Read Zac Smith's original column: Story of Jesus a ‘pervasive nonsensicality’
Column was erroneous
In his Tuesday column, Zac Smith made some errors on his interpretation of Christian ideas.
The first regards the immaculate conception, which is not the conception of Jesus inside of Mary.
It is about the sinless nature of Mary, who “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.” –Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus.
Also, the given references, Luke 1:31-35 and Acts 13:23, are not related to the Immaculate Conception, nor are they contradictory. Luke 1:31-35 states that Mary would give birth to a son who will be called the Son of the Most High, and given the Throne of his father David; Acts 13:23 says God has brought forth a savior for Israel from the line of David.
Jesus, by way of his foster-father, Joseph, is the descendent of David, and by his divine nature, God. It’s a theme that is repeated and corroborated throughout scripture, not contradicted.
The understanding of salvation also is flawed. We are presented with Revelation 21:27, which states no sinner may enter Heaven, theoretically putting us in an awkward position, since we are all sinners according to Romans 3:23.
These statements are both very true. Jesus then is offered as an illogical loophole to the predicament. This oversimplification misrepresents the truth.
The comparisons to mythology are simply too broad to be thoroughly considered in the scope of this writing. There are some generalities that can be made though.
Namely, the pagan stories you see related to Jesus often are very warped from their original form to make them appear similar to the story of Jesus, even to the extent of imposing Christian terminology onto the myths. If you were to read the mythologies outside of the context of comparison to Jesus, you will find similarities much less apparent or meaningful.
The column was, for the most part, a series of disconnected one-liners.
A general lack of understanding is displayed by the doctrines discussed. Accusations are dropped without any follow up, and in some cases the Bible verses given do not correspond to the statement at hand.
A fuller understanding of the topics at hand should be expected in columns.
-Colin Osborne, architectural engineering sophomore
Criticize other religions
Regardless of how offensive Zac’s Staff Column entitled ‘Story of Jesus a ‘pervasive nonsensicality’ might be to some Christians, I do support his right to publish his views. Freedom of speech is a keystone of the university experience.
Unfortunately for OU, the only religion that is fair game for such an aggressive and noxious diatribe is Christianity.
I would challenge Zac to write a series of columns dissecting Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, Catholics, Native American Church, VooDoo, Scientology or whatever.
However, I am not going to hold my breath because I know anything negative can not be published in The Daily about any religion except Christianity.
-Arthur Allen, liberal studies graduate student
Column lacked argument
In response to Zac Smith’s Tuesday column, I would contest the column’s argument itself, but I couldn’t find it. Well, actually, I found a whole slew of incoherent thoughts that I thought might be trying to pass for arguments, but most of them could be summed up with the phrase, “The Bible is stupid.”
I find it difficult to believe that he could find no works of literature more insightful than a children’s series and a comic book.
If the article erroneously used the phrase “extra-Biblical” to mean “not in a religious text,” the statement is wrong. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus specifically mentions Christ’s crucifixion in his Annals of Tacitus.
If he’s going to completely dismiss one of the oldest and most profound works of literature that the human race has ever created, I recommend Smith replaces it with something more mature.
Before he does, I suggest he apologize to us, his readers, for wasting our time.
Maybe the next time he sets out to insult someone else’s beliefs, he will do so in a way that isn’t an embarrassment to his newspaper and his college.
-Becca Skupin, University College freshman
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
firefly 3 years ago
JJanowiak (for all his numerous comments) hasn't paid much attention to content of the Daily. Political correctness, not "infantile views" or "freshman year Christian persecution" is what keeps columnists from writing critically about other religions. Perhaps JJanowiak could get off his high horse and write a column instead of just demeaning others. Nah... too much work.
JJanowiak 3 years ago
What ARE you talking about firefly? What religious political correctness have you seen? Please enlighten us.
BillUhvrights 3 years ago
Given only a superficial reading of my comments about Zac's column I can understand how JJanowiak would jump to the conclusion that I was defending Christianity. However, my intent (sorry you missed it) was to promote fair journalism. In fact, I think Zac's column was fairly well written whether one agrees with it or not. I still invite Zac or Janowiak to be equal opportunity bashers of religion. Maybe read Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses and then do a hachet job on the Quran. When we see that in the Daily then I will believe its editors and writers are fair and honest. Note to Janowiak: It is a sign of intelluctual maturity when one can disagree without name calling like 'infantile' or 'persecution complex'. signed Arthur Allen, not anonymous.
BillUhvrights 3 years ago
To firefly, Well put.
acsooner 3 years ago
Please. No more. Can't take it... ughhhh...
JJanowiak 3 years ago
For being a grad student, Arthur Allen has a pretty infantile view of what "is" or "isn't" allowed in the Daily. I've seen some occasional stuff about Muslims here, and I'm sure that the editor, being as Christian as he is, wouldn't hold his breath publishing something about another religion if a columnist was willing to write about it. Maybe it's time to revisit freshman year to get over that Christian persecution complex he still has.
dio 3 years ago
Will I be forced to troll this again or you guys at OU Daily get the message?
OU Daily: Jesus fight three times a semester.
JJanowiak 3 years ago
Also firefly: I was talking about the letter writer's infantile views about what will or won't fly, not columnists, although when it comes to Zac Smith and scripture it's true. And getting off my "high horse" to write a column instead of commenting? Hey, maybe you missed that whole part where you're using the comment system to... leave comments.
It must be nice having that crystal ball that lets you see in the newsroom where all these column topics are shot down because of political correctness. The editors will publish almost ANYTHING no matter how poorly researched it is; the reason can't be the obvious answer that the columnists are simply more familiar with Christianity because almost everyone in Norman is a Christian.
JJanowiak 3 years ago
You can't get more superficial than "However, I am not going to hold my breath because I know anything negative can not be published in The Daily about any religion except Christianity." I don't know how it's possible to misread something like that or why you can't understand that the Daily focusing on Christianity happens because the columnists just feel like writing about Christianity. Your belief that there's some kind of censorship or political correctness happening that gags people IS infantile. Maybe if OU was full of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Voodoo-ists and animists (the largest of all of them are tiny compared to Christians) you'd be right but as the main religion we have to deal with here is Christianity, it makes perfect and non-conspiratorial sense for columnists to stick with what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as being familiar with.
I bet several columnists HAVE thought about writing about Islam, but a college-age non-Muslim can't help but sense an enormous gap of background knowledge and context to pin their name on criticism of Islam. It's usually the same way with Christianity, but what matters more is the columnists' self-perception.
And come on, the editors shouldn't have run Smith's column because it was, contrary to what you say, incredibly poorly-written and chock full of factual errors that the editor is supposed to catch.
I'm just an undergraduate and I don't profess to know that much about religions given that I don't belong to one, but I'd expect a little more depth of analysis from a graduate student.