This is Viewpoints for Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2016
Guilty of treason?
Bill Ferguson usually writes fair, reasonable columns. His writing is clear and refreshing. I am sometimes astonished that someone of his caliber lives in Warner Robins. He has said that sometimes he plays devil's advocate to see what public reaction he can elicit. That must have been what he was doing in the column titled, "Welcome to the Divided States of America." His referring to Hillary Clinton as "a woman who committed brazen acts of treason while serving as secretary of state" may be in that vein.
However, if not, I hope he will look up the definition of treason and explain how her actions fit this characterization.
Does he not know that at least eight committees in the House and Senate have investigated her and her emails and Benghazi?
If they had found she had committed treason, do you think they would not see that she was prosecuted? What foreign government was she trying to betray the United States to? Come on, I thought Ferguson was a conservative, but independent of the two parties? Has he caught what is ailing Donald Trump?
— John Ricks
Cochran
Fist etiquette
In my time the handshake along with eye contact revealed a lot about a man's character. And a gentlemen removed his hat in the presence of a lady; if she stood with her arms at her side pleasantries were exchanged. If she extended her hand the gentleman would grasp it gently; if romance was on his mind or to express affection, he kissed it and if offering condolences or comfort, he covered it with his left hand.
All of this is being replaced by an assortment of confusing fist bumps.
Sometimes people's fists barely touch before returning to their original state. Other times they bump softly, quietly say boom, open their fists and slowly wiggle their fingers at each other. Then there's the hard bumps when the bumpers say boom real loud and their fists spring open and their fingers wiggle all over the place.
If offered a fist how hard should I punch the offering? Should I say boom and finger-wiggle? If I do how loud should the boom be and which finger-wiggling ritual should I use? Being from a generation of handshakes, would it be OK if I just shook my fist at their fist?
— Travis L. Middleton
Peach County
Love and justice
Ref: "The blasphemy called 'Atonement'" by Bill Cummings, Sunday, Jan. 31 2016. Dr. C. says, "No sane dad would ever hurt his son for any reason." My wife and I have reared four sons who needed discipline from time to time. In my view, it was worthless discipline if it didn't hurt. No discipline — no love. Solomon said that in "Prov. 3:11-12.
Dr. C. quotes a Stephen Johnson, "Punishing an innocent person for the transgressions of another is blatantly immoral and unjust." Maybe so, if the 'innocent person' isn't a volunteer. But the statement that punishment is not transferable is not the way the coverage for "uninsured motorists" works. I understand during the Civil War, many folks would pay for another to stand in for their military obligation. That sounds to me like "one life for another."
My definition of justice is "paying for damage sustained plus the trouble of repairing it." A broken window is paid for by the perpetrator, or the victim, or someone else; or it stays broken. Dr. C. then confuses love with justice. You can love all you want, but it won't fix your broken window or restore your stolen item.
Why did Jesus have to die to show love? Why didn't he just keep on healing and ministering? If Dr. C. wants his sins paid for with love, justice will not be satisfied, nor will God. (I Peter 3:18, Romans 4:25)
— Richard A. Ulrich, M.D.
Bonaire
Questioning God
I've been reading Dr. Bill Cummings' columns on Sunday for a few months. Until now, I chalked up some of his opinions as just a different perspective of the same idea. That all changed with this past Sunday's column. Cummings comparison of atonement to blasphemy is an atrocious reach into the netherlands of Christian doctrine, and his line of reasoning falls flat. He even predicts a response such as this, from those "Bible-thumpers" as he likes to call us.
I take exception to his assessment of the doctrine of atonement, and most students of scripture who claim to be followers of Jesus would as well, I'm sure. While some nonessential doctrines of the nature of God and his gospel can be debated, depending on interpretation, the doctrine of atonement is evident throughout the course of scripture.
Old Testament prophecies from the prophet Isaiah tell us it actually "pleased the father to bruise him" (him, being the son). It also goes further saying that by the son's stripes "we are healed."
If Jesus was executed just because of the cultural relationships he developed (as Cummings claims), why was his prayer to the father to "let this cup pass from me"? Why was his burden so great that sweat drops appeared on his forehead? Would a sovereign God allow his son to die a most horrible death just to appease the masses, or to prove a point about temporal, earthly relationships?
Throughout the whole of scripture, the doctrine of atonement is evidenced by the vicarious sacrifice of the son; prophesied in the Old Testament and documented and taught in the New Testament.
In his reasoning, God is not a good "father" if the doctrine of atonement is true. How would Cummings (or any of us fathers, for that matter) rightly judge how an eternal God, outside of space and time, bring to pass what he desires? My response would be similar to Paul's question to the Roman church, "Who are you to question God"?
— The Rev. Heath Holly
Pastor, Community Fellowship
Reynolds
This story was originally published February 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM with the headline "This is Viewpoints for Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2016 ."