News-Record.com

Tom: take a reading comprehension course.

Tom,
You speak my mind....
Those who hold temselves up as experts on religion frequently have no idea they are misrepresenting the basis for any/all religions. We have to be careful, whatever our spiritual leanings, not to let those who superimpose their (often) mistaken ideas, rooted in secular interpretations of the sacred, be the spokesperson for any belief system.
If you profess to be Christian, I suggest you look to the Scriptures for guidance, not the N&R.

My first thought upon reading this letter was the same as JDR. If Tom's reading comprehension of the scriptures is as incomplete as his comprehension of McLaughlin's article, he is speaking of things he knows little about. Bless his heart.

And if anyone would know about that it would be Yvonne...

I meant "reactions" that are "downright cruel .. bigotry" is not the same as the father (male) and mother (female) being "cruel and bigoted".

James,

Thanks for the clarification.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

12Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

I especially love verse 12. Calling people cruel and bigoted for speaking their beliefs is walking in darkness, IMO. Speaking your beliefs to hurt or degrade others is also walking in darkness.

to add a little balance to what n.p. posted .........

Jhn 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
(hopefully some will be familiar with the rest of this story)

i believe it important to take scripture as a whole - nits example teaches 'us' to not be so judgemental - but this in no way negates Gods role in judging all people. Jesus admonished the healed man to not continue sinning unless something worse would come upon him.

Very true, Buz. Even in what I posted, Jesus does not stand in judgement or condemnation of the woman but does instruct the woman to 'go and sin no more'.

The book of John really does go a long way to point towards both the divinity of Jesus, his compassion for people, and his disgust with those who can't see the true substance and actions of love.

Ah, it is "Gay Days" at the N & R once again! How wonderful.

I think JDR is correct in both postings above.

nit, the last part; "Speaking your beliefs to hurt or degrade others is also walking in darkness." is good. I like the context more so than the wording. I believe that even those who are in/walk in the Light can say/do things in poor ways. Does that make them completely wrong? I do not feel that it does.

I just wonder, if having two parents of same gender can "ruin" a child; what does it do to a child to have only one parent? Or even more, what does it do to a child to have only one parent who has a different "companion" ever so often?

I find it highly hypocritical of the heterosexual community to feel so threatened by the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) community; especially in regards to the "traditional family unity." It would seem that the heterosexual community would be more than glad for someone to teach it/them a better way. The last time I saw statistics on the "marriage/family unit," the divorce rate was 50%-52%. That is not good!

And when one considers the number of heterosexual households where the couple are not married, what does that say to society?

I find it highly offending for people with strong religious (whatever religion they are affiliated) to impose their belief structure on those who are not of that "flavor."

What most people of this belief forget is that the GLBT community is not seeking church/religious acceptance. That is up to each individual denomination. Rather, the GLBT community is seeking the basic rights bestowed upon their heterosexual counterparts; nothing more, nothing less!

Shalom

"It would seem that the heterosexual community would be more than glad for someone to teach it/them a better way. "

That has got to be the most asinine comment I've ever read.

I find it highly offending for people with strong religious (whatever religion they are affiliated) to impose their belief structure on those who are not of that "flavor.

" Unless you are of a different "flavor" than you.

Rather, the GLBT community is seeking the basic rights bestowed upon their heterosexual counterparts; nothing more, nothing less!

This would be to mate with each other and produce offspring, correct?

I think I'll let Romans Chapter 1 verses 20-32 in
in The King James Version of "The Holy Bible"make my statement.

I must agree with Bishop's comment above.

I guess I'm just not enlightened enough yet.

Gee, I see all the religious fanatics are out and about today! What? Didn't go to worship yesterday, so now, all of you are spewing your
souls of deliverance.

Oh, what the hell...let me join in! Remember this,

"For God so loved the world. That he gave His only begotten son. That whosoever, believeth in
HIM, shall not perish. But have everlasting life."

With that said, I shall always believe in HIM. No
matter what comes before me.

Darryl,

I appreciate your comments. You make some good points regarding failed marriages and single-parent children. However, I don't think that should end the discussion. Kinda goes along with two wrongs don't make a right, IMO.

There is no biological way for people of the same gender to have children. So, the only way for them to have children together is through adoption or fertilization, etc. Should that be legal? Should it be encouraged or discouraged?

