Wednesday, March 18, 1998
Discipline methods not proof of injustice
Peter D. Buck is right on in his column on March 3: Skepticism is an important part of religion. Nobody should take something so grave for granted and each of us should find truth for ourselves. But are the right questions being asked?
It is important to admit that God, if he exists, is an "awesome
power," to quote Buck. If God exists, he is intrinsically
larger than life as we know it.
However, once God is ceded to be omniscient and omnipotent, he
immediately becomes ineffable. In this sense, questioning such
actions as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus becomes
contradictory to a fundamental belief of God: If he could be fully
understood, he would be reduced to a demigod status and be merely
superhuman.
Buck is keen in his observation that society presents a different
picture of God than the Bible. God is faithful and benevolent
. . . to his ardent followers. In the Old Testament, God punishes
nonbelievers and disciplines believers who stray. In contrast,
God blesses his followers (Genesis 22:16-17). So while
God's reactions to nonbelievers is at times perplexing, his love
(for his people) is consistent.
When we break laws in our modern society, we incur punishment.
Traffic violations yield tickets, public offenses lead to fines,
felonies to incarceration. So if man estranged himself from God
via an original sin and continued to disobey God's laws and guidelines,
logically man deserves punishment.
Where would the justice be if punishment were withheld? If a modern
day king elected not to punish crime offenders would we sit back
and say that he is still a great king? Certainly not.
God's methods of punishment/discipline cannot be used to prove
he is not a loving god. In the New Testament, God decides to take
the punishment for man's sin. Not only does man receive God's
mercy (not getting what you deserve), but also man receives his
grace (getting what you do not deserve). There is no use gainsaying
that God does not love man given such circumstances; this is undeniably
an act of unparalleled love.
Two of Buck's three final concluding statements could not be more
right: Society misunderstands God's works from a biblical context.
But if God is flawed, if he makes mistakes, if he himself needs
to be forgiven, then that "awesome power" becomes tainted
and is not worth basking in. Divine truth demands perfection.
Bret Mavrich
freshman-liberal arts
Taking Bible excerpts out of context unfair
As a devout Christian, I find myself compelled to respond to Peter D. Buck's column challenging Judeo-Christian beliefs on March 3. It is clear to me and surely to anyone familiar with Bible scripture that Buck's "challenges" are poorly stated.
I would suggest that he try reading the entire Bible before he
randomly selects and interprets selections which most Bible scholars
understand must be examined in cultural and historical context.
In addition, Biblical texts are laden with symbolism and allegory
which becomes lost on those who fail to examine them properly.
I find Buck's claims that the Bible reduces God to "the likeliness
of an ill-tempered man who lacks the eternal patience, love and
justice" not only ridiculous but insulting.
The entire message of the New Testament, which Buck conveniently
neglects to mention, is one of love, hope, salvation and redemption.
I could go on to refute specifically the theological and doctrinal
errors of his statements, but suffice it to say that maybe one
so interested in getting people to search for the "TRUTH"
do a little more research before drawing such uneducated conclusions.
As much as I hate dignifying that column with a response, I had
to speak up. Buck should know that his casual blasphemy under
the guise or pretentious philosophizing has no place in a column
in which one claims to be seeking truth. Apparently he needs to
go back to Sunday school.
Sheryl Evans
Class of 1995
Christian God far from a fair being
This is in response to Nicholas A. LaBuda's letter to the editor on March 16, which claimed that God is a just being. Going by the principles of Christianity, God is anything but a just being.
The standard that is set by Christianity morality is in direct
opposition to human nature and the requirements of human life.
Because of this, it is by definition a standard that no human
being can live up to so inevitably every human will end up sinning.
So because you can't live a perfect life, God will instead grant
you mercy and let you into heaven if you surrender your soul to
Christ.
But if you don't surrender your soul to Christ -- perhaps because
you practice a different religion or perhaps because you don't
even believe that there is a God like myself -- then you are sentenced
to hell because you have failed to live up to an impossible standard.
How can anyone honestly think that this is just?
To draw an analogy here, it's like two parents expecting their
child to live up to an impossible standard that they've set and
saying to the child, "Because you can't live up to the impossible
standard that we've set for you the just thing for us to do is
to kill you. But, if you surrender your life to us and become
our slave, then we will grant you mercy and allow you to live."
In principle, there is no difference between this hypothetical
example and Christianity. The only differences are superficial
ones. The parents are God. Instead of killing the child for not
living up to an impossible standard, humans are sent to hell.
And instead of surrendering your life and being allowed to live,
humans must surrender their soul and they will be allowed into
heaven.
And the Christian God is supposed to be just and loving? He sounds
more like a power-lusting sadist to me. Christians have it backwards.
It is not human beings that are sinful and evil by nature. What's
evil by nature is their code that judges human beings against
an impossible standard, punishes then for failing to live up to
it and then offers them a loophole where they can sacrifice their
soul in order to avoid this punishment.
Michael Dahlen
junior-nutrition
