Tom Dawson's two letters to The Daily Sun in the course of a week regarding labor unions, and the letter from Bob Joseph of March 25 about the minimum wage. It almost seems to me that these two people don't like America very much, or at least they don't like the capitalistic economic system of free enterprise the U.S. Founders miraculously created, which may not be perfect, but it's the best the world has ever seen.
First, can you answer these questions? 1. What is the Ford Motor Company in business to make? 2. What is the Apple Company in business to make? 3. What is McDonald's in business to make? The answer to all three questions is the same — they are all in business to make money.
Is their primary purpose for being in business to create and provide jobs for people? Absolutely not. They are in business to make money for themselves and their stockholders, and a by-product of that effort gives employment to people who have a need and a desire to work and earn a living for themselves and their families. When the company's bottom line (profit) is affected by rising costs, in order to stay in business they must cut costs. And the decision on how to reduce costs is determined by what is the least disruptive to the operation of the company. And it usually means that the least skilled workers will be laid off first.
Fact #1: Most young people bring little or no skills with them when they enter the job market for the first time. The minimum wage was designed to give them an opportunity to develop some work skills and good work habits, because until that happens, they are not economically worth any more than that.
Fact #2: "Right-to-work" laws have nothing to do with someone's "right" to a job. No one has a "right" to a job. A company creates jobs in pursuit of their primary reason for being in business.
Fact #3: The minimum wage was not intended for the bread winner of a family of any size. It was, and still is for people with no marketable skills, entering the job market for the first time. If someone is the bread-winner of a family of two, three, or four, or more, he should have made sure he had the skills to support that family before he went ahead and had that family.
If the present minimum wage of $7.25 is not enough, as some progressives think, and that $10 or $15 is better, why stop at $15. Why not increase it to $25? If $15 is good, isn't $25 even better? How about $35? I tell you what. If $15 is better, why not increase the minimum wage to $50 per hour and make everyone happy?
Progressives want to change the labor and minimum wage laws for strictly political reasons, but they cannot change the laws of economics. Increasing the labor costs for the least skilled members of the workforce means layoffs of those most expendable. That's a law of economics that can never be repealed.
Small-business owners are the most powerful engine of any economy, and we are fortunate that most of them are benevolent and civic-minded enough to hire some unskilled and unproven workers who bring nothing with them to the job market in the beginning. But they are not going to do it at the expense of the success of their businesses, a fact totally misunderstood by the "progressive worldview," and people like Mr. Dawson and Mr. Joseph, and politicians who have never worked in the private sector.
Like our current president.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 March 2015 09:31