Both Testaments teach right, wrong
Ethel Robinson’s Feb. 17 letter “Trump’s revenge is Old Testament style” demeans President Trump’s speaking of faith and prayer. But, of course, Christians should not judge others’ prayers, since we can’t hear them, nor see into hearts when they’re said.
More disturbing, however, is her saying that President Trump and his followers “need to venture from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the latter, she writes, containing the “themes” of love and forgiveness, as if the former does not.
She references Matthew 5:43, where Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, says the instruction to “love your neighbor and hate your enemy,” must be corrected to loving your enemies as well.
Jesus, however, would never alter the Old Testament. What He is correcting, as He does elsewhere in the Sermon, are changes to the Old Testament made by pharisaical Scribes.
The vast majority of commentary on this verse supports this view. John Calvin said it best: “Christ does not introduce new laws, but corrects the wicked glosses of the Scribes, by whom the purity of the divine law had been corrupted.”
In terms of right and wrong, and in how we treat others, all Christians are Old Testament and New Testament.
Collins Park is a bad place for a firehouse
I started to read the Feb. 16 newspaper and was confronted with a most terrible news story — moving Scotia firehouse to Collins Park. This is unacceptable.
This park is an oasis in Scotia. People stroll through it and have picnics there, and children play in the playground as well as utilize the basketball courts and tennis courts.
Now, I know that proponents will say that none of that will be affected. Really? The noise factor of engines roaring out would seriously affect the bucolic nature of our wonderful park. The library is a peaceful gathering place, but not any longer if the firehouse comes.
Traffic, especially coming off the bridge, would be disastrous.
There are other sites to utilize, not ever Collins Park.
Progressive nominee is doomed to fail
The progressive presidential candidates are angry, but when it comes to other species suffering, I hear mostly silence.
The fact that they don’t vote, is that the reason?
Top U.S. corporations, the Federal Reserve and a huge number of Democrats in Congress wouldn’t be considered progressive. If the progressive candidates ever win, it’s hard to say their own party will be on their side, and the corporations and Federal Reserve won’t be. A president who is truly progressive would have it much harder than Barack Obama did.
Our population growth is slowing. Progressive policies are likely to reverse the trend.
A progressive president would have to address this problem quickly, and I don’t think they’re interested in this subject.
Focusing only on the United States doesn’t seem very progressive-like to me. Foreigners should be included, too. Even if we reduce our consumption and our birth rate doesn’t rise too much due to progressive policies, foreigners consuming a lot more due to higher standards of living presents problems.
With a much smaller population 150 years ago, progressive policies had potential to briefly help our citizens. Today if we ever have a progressive president, expect them to fail just like their conservative counterpart.