From: Debbie Mann (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 00:00:10 EDT
From: Sondra Brasile [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don
What are you talking about? Prov. 17:15 Is saying if you cozy up to the
wicked and justify them, you are committing an abomination AND if you
condemn a righteous person you are commitiing an abomination, what is hard
about that to understand? It is a LIST of two things NOT to do.
The question is "Who are the wicked?" We are made rightious through the
blood of the lamb. If we condemn someone who God has forgiven - then that
makes us an abomination.
II Peter 3:3 "in the last days scoffers,walking after their own lusts..."
Only the first half of the verse is about His coming, what about the people
walking after their own lusts in the "last days" does NOT pertain to the
issue we've been talking about? What about the context changes it's
relevance to the "last days" and people "walking after their own lusts"?
They were walking after their own lusts because they gave up on Christ
coming. There is no penalty here - he's talking about the state of people
who have given up.
Throughout the surrounding chapters in Romans Paul struggles with his own
flesh and describes the battle that is waged within his "members". You have
to read the entire thing straight through to understand what he's saying,
geeze, I wouldn't think I'd have to explain this stuff, I thought it was
elementary; common knowledge. It is NOT talking about being free from the
law, but it is referring to the process and the end result of sanctification
the fulfilment of the law; grace brought about by Jesus' death and
resurrection, the law of grace says we are no longer bound by the law but
neither are we bound by the desires of the flesh, that we would be slaves to
it. A person that says they "can't" be free of indulging in the desires of
the flesh is bound by the desires of the flesh, therefore a slave to sin.
I love Paul's logic. And I agree with your last sentence above in
particular. Romans is not a passage about damnation, or about condemnation
for sin. It's a passage about how to get free.
What you ended with is right on, but I fail to see "unsound reasoning" in my
post. Just because you don't understand a post doesn't mean my "logic is not
I thought your thesis was that we are to call sin, sin because to do
otherwise is an abomination. You then quoted some scriptures that supported
that point, but went on to quote others that were putting forth quite
different points. They weren't about calling a rose a rose. If you were
following a more complex path, then I did need more explanation in between
>From: "Debbie Mann" <email@example.com>
>To: "Asa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don
>Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:42:32 -0500
>Your logic is not impeccable.
>The Is and Matthew 6 verses are pretty clear. We are to discern.
>Prov. 17:15 "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,
>both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD."
> Is this acts? or people? If someone is righteous in Christ Jesus, and is
>sinning - if he's born again and off the wagon, but permanently born again
>then condemning the person could be condemning the righteous while the
>intent may have been to condemn the wicked act. Then the person doing the
>condemning would be the abomination.
>"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
>walking after their own lusts...IIPeter3:3
>This is really out of context - this is talking about people not believing
>that Christ is coming again.
>Romans 7 is more an argument for the other side. The jist of it is that we
>cannot do good, and that we better rely on faith. The law of Christ Jesus
>has made me free from the law of sin.
>All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient. I am
>carnal, I'm going to sin. But sin is irrelevant if I'm walking in Christ
>These words have been twisted many times to excuse a sinful nature. And
>whereas I am sure that that was not Paul's intention, surely the intention
>here is to get people to quit condemning themselves, quit focussing on the
>negative and just get their eyes on what is right - Jesus - and move in
>direction. "Don't think about your sin, get over it."
>Kind of like distracting a two year old with a toy to get her away from the
>Which is great in my opinion. Let's get full of Jesus, so full that He
>pushes out the bad stuff.
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
>Behalf Of Sondra Brasile
>Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:49 AM
>Subject: Re: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don
>To whoever cares,
>Since Don Winterstein felt compelled to set the record straight; so will I,
>and since Don apparently has chosen to leave out the part where I explained
>to him that my "off color" remark (including an expletive) was to bait him
>into questioning my "faith" which he promptly obliged in his next, and last
>reply back to me, it was; "Your comments make a telling witness to your
>(capitals are used for inflection only)
>I asked him "I see that this was sent off the list, is it because you don't
>want everyone to think you're an a-----e?" Except I wrote out the whole
>"bad" word. I intentionally chose that sentence and that wording because I
>thought it would surely get the desired response AND it doesn't "curse" him
>in the way that I understand curses, instead I asked him if he was afraid
>someone would think that he was; that is not cursing him.
>I was trying to point out to him that he would quickly question MY faith
>using an expletive even though swearing, is *not* distinctly forbidden in
>the scriptures (remember, I did NOT direct it AT him so as to curse "him",
>but in fact only asked him if that's what he was afraid people will think
>him) I did it simply to try to show him that A. swearing is not distinctly
>forbidden B. homosexual relations ARE but C. he would defend a homosexual
>union apparently 'till the death and reason that it does NOT endanger their
>"faith" (even though is *distinctly* forbidden) and D. that he would
>and easily question MY faith because I said a "bad word".
