<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ridiculous And Irrelevant</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/18/ridiculous-and-irrelevant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/18/ridiculous-and-irrelevant/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ridiculous-and-irrelevant</link>
	<description>n. the principle of good order&#60;br /&#62;&#60;br /&#62; "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bobcat</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/18/ridiculous-and-irrelevant/comment-page-1/#comment-19279</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobcat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7667#comment-19279</guid>
		<description>Hi Daniel,

This is unrelated to your post, but do you anywhere in your writings give your reasons for being a theist, or for being a Christian theist, or for being an Orthodox Christian theist? 

I&#039;m a Roman Catholic philosopher who agrees with you that Hitchens&#039;s anti-Christian writings are embarrassingly shallow and over-the-top (though I would add that they&#039;re often wonderfully expressed), but I was wondering how important you thought reason, natural theology, and other such things were for arriving at Christian belief (obviously grace plays an important role, too--perhaps the only thing that plays a role--, but it can manifest itself in a particular person in his finding certain reasons for Christian persuasive and others against it unpersuasive).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Daniel,</p>
<p>This is unrelated to your post, but do you anywhere in your writings give your reasons for being a theist, or for being a Christian theist, or for being an Orthodox Christian theist? </p>
<p>I&#8217;m a Roman Catholic philosopher who agrees with you that Hitchens&#8217;s anti-Christian writings are embarrassingly shallow and over-the-top (though I would add that they&#8217;re often wonderfully expressed), but I was wondering how important you thought reason, natural theology, and other such things were for arriving at Christian belief (obviously grace plays an important role, too&#8211;perhaps the only thing that plays a role&#8211;, but it can manifest itself in a particular person in his finding certain reasons for Christian persuasive and others against it unpersuasive).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Samn</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/18/ridiculous-and-irrelevant/comment-page-1/#comment-19046</link>
		<dc:creator>Samn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:22:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7667#comment-19046</guid>
		<description>This was by far Hitchens&#039; most baldly Trotskyite rant in quite a while. I mean, not only does he talk about the White Army&#039;s &#039;atrocities&#039; in such a way that he expects his audience to follow his thinking that the Whites were the main bad guys at the time, but his main issue with Castro seems to be that he preferred Stalin to Lenin.......  It&#039;s all kinds of bizarre that someone could write from that perspective in 2008 and not be laughed back to their parents&#039; basement.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was by far Hitchens&#8217; most baldly Trotskyite rant in quite a while. I mean, not only does he talk about the White Army&#8217;s &#8216;atrocities&#8217; in such a way that he expects his audience to follow his thinking that the Whites were the main bad guys at the time, but his main issue with Castro seems to be that he preferred Stalin to Lenin&#8230;&#8230;.  It&#8217;s all kinds of bizarre that someone could write from that perspective in 2008 and not be laughed back to their parents&#8217; basement&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

