Jeff Green | Mar 31, 2005
Letters, March 31, 2005
Letters March 31 2005LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb Home
Contact UsRe: Same-sex marriage
I commend and admire the Reverend Jean Brown for the compassion and courage she has shown.
In response to her letter, there has been a repetition of scanty Biblical quotesmostly Leviticus 20:13. In Old Testament days, no one knew about DNA, or that a fair percentage of the whole animal kingdom is homosexual. Does God make junk?
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Over the centuries, the homosexual community has given much of great value to the human race in all walks of life: music, art, literature, politics and religions. The Old Testament condones polygamy and slavery. It lumps women and slaves with animals as mans property. It also has the story of God ordering his chosen people to kill all the men, women, children and animals of another tribe. These are practices we no longer condone as we grope our way toward God.
Instead of throwing Bible quotes like stones at those we do not understand, let us begin practising the love and compassion of God that was incarnate in Jesusfor Heavens sake!
- Dorothy Proctor
BEWARE church leaders and intellectuals spouting church doctrine at the expense of the word of God. Rev 22:19 warns about adding or taking from Gods word. God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and the holy city.
Our walk with God is an individual decision between us and God. We must each seek His face and make a personal commitment to Him. Our link to Him is His word. Phil: 2:12 Work out your salvation with fear and trembling."
We must beware of leading others astray! Matt:18:6 Tells us the consequences of doing this "It would be better for him that a large millstone be hung around his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea." The issue here is you either believe ALL of Gods word or you dont. 2 Tim.3:5 warns us about these kind of people "they have a form of godliness denying the power thereof." Gods word is the power we need to feed our soul.
Gods word is the truth Isa: 44:19 "I the Lord speak the truth." Gods word is based on His character Num. 23:19 God is not a man that He can lie. Therefore Gods word is literal, infallible, and incapable of error!
All scripture is God breathed -2 Tim.3:16. By who? The Holy Spirit! This is its purpose "His word is for rebuking, correcting, and training in all righteousness." If we want to be right with God we had better not question His word but obey it. Matt. 14: 25-26 tells us the Holy Spirit will teach you all things. We dont need man to tell us what to believe. God is an equal opportunity God. We are all equal in His eyes. We dont have to be an intellectual or scholar to understand His word.
There are not two bibles - one for the so called wise and one for others. Job 5:13 He catches the wise in their craftiness and the schemes of the crafty are washed away. James 1:5: If you want wisdom just ask for it. Matt. 24:35 "Heaven and earth will pass away but my word will never pass away".
If we reject Gods word we reject Jesus Christ. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus was the Word in the flesh.
Now based on Gods word lets look at the issue of same sex marriage. It has been said in a previous article that Jesus said nothing. In Matt. 19:4 Jesus quoted Gen.1: 23-24 in reference to marriage and divorce, confirming the importance of this passage in scripture. "Haven't you heard, He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and they shall be one."
John 14:15 If you love Me obey My commands. When God says "Do not steal" He doesn't mean you can steal with an explanation. What is so hard to understand? When God says no it is no. God explains how he feels about homosexual behaviour and its consequences in Gen: 19; Lev. 18:22; Romans 1. 24-27; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 6-7.
Luke 10:27 Love your neighbour as yourself. To do this we must separate the act from the person. Love the person, dislike the act. God does not teach prejudice towards our fellow man. On the contrary. Jesus was not a whimp. He told it like it was to the church people (the Pharisees) and others alike. He still healed them, loved them, and ultimately died for them. He loved them enough to tell them the truth in love as we should: John 8:11 " Go now and leave your life of sin."
I challenge anyone who has questions about this issue to read Gods word and pray about it. Ask God His perspective. Opinions, doctrine, arguing, and debating cannot stand against Gods word. Read, we cannot weigh the pros and cons and make right choices if we do not know the facts. The facts are in Gods word, Joshua 1:8 Do not let this book of the law depart from your mouth meditate on it day and night.
Hebrews 11:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever!
Re: mysterious disease killing horses
I read this story and wanted more information. You many find some of the information I found useful.
Editors note: On the website Manitoba Horse Finder an editorial commentary states .. the disease Whisper Syndrome does not exist, and cautions horse owners that claims of an outbreak of horse deaths from mysterious illnesses have not been substantiated.
Re Leona Euchres Lanark Landowners
Thank you for your March 17th editorial on Leona and the LLA. Most media have let the issue of the "dead deer" email pass largely without notice, let alone comment. You picked up on it, and rightly showed the Minister's strength in contrast to the victim image that Mr. Hillier's action tried to force on her.
In addition to the political points you made, there is another whole dimension to this thing that nobody seems to have questioned. Why did Hillier target Leona about the deer? As he knows very well - and repeated in the LLA press release that accompanied the email last June - it's not Dombrowskys Environment Ministry that's in charge of deer policy; its the Ministry of Natural Resources. That's headed up by a man, Dave Ramsay.
