Letters to the editor: March 7
Joseph Matheson recently questioned Connor Sterchi’s consistency and “plain reading of Scripture” in his article about Genesis in regard to:
1-his description of a pre-sun “day.” Explicitly, God created light on day one to establish “day.” He even numbered all seven days to make it “plain reading.”
2-his reference to sin through Adam alone. The serpent and Eve were involved, but Adam is blamed as our representative which “plain reading” of the New Testament makes clear.
3-his failure to mention human contemporaries with Adam. “Plain reading” never says that they preceded Adam. They were his descendents, and yes, Cain married a sister.
4-his reference to sin before death, calling it “inconsistent with standard Christian theology.” “Plain reading” of Rom.5:12 says otherwise. God’s consistent words prevail above any humanly declared “standard.”
Sterchi, is then evaluated “in light of scientific facts” which change almost daily. Remember that God reveals himself through his Word and his world, but human interpretation of the latter is by definition fallible/”human” and should never be elevated to be equal to his infallible special revelation.
Fortunately, even fallible science increasingly supports and falls into harmony with what God told us in “plain reading.” Sterchi was correct.
The recent article on the revival of Prism was not clear whether Prism was published in 2010 or not. If I remember correctly, I have a copy of the 2010 Prism on one of my bookshelves at home, and it looks like the one Erin Smith is holding in the picture. In the article, Smith is quoted: “we can’t exactly corral all the people who graduated in 2011 and take their pictures.” Actually, the graduating class of 2011 did have their senior pictures taken at the 100 Days event in February. I don’t know where the pictures are, or if they even exist anymore, but we were photographed. We also had a chance to order the yearbook, and it was only after graduation that we were informed that Prism would not be published.
Tiffany Shomsky, ’11
I was astonished to read Jonathan Hielkema’s article concerning abortion in Chimes. The absurdity of some of his claims seems to come from a dislike of the opposing viewpoint and a desire to make them look bad by manipulating the issue as opposed to sound reasoning. The goal of the pro-life movement is to defend the sanctity of the life, but certainly also includes compassion and love.
Jonathan referred to the pro-life movement as “anti-choice.” I don’t think that’s very appropriate because the heart of the debate concerning abortion isn’t the issue of a choice, but whether or not an unborn baby is a human life created by God, and Jonathan stayed well clear of that topic. If the fetus is not a life, but simply a mass of tissue, most people would agree that the mother has the right to get rid of it. However, if an unborn baby is a human life created in God’s image, that baby has rights from his creator, and it’s very difficult to defend granting someone the right to take that life.
Whether a woman should have the right to opt for abortion stems from the issue of whether or not an unborn baby is a life. Therefore, labeling pro-life advocates as sexist, racist or anti-choice is deceitful; it tries to make this an issue about racial, gender or rights in order to paint pro-life people in a negative light, steering far away from the true issue.
Conrad Blom, ‘14