>To Don, you talk about the "law of love" and love, love, love where
>homosexuals are concerned, I really am not sure if you mean because they
>share "love" they are not sinning or what, but you act as if "love" means
>you have to indulge ever whim, relieve every discomfort and the same goes
>with God he has to allow everything because anything less would not be
>*nice* or loving. Don, have you ever "loved" someone enought to tell them
>NO? Have you ever "loved" someone enough NOT to make them comfortable in
>their current state? Sometimes the truly "loving" thing to do is to exact
>punishment or enforce rules.
>To everyone, I ask forgiveness for speaking evil, in my defense I thought
>the end would justify the means and I would maybe prove my point.
>Isaiah 5:20,21 "Woe to those who [Prov 17:15; Amos 5:7] call evil good, and
>good evil; Who [Job 17:12; Matt 6:22, 23; Luke 11:34, 35] substitute
>darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet
>and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and
>in their own sight!"
>Amos 5:7, 10 "For those who turn justice into wormwood and cast
>righteousness down to the earth....They hate him who reproves in the gate,
>and they abhor him who speaks with integrity."
>Proverbs 18:5 "To show partiality to the wicked is not good, nor to thrust
>aside the righteous in judgment."
>"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should
>restore him gently..." Gal. 6:1
>not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
>2 Pet. 3:3,9
>"Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not
>fail, yet the unrighteous know no shame." Zeph. 3:5
>"...and because I consider all your precepts right, I hate every wrong
>path." Ps. 119:128
>"Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in
>that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what
>was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful."
>"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[Or my
>flesh] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it
>"Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." Rom. 12:9
>"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."
>I could go ON and ON and ON.
> >From: "Don Winterstein" <email@example.com>
> >To: "asa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: Fw: Do non-U.S. Christians say "God Bless America?"
> >Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:00:33 -0700
> >Sondra Brasile accused me of something like cowardice (for her benefit I
> >won't repeat the word she used) for responding offline to her attack on a
> >post I'd made, so I need to set the record straight. Please consider
> >my online response to her remarks as well as my defense against her
> >First, I responded offline because I did not receive an online message,
> >I assumed she had written offline. She told me she did not. She then
> >accused me of calling her "ignorant," which I did not. Everyone is
> >ignorant, so it is meaningless to accuse someone of being so unless you
> >into detail. In fact, she herself implied I was ignorant in a sphere
> >I'm actually fairly knowledgeable.
> >I said that her comments stemmed from ignorance, because without any
> >evident basis she called the Holy Spirit, whom I worship as God, "the
> >spirit of antichrist." If that remark was not made in ignorance, then it
> >was malicious; so I gave her the benefit of the doubt. I might also have
> >accused her of not reading my post, as she came up with very inaccurate
> >opinions about what I'd said. In addition, her tone was disrespectful,
> >aspect I found offensive under the circumstances despite my thick skin.
> >My response in its entirety was the single sentence that follows:
> >I forgive your comments, as they stem from ignorance.
> >Ms. Brasile's comments on my post (see below) were:
> > > Actually the 'spirit' you speak of is the spirit of antichrist.
> > >
> > > You can haggle over and argue about what relates to physical science
> > > Biblical references to the physical world, but when you start saying
> > > morality can be broken down to our own, twisted, distorted,
> > > 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
> > > *authority* not you or I, not our emotions. Have you ever even studied
> > > Bible? If you take such a liberal approach to the scriptures as that;
> > > you've read it and don't get meaning out of it other than that, I'd
> > > aren't 'enlightened' and I seriously worried about your actual
> >Some of the comments people (not just Ms. Brasile) have made on this
> >emphasize how depraved mankind is. There is another side to the story.
> >Many statements in the NT say how virtuous and knowledgeable children of
> >God can be when living a life sanctified by the Holy Spirit (e.g., John
> >14:26; I John 2:20, 3:9).
> >Compassion for fellow humans led Jesus himself to set aside OT laws and
> >rules more than once. By his actions and words he demonstrated that
> >compassion trumps law. Should we ignore his lessons? Should we now
> >fixated once again on details of the law?
> >The exchange that led to Ms. Brasile's comments (above) was as follows:
> >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
> >Inspired by his Spirit we should not look at religion as a set of laws
> >rules but instead as guidance for living lives pleasing to him. The
> >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
> >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
> >of the Genesis creation accounts, so also Christians have looked in
> >at sexuality and the lives and motives of homosexuals and have concluded
> >that some of the directives from thousands of years ago are less
> >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
> >should call it an abomination.
>Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 23:58:23 EDT