News-Record.com

AMEN! Brother Ramsey, you are right on the money. I will never forget when a USAIR flight crashed into an empty house in Charlotte....the family had gone on their first vacation in 20 years. At a press conference, the man stepped to a bank of microphones and said, "God did not want us to die". So I thought, "What about the 200 people who perished in the crash? Were they all just rock gut sinners?"

Great LTE. Maybe you can join the pastors who want to teach "parenting". (ie. yesterday's LTE's.)

Alright, lets stop the presses. The media should not longer print anything that might offend someone.

For every story of survival, there could be a consequence of offending someone who had a love one that didn't survive. For every story about success, there could be a consequnece of offending someone who didn't succeed. For every wedding announcement published, there could be a consequence of offending someone who got stood up at the alter. For every story about the health benefits of being is shape, there could be a consequence of offending an overweight person.

This letter is, in my opinion, foolish. To say that the original article could be considered cruel and callous means nothing. Absolutely nothing. If the writer of this letter considers the article cruel, than I certainly can't argue with his feelings, they are his and his alone. But the article was not written to be cruel and callous. Because his (somewhat perplexing to me) viewpoint sees it as cruel and callous does not change the nature of the article, it's intentions, nor it's point.

Just about everything written, published, spoken, etc. may offend someone, somewhere somehow. By saying this article could be construed as cruel and callous states nothing. The article was not published in an effort to offend anyone. There is nothing wrong with the article. If it offends you so terribly, perhaps you should learn to relax.

God doesn't always give us what we think we want. People die. Wow, what great observations.

I agree with Swanks that anyone could be hurt or offended by just about any story. So what do you do? Shut down the newspaper?

What happens if they do a story about a cancer survivor? Does that mean that everyone who has lost someone to cancer should be up in arms?

What I read between the lines is that David Ramsey (I'm guessing not DAVE Ramsey) has a deep-seeded resentment and anger towards God because God didn't do as David wanted at a point in the past. Many of us have experienced the pain of not understanding why God let's bad things happen to people.

But I'd say that is an issue David needs to take up with God, not the News & Record.

Many of us, NOT NECESSARILY DAVID, keep God in a small box. We tell Him when and how He can be involved in our lives. We don't follow Him in our daily lives. We don't follow His instructions for how to live our lives. We have no true relationship with Him. We envision Him as this safety blanket that we call on whenever we need His help or a miracle. Then, when He fails to do what WE want, we get mad and stomp off.

The good thing is that God is always waiting for us with open arms when we cool down and return to Him.

I'm not judging David or anyone cause I'm twice as guilty of the same things. Even many Christians treat God (the creator of the Universe and everything in it) with less love and respect than we treat our pets. If God was fair, he would have smoked us out centuries ago.

We deserve nothing but have been given the gift of everything.

DD you must have read the same way as DMI did. No where in the article did it say that pastors wanted to teach parenting. It stated that pastors should be using their pulpits, which I believe is were they belong, to teach the lessons of parenting to their congregations, which is part of their duty as a pastor.
I will agree that if pastors taught what was needed from their pulpits concerning family and parents we would need less government intervention into the family. If churches did their duty in regard to the poor we would need less government welfare as well. .

With all of the incredible arrogance, pride, insensitivity, cruelty, bad judgement and neglect that have surrounded this war, we should blame God for a soldier's death? Get a life!

Swanks your right. Some forget that there is "A time to live, a time to die, a time to sow and and time to reap" Also there is another saying that "it is given man once to die..." Don't believe that we get to pick and choose when we are born or when we die.

DD,

Since you remember that plane crash so clearly, about when did it occur? I cannot recall a USAIR plane crash in or around Charlotte that killed 200 people.

Yellow Dog,
Try late 80's early 90's. They put the guy on every news outlet. The number may have been 100 or so, but it was not your small crash as everyone perished. At the time, I took the Charlotte Observer, so it had to be during the 80's or the very early 90's. You may not be old enough to remember.
****************
Swanks,
Ramsey could clean your clock on logic and religion. Has Divinity degree from Duke and attended Yale Divinity too. Where in the letter does he say "CENSOR" ? He points out the ridiculous nature of the article through facts. If you are an "His eye is on the sparrow" Baptist, then I am sure you will continue to disagree with Ramsey's logic. That doesn't make you right, and Ramsey wrong.

YellowDog,
Check out this site.
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/details.aspx?f=-1&WMGUID=7c07bcd2-bb1b-4a5b-9741-67513bb1aa09

I was WRONG about the number of people who perished as it was 37. Before 9/11, 37 dead seemed very large.

I've been around long enough to remember it. I just don't. Having a tough time finding it through internet searches too. Doesn't matter, though. Just curious. Our airports have been pretty fortunate to not have many large jet plane crashes with fatalities (knock on wood) or at least I thought so anyway.

I understand David's point. I disagree with the comment to swanks about his degrees. Degrees didn't mean squat with Jesus when he was on earth and I doubt they do too. Although, I do understand that a lecture aimed at him might be fruitless.

DD,

Just missed your post before posting mine. Thanks for the clarification. I know what you mean. Our definition of what is 'big' is always changing. To those who lost loved ones, I'm sure it was big enough, though.

I gotta get off this subject. I'm gettin depressed.

DD,

I care nothing for David's degrees. You know nothing about any degree or education that I may possess. Your opinion on who is more qualified to speak on matters of religion and logic, between David and myself, are irrelevant in this context.

David addressed a point, that the original article could be considered cruel and callous. The underlying contention is that the newspaper should not print such mean spirited rubbish. My contention is that any article could be considered by someone, somewhere to be offensive. And this article, I would be willing to bet, was found by more people to be inspirational than cruel. The nature and purpose of the article was to be inspirational.

If someone, through their own view on life, takes an article that is meant to be inspirational and sees it as cruel, then that is something they must come to terms with themselves. If that article could be just so offensive to some people as to cause them pain and anguish, then I truly pitty them, for this article will be the least of the hardships they will be faced with in this world.