Re: Do non-U.S. Christians say "God Bless America?"

From: Sondra Brasile (
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 10:09:04 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Cannon: "RE: Do non-U.S. Christians say "God Bless America?""


    Actually the 'spirit' you speak of is the spirit of antichrist.

    You can haggle over and argue about what relates to physical science and the
    Biblical references to the physical world, but when you start saying that
    morality can be broken down to our own, twisted, distorted, disfunctional,
    selfish, fallen, sinful interpretation, you've "left the building".

    So everybody's going to heaven, is that what you're saying? Because
    'everyone does right in his own eyes' but see, God (and Jesus) have a
    completely different perspective on what's right and wrong, they are the
    *authority* not you or I, not our emotions. Have you ever even studied the
    Bible? If you take such a liberal approach to the scriptures as that; if
    you've read it and don't get meaning out of it other than that, I'd say you
    aren't 'enlightened' and I seriously worried about your actual salvation.


    >From: "Don Winterstein" <>
    >To: "Sondra Brasile" <>,<>
    >Subject: Re: Do non-U.S. Christians say "God Bless America?"
    >Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 03:39:06 -0700
    >Sondra Brasile wrote:
    > >
    > > So what part about the word "abomination" are you not grasping?
    >Scientific discoveries force us to reinterpret the Genesis creation
    >accounts, the Flood account, the Tower of Babel account, etc., etc. All
    >this necessary reinterpretation means the Bible and its inspiration were
    >what a lot of conservative Christians thought they were.
    >Where does the need to reinterpret end? In heaven. On earth we need to
    >integrate our experience of the world with our personal knowledge of God
    >through the guidance of his Holy Spirit. When our world changes as
    >drastically as it has over the past several centuries, we can't expect
    >directives to people thousands of years ago necessarily to apply in fine
    >detail today.
    >What does apply today? God has given us his Spirit and minds to integrate.
    >Inspired by his Spirit we should not look at religion as a set of laws and
    >rules but instead as guidance for living lives pleasing to him. The number
    >one moral principle that Jesus gave was that we love one another. This
    >principle transcends all other laws and rules, and all other laws and rules
    >need to be interpreted in terms of it.
    >Just as we have looked in detail at evidences for the great age of the
    >world, and that look forces us to reject a strictly literal interpretation
    >of the Genesis creation accounts, so also Christians have looked in detail
    >at sexuality and the lives and motives of homosexuals and have concluded
    >that some of the directives from thousands of years ago are less consistent
    >with the law of love than certain revisions of those directives.
    >If behavior is approved by a proper application of the law of love, no one
    >should call it an abomination.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >Rich Faussette wrote in part:
    > > >
    > > > >There is no such thing as a gay Christian.
    > > >
    > > >As a young man I agreed, because the homosexuals I knew were very
    > > >promiscuous, and the acts they engaged in seemed to epitomize
    > > >
    > > >Later I loosened up a bit, because I came to understand that married
    > > >heterosexuals commonly engage in analogous acts, and I was no longer so
    > > >sure they were perverse. Nothing in the Bible prohibits any kind of
    > > >physical interaction between man and wife.
    > > >
    > > >At present I'm looser yet, because I believe the law of love trumps any
    > > >individual law. Homosexuals I know now have lived in committed
    > > >relationships practically their whole adult lives. To me, commitment
    > > >the important thing. The acts themselves may not be so perverse after
    > > > And I see no chance the world's population is in danger of falling to
    > > >zero any time soon. (Where I live a substantial drop is the stuff of
    > > >dreams.)
    > > >
    > > >Whether the state of being gay is genetic or not is kind of irrelevant
    > > >gay people time and again claim their orientation is not within their
    > > >to change. From what I've heard, they find heterosexual relationships
    > > >personally repulsive as I find homosexual ones; I believe I have no
    > > >over my feelings of repulsion, so I suspect they have no control over
    > > >theirs.
    > > >
    > > >So.I'd still rather the whole topic didn't exist, and I'm still not
    > > >you'd call supportive, but I'm sympathetic and definitely question the
    > > >validity of Rich's assertion.
    > > >
    > > >Don
    > > >
    > >
    > > _________________________________________________________________
    > > Protect your PC - get VirusScan Online
    > >
    > >
    > >

    Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 30 2003 - 10:09:13 EDT