Would it be better for a child to be raised in an orphanage? What about severely handicapped children?

Those are tough questions that merit discussion.

Darrryl, I agree that people can say things in poor ways. Sometimes they can be misinterpreted. Sometimes, it is the context. And sometimes the intent is just plain wrong.

I think intent is the biggie and that we all often look to pick apart others instead of acknowledging our own faults.

nit, thanks for those kind words.

However, I do not feel that this LTTE nor the article to which it seeks to rebut is about whether or not GLBT people are able to pro-create. The article and this LTTE are about GLBT people/couples adopting children.

If gender relationships are added into the mixture, then adoption just needs to stop and place children in orphanages and left there.

On another note, I know of people (both individuals and couples) that have no RIGHT whatsoever bearing and attempting to rear children! To say that a GLBT person/couple are not qualified is unwarranted. A person's sexual identity has no bearing whatsoever on that person/couple's ability to rear a child.

Shalom

`

Tom,
You need to take a chill pill. Are you threatened by homosexuals? Is that a big phobia of yours or are you just ignorant?
Why don't you lighten up, live and let live. I'm sure we wouldn't have to look far to find some portion of your "lifestyle" to find something for the right wingers to hate.
Let me enlighten you a tad;

Rev. Pat Robertson got his wife "knocked up" before they were married.
Rev. Ted Haggard, who preached AGAINST homosexuals, is in fact, not only a homosexual, but a crystal meth user, and a hypocrite.
Rev. Jimmy Swaggart preached against pornography, but just loved to watch live naked women masturbate.
Rev. Coy Privette, Republican official and minister, was recently "outed" for using the services of a prostitute.

My point? Your letter is crap and your life must be too, for you to take the time to pen such a shallow screed against homosexuals.

`

TLC
If you're going to attack someone for their beliefs, why not stick to what they said? Tom's comments merely stated that the reference to someone who doesn't share the belief that gays should be allowed to adopt children as "cruel and bigoted" is ridiculous. Are we no longer allowed an opinion in this country anymore? But you go on to revile all manner of ministers who have sinned. What does that have to do with the comment Tom made. You'll be the first in line to scream about the rights that have been taken away in this country by the Republican president since 9/11. But free speech has been knocked down by liberals like yourself. The one who needs to take a chill pill is you.

All you right-wing religous nuts just can't take the fact that gays are here to stay! Lots of Republicans who said they are against gays were found out to be gay THEIRSELVES! You can thump your bible all you want to, but that doesn't change anything about equal rights for everybody. Your ignorant phobias just show how stupid you really are! the list TLC wrote could be a lot loonger and you KNOW it.

Kudos Chicken Little. I should be amazing that someone could make the following supposition about someone they do not know, but with Demon Deacon, no surprise at all.

"I'm sure we wouldn't have to look far to find some portion of your "lifestyle" to find something for the right wingers to hate."

BTW Demon Deacon, I noticed you conveniently left out the "Rev" Jesse Jackson and his love child. Gee golly whiz how coulda that one been omitted? Oh that's right, Jesse Jackson is a liberal!!!!

Here is a trusted BBC link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1123890.stm

BTW, I don't defend Haggard & Co. they are slime and deserve their just rewards. Just noticed the slight omission of Jesse J, the most famous "Reverend" of the political left.

Doonnnnnnnkkkaaaay. Your grammar and spelling are improving, keep up the good work!! You are Demon Deacon sans typing skills.

`

Little Dan,
Jesse Jackson is an opportunist and I did leave him out. Didn't think the lte writer could identify as much with Jackson as he could with some of his "own" kind. As far as hypocrisy goes, Jackson belongs right there with the others in my short list.
Glad you've recovered from your ass whooping on another thread.

`

Darryl,

I didn't read the original article so I'm not sure whether the lte writer has a point or not. I do know that it is often the case that people get labeled or demonized because of their beliefs. Whether they be gay or fundamental Christian, I don't think it's productive.

`

Dan said:
"Kudos Chicken Little. I should be amazing that someone could make the following supposition about someone they do not know, but with Demon Deacon, no surprise at all."

ANOTHER DEEP POST FROM OUR LITTLE FELLA, DAN.

(At least he didn't refer to himself in the third person here! LOL!)

`

"I'm sure we wouldn't have to look far to find some portion of your "lifestyle" to find something for the right wingers to hate." Talk about deep posts, they're your words not mine.

