Biblical truth lived
If we would rebuild marriage we could rebuild America. Human history began with a marriage. "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Gen. 1:27
"God began with only one body. He formed one and from one made the second one. One body became two, male and female. And from this unity God says, 'A man will leave his father and mother and will be united to his wife and they will become one flesh.''' Gen. 2:24
God created marriage so that husbands and wives would love each other and become mothers and fathers to love and raise their children to live moral lifestyles and pursue their love for God. The destruction of marriage is destroying America. Many will not believe it but truth must be told. Sex outside of marriage between male and female is sinful and is destroying the image of God. Multitudes of children live with no fathers and are pursuing immoral lifestyles.
Many biblical references of Godly marriage are found in the Bible. Heb. 13:4 reveals "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." All humans are born with sinful natures and can be redeemed by the blood of Christ. If we would rebuild marriage, we could rebuild America.
— The Rev. Richard Aultman
No public outrage
The moral values of a political party is trumpeted by those they elect. There's no better example of this than the darlings of the Democratic Party: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They continue to prove themselves to be hideous and persistent liars. They support the wholesale slaughter of developing babies and the auctioning off of their body parts. And they abuse, misuse, ignore and undermine the nation's Constitution and its laws to advance political ideologies and personal agendas.
You expect public outrage, demands for resignations and mass defections by Democrats to protest the moral sewage their leaders embrace, promote and defend — not standing ovations.
— Travis L. Middleton
Metaphor showing truth
I disagree with Dr. Bill Cummings' criticism of Christians who base doctrines on the Genesis account of Adam and Eve ("The myth of creation," Feb. 28). Even if not interpreted literally, many still see the biblical story of creation as a symbolic representation of reality. In this case, it is a metaphor depicting truth rather than a work of fiction.
Primordial humanity fell from the grace of God through pride, desiring to be like God while not following in his ways (Gen. 3:1-6). God reveals what is good and what is evil, and it is in our best interest to accept his word for it. But the forbidden fruit mentioned in Genesis represents the desire to arbitrarily judge for oneself what is moral and permissible, and if one wants something that God says is sinful, one may say, "My will be done," rather than, "God's will be done." This failure to trust in God is another aspect of original sin, and we readily see its effects throughout each generation.
The immortality, peace and harmony depicted in the Garden of Eden were not only meant for the original humans, but for all their descendants. Such gifts were to be our inheritance, but sin caused the loss of them. Let us say that I inherited what was once a magnificent mansion, but my ancestors allowed it to fall into disrepair. Complaining how irresponsible they were and how unfair the situation is does not change the fact that I am living in a dilapidated house. Due to the sins of our ancestors (as well as our own), our world and our lives are in disorder.
Cummings depicts the doctrine of original sin as claiming a newborn baby to be "sinful and deserving of punishment if she should die without baptism." The understanding of original sin varies among theologians, but my response stems from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. First of all, the Catholic Church entrusts the salvation of unbaptized children to the mercy of God while still acknowledging that God has not given any specific revelation pertaining to this matter (CCC #1261). Secondly, original sin is the reality of our fallen human state, not a matter of what is "deserving of punishment." This is why "original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' — a state and not an act" (CCC #404).
Infants can inherit such things as genetic defects, disease and fetal alcohol syndrome. The fact that children are not "deserving" of such bad things is irrelevant; it happens as a consequence of the weakness of human nature. If we can pass on physical ailments to our children, then we can pass on a spiritual one as well (i.e., original sin). The good news is that in Christ is the power to free us from the original sin we inherit, absolve us of the personal sins we commit, and restore to us the gifts of immortality, peace and harmony (Romans 5:12-18).
— Fr. Eric R. Filmer
St. Patrick Catholic Church
The 99 percent
For thirty-five years our government, controlled by the 1 percent, has resulted in the rich (including Hillary Clinton) getting vastly richer while 99 percent of us get less secure daily. It is time for a change in Washington.
The 1 percent loves the way their friends in Washington are working. They do not want it to change and they are using every trick they have to get their candidate, Hillary, elected. Bernie will stand up to the 1 percent. With Bernie as president, we can reclaim our government. If you want a positive future for the 99 percent, Bernie needs all of our votes now.
— Patrick McDuff
In Thursday's paper, William D. Carter is critical of the GOP's stance on a nomination for a Supreme Court justice following Justice Scalia's death. Carter states, "The precedent that the GOP has set may haunt this country for decades. The judicial branch may become as dysfunctional as the executive and legislative branches. They should end the petty political grandstanding and just do their jobs." (I copied and pasted, just for the record.)
I would ask, what precedent has been set? More precise, who and (in) what party said it?
In 1992, then Sen. Joe Biden stood on the Senate floor and gave a feisty speech whereon he said, "It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
He closed with the following statement, "It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution." https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN/videos/10154179745680579/
S0, let's have a true discussion about precedents. Then-Sen. Biden almost got it right in his closing argument. Instead of saying "we will be in deep trouble" I argue that we are indeed already in deep trouble.
— Eddie Coffee