So was the dead deer dubbed "Dave"? No way. In fact, while sending Leona the gory photos, the LLA in the same press release "welcomed and invited" Ramsay and two other male politicians "to join their constituents to discuss the severe problems, learn of our resolve, and correct the injustice they are imposing on their rural constituents." This wasn't just a malicious personal attack on a politician, it was a sexist attack on a woman.
In this context especially, I think it is very unfair to label the Minister's anger "somewhat suspect" because she made it public some months after the event. For me, it's taken a while for what's really going on here to sink in, and I am angrier now over Hillier's action than I was when I first heard about it two weeks ago. And I'm not even the one who was targeted!
When someone is threatened or abused, it's a violation, and people don't usually go around talking about it right away. Sometimes the "processing" of such things can take years, even decades. There are plenty of examples in the news all the time (not to mention among our own friends and neighbours) of old outrages finally coming to light and justice being demanded. It's not up to me to say that's what happened here, but to suggest that a delay makes the anger or the claims any less valid is to ignore the way these things work.
You are also being far too kind to Hillier in allowing the possibility that his contemptible act of bullying had anything to do with "humour", however sophomoric. That's also how he tried to pass it off when challenged on the subject by the CBC. But it wont wash. Too many women know what its like to have various forms of abuse excused as "humour". Too many of us know that put-downs and threats, however indirect, are the very opposite of funny
- Helen Forsey
Re: continuous discourse on same sex marriage
I see that there is a continuing discourse on the meaning of marriage with respect to homosexuals currently extant in the pages of the Frontenac News. In the edition of March 24, Luke Procter brings up the important point that there are more important issues. Whether or not I agree or disagree as to what those issues are is irrelevant, but I do feel that when the Bible is quoted, it is important that accuracy is preserved. In his letter Mr. Procter states that 'there is an undebatable biblical reference'. There are in fact several references in the Bible placing strictures on killing. However I suspect that the author is referring to one of the Ten Commandments as listed in the book of Exodus chapter 20, verse 13 or perhaps in Deuteronomy Chapter 5, verse 7. It is unfortunate that I cannot transcribe the original Hebrew characters, and even if I could, I suspect that the paper may not have the font to print them. However the original words in Hebrew are "lo rawtsach". "lo" is a primitive particle meaning "not" - the simple or abstract negation and "rawtsach" is a primitive root which properly means "to dash to pieces", implies a human being, and was used to mean murder.
Now again, whether or not I consider "the holocaust of abortion" to be murder or not, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the philosophical difference between the absolute statement "Thou shalt not kill" and the more correct translation of Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:7 as "You shall not murder"(WEB), "Do not put anyone to death without cause"(BBE), "Do not murder" (CEV), "Do not commit murder" (GNB), "Never Murder" (GW), "You shall not murder"(LITV), "Thou dost not murder"(YLT).
The slightly less correct translation of "lo rawtsach" as "Thou shalt not kill" in the King James Version of the Bible has frequently been misquoted and misunderstood and has been used to prohibit killing of all sorts, including that of animals for food. If one is to take the imprecation in this version of the Bible as being absolute, then it should be clear that hunting and even the eating of meat is prohibited. Obviously, killing in an absolute sense is not prohibited because in the Bible many animals are slaughtered for "burnt offerings". In Exodus 12:6 the Israelites are instructed to kill a male goat. Exodus 29:11 a bullock, Exodus 29:20 a ram. In fact there are dozens of instructions to kill animals. The book of Leviticus has many of instructions on how and when to kill animals. Generally the Hebrew word "shaukhat", to slaughter, is used. Indeed the killing of human beings is not, in an absolute sense, prohibited either.
In Exodus 4:24 "And it came to pass by way in the inn that the Lord met him and sought to kill him", the Lord himself "sought to kill", here the Hebrew word "mooth" (to cause the death) is used. This refers to a human being. In Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him". Here the Hebrew word "haurag", smite with deadly intent, or murder, is used and refers to children.
Sometimes translators of the Bible have sought to soften and tone down the emotive impact of instructions to kill. In Esther:8 the Hebrew word "haurag" is used to specify that women and children be slaughtered. In Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy laws are laid out as to how people are to conduct themselves. In Leviticus 24:21 it specifies that if a man kill ("naukau" - strike, in the sense of severely enough to kill) he too shall be killed in retribution. In Deuteronomy 19:21 "...a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...". Interestingly here "nephesh" for life, refers to any living breathing creature, so can be interpreted to mean that if one kills another mans animal, one must produce a living one of the same, in return, or it can be seen to mean that if one kills another person, ones own life shall be forfeited.
In Exodus 21:22 reference is made to causing a miscarriage, which does not otherwise harm the woman, in this case though the child is killed, only a fine shall be levied. So even the killing of children is not, in an absolute sense, prohibited. In various places in the Bible, the point is made that killing with cause is allowable and therefore the statement that 'there is an undebatable biblical reference' is demonstrably incorrect.
- Simon Spanchak, Maberly