Glad you agree on Jesse at least and I will assume it was a totally honest omission.

`

Little Dan,
Keep talking about yourself in the third person. It is not only revealing but especially amusing.

`

For all who take everything in the Bible literally, please explain the great lesson "God" sent us in this story.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=judges%2019&version=31

Dan is glad to oblige.

Poor little Dan. Doesn't know that he doesn't know! Probably has no idea that his third person speech is window into his soul. God bless the children.

To dismiss God or the Bible due this single passage that you do not misunderstand is your perogative but given the possible importance of your actions, it might be worth a more thorough examination. There are incredible examples of how the bible holds up to examination even thousands of years later.

Here's one interpretation (among many) of the story that I found with a simple Google:

http://www.mattjonesblog.com/2006/02/02/judges-19/

This story of the concubine does not make sense by itself. How could something like this appear here? And more importantly, how do we hear God’s love and Good News in this horrible event? This story must be looked at as part of the larger metanarrative, the greater story of Judges. Judges 2:10 states: “All that generation also were gathered to their fathers; and there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel.” This is a VERY common theme throughout Judges. God lets Israel have its own way, and things get bad. A Judge is raised up to correct things, dies, and things get bad again. Not only does this cycle keep going, but it gets progressively worse. Each time a judge dies, the people disobey in even greater ways. There is degradation in each cycle. Judges 17-21 is the concluding section to Judges and we find two disturbing stories there that illustrate just how bad things have gotten. The first is about the house of Dan who have sold out and given themselves over to worshiping graven images and the second is the story of the concubine. This concluding section of Judges is bracketed with 17:6 and 21:25, both of which say the same thing: In those days Israel had no king and every man did what was right in his own eyes. Both 18:1 and 19.1 also reiterate that Israel had no king. The stories there are about what life becomes like when there is no king, how national life suffers; people just do what is right in their own eyes. 19.24 says, “Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man.” That can be literally translated as “do whatever is good in your eyes” linking it back to the previous references. The author also calls these men “worthless fellows” or literally “sons of Belial” meaning sons of darkness or evil, sons of darkness, lords of the night (if you want more of the Hebrew root here, let me know). These men had sunk so low, they were below human, people of death, people of night. The point? When there is no king, no ruler, people do what is right in their own eyes and end up sons of Belial.

Where is the Good News in this? This repetition of “no king… no king… no king…” leaves us longing for a king, and for good reason. Without a king, the people fall. This points to the coming action of God and the raising of a king, a king whose influence is not temporary, one who moves people from sons and daughters of Belial to sons of daughters of light. This story is not prescriptive, but descriptive. This is not how things are supposed to be. We need to look towards the king. Of course, this isn’t fulfilled until Jesus Christ in the New Testament and as we live in the “now, but not yet” Kingdom of God, we will not see the completion of this until His return. This passage reveals Israel’s extraordinary need for a king and their desperation. It is not difficult to map that onto our own current situation with desperation all around us.

This section of Judges is very difficult to handle. I think that Johnson bravely tackled it and was able to deal with it in a healthy way. There is much more that can be done exegetically and hermeneutically that would also provide deeper meaning to this passage. I hope this was a helpful introduction to a difficult subject.

Nitpicker, I do not dismiss God. I do dismiss those who say that the Bible is the WORD of GOD. It is the word of heterosexual men. There are many great lessons in the Bible, many good stories, but there are also many examples of the times in which they were written. Remember that there were MANY books to choose from, and Judges was chosen by MEN.

I see those who worship the Bible as worshiping graven images.

Women were held in low regard, as seen in the story from Judges.

If everyone lived their lives according to the teachings of Jesus, no one would be excluded or belittled because of the way that God made them.

NanP,
You speak my mind!

Here's the story you won't hear "little Dan" and "neo" talking about-----

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&from=00&vid=16eb4110-52c1-4a61-9865-0663deaf252c&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:Source_Countdown:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

Or this one:

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071013/GPG0101/710130528/1207/GPGnews

Or this one:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi5eZOrtHs2NAhldX5tp4so8EROgD8SKHU800

What is it with these "CONSERVATIVES"????
It's beginning to look like the GOP has MORE gay people than the Dems---only difference is, the GOP gays are vile hypocrites. Like that surprises anyone...!

`