God wrongly viewed as angry, unjust

First of all, as a result of our own free will, our "human nature" is fallen and is inclined towards sin. Therefore, God's "standard," or rules, by which he wants us to live are guidelines to help us overcome our sinful nature. As we live by God's guidelines, we are able to love him more and enter more fully into God's grace. As a result, we experience true freedom when we surrender our lives to Christ, as opposed to Dahlen's misconception that we become slaves.

Secondly, he must understand that God does not "send" humans to hell. The "Angry God" philosophy is a modern misconception of God and not in accordance with Christ's teachings that have been preserved through the Scriptures and the holy traditions of the church.

When we consciously ignore God's guidelines we are sinning and reverting back to our sinful nature. And without repenting to bring ourselves closer to God we are choosing hell; God does not send us there.

Lastly, I would like to respond to Dahlen's analogy of God and parents. Where would you find parents prepared to die on the cross for the crimes of their child? Ordinary parents grieve and are sorry for their child who must be punished for his wrong-doings, but for all their pity they tell him that he has done wrong and that it is right that he should be punished for his crimes.

Indeed, our God is just and loving, and he loves every one of us whether or not we love him in return. That is a decision each and every one of us has to make on our own.

Hector Firoglanis
president of Orthodox Christian Fellowship

Article about panel misleading to reader

In response to Patricia K. Cole's article concerning my English 421 (Advanced Expository Writing) class in Friday's The Daily Collegian, I found it to be entirely misleading and poorly written.

My classmates, the panel and myself were grossly misquoted or paraphrased. The article was intended to be an outline of the format of English 421, as well as a summary of the very poignant panel discussion it held during class on Thursday, but it wasn't.

Advanced Expository Writing is by far the most exciting and productive class I have had the pleasure of being a part of. We have open-format discussions on issues ranging from capital punishment to ecological awareness, from applesauce to race relations.

Of course, the latter of these issues was the topic for the panel discussion and the subsequent travesty of reporting. Our instructor, Gigi Marino, felt it would be more productive to invite a panel of four black students and a moderator to discuss the issue of race relations, primarily the use of the word "nigger" and its meanings in various contexts and whether it's acceptable in any.

The meeting started with the class explaining how we began a discussion on the use of such a traditionally violent and degrading word. I explained that I use the word as a "term of endearment" -- thanks to Nikeeya James (junior-management science and information systems) -- with an exclusive group of white friends I have known for better than 15 or 20 years.

The panel then discussed its opinions, which I will not divulge for fear of misquoting, as this paper is infamous for. The discussion with this panel was passionate and lively.

Those who use "nigger" as a term of endearment and those who do not use it at all presented their arguments intelligently and professionally. Personally, I would like to have seen less political correctness, but that's just me.

We didn't change any policies or practices in class, which is hard to do in 75 minutes. We did however get a chance to freely discuss what is considered a taboo topic.

We argued and agreed. We did everything people are supposed to do when they're attempting to tackle a tough issue, and I am proud to have been a part of it.

I would like to thank the panel and my class for not being afraid to talk about such a sensitive issue. We can't afford to succumb to this fear any longer.

Russ Cote
junior-English