RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don

From: Debbie Mann (
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 12:31:50 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: The forgotten verses"

    My comments were solely to make the point that I didn't catch a thread. The
    verses seemed to be unrelated to me - different contexts, different themes.
    I thought you were talking about calling sin, sin - and only a couple of
    your verses were about that. I wanted you to clarify your point, and so I
    replied to you offline. You brought it back online - so be it. I have no
    problem understanding the verses - I simply did not understand why you threw
    them into the same scripture bouquet. I was expecting a bouquet of all
    roses, and you threw together one containing daffodils, carnations and who
    knows what else.

    It isn't worth pursuing further. We were talking apples and oranges - you
    were in one conversation, I in another.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []On
    Behalf Of Sondra Brasile
    Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:56 AM
    Subject: RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don


    "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."

    It's a "condition" of people who do not look forward to Jesus' coming,
    therefore "judgement". "Walking in your lusts" I assume is a negative thing
    (it's BAD a No-no, however you understand the concept) They have no fear
    because they don't believe they are accountable, you still have not made a
    point, except to apparently misunderstand why I included it in the first
    place, they are "comparative" to anyone that does not fear an accounting of
    their deeds. Since you seem to understand the "kid" analogy, it's like kids
    having a party because they know their parents are out of town, like "Risky
    Business" remember that movie? And never fearing getting caught. I never
    insinuated a "penalty". "Walking after your own lusts" is indicative of the
    *condition* of not anticipating a reckoning. The ultimate penalty for all
    (unrepentant) sin is all the same, why would my quoting it have to imply a
    specific reference to a penalty? If a person is "wicked" doesn't it by
    nature imply a penalty? A person "walking after their own lusts" is a person
    doing whatever they want regardless of anything else, not expecting to be
    held accountable, I'll bring it right down to the point and explain it like
    I do to my kids; Since the people are not expecting their Messiah to come
    and are not expecting to answer for their deeds, they do whatever they want
    (walk in their own lusts) which implicates "walking in your own lusts" must
    be a BAD thing, something you would NEVER do in FRONT of the Messiah or if
    you thought he was going to come and catch you in the act. Walking in your
    own lusts is living by lust, letting lust "rule" you and shape your
    attitudes, beliefs and actions. Instead of submitting your lusts to the
    "rules" (keeping them restrained within the boundaries of what the Bible
    deems acceptable; heterosexual and within a covenantal marriage to one
    another, 1 male + 1 female) you let them guide you, that is "walking in your
    own lusts". I think I've exhausted the dictionary on this explanation of
    this one verse, I don't think I could make it any clearer, with words

    "The question is "Who are the wicked?"" If you don't know who the wicked are
    then I'm done with this conversation, the "wicked" are the umpteen different
    descriptions throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation of what makes
    one wicked vs. righteous. If you justify them (aka. their sin, their
    wickedness) you yourself, commit an abomination (sin). If you condemn (the
    Holy Spirit "convicts", not condemn; we Christians, are to admonish, guide
    and correct) a righteous person (one that is NOT in the course of sinning)
    you also sin (commit an abomination). "Cast aside" meaning disregard even.
    Ezekiel is a gross example of someone you wouldn't want to "cast aside" the
    result would not be good.

    "If you were
    >following a more complex path, then I did need more explanation in between
    >the verses."

    I wasn't following any clearcut path except that they pertained to the
    things surrounding the entire issue from the beginning, I do NOT believe the
    Bible contradicts itself, for you to say that one verse supports one thing
    and then another verse contradicts it,

    you said; "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."

    I do not agree that any of the verses I quoted annuls any other, but instead
    leads to a deeper (maybe more complex) understanding of the issue as a
    whole. It is another level when you go from the "law" to Paul (and Romans
    especially), but neither one cancels the other out, like Jesus said, He came
    to "fulfil the law" not abolish it, that is a whole new level of thinking.
    You DO have to call sin, sin, that's the basics, but Paul goes to deeper
    levels when he tries to explain who is a slave to sin and who is free. We
    all know we all sin, but, who is the "slave to sin"? The one who cannot
    overcome the flesh. We, as Christians, are constantly trying to get it
    right, through repentance and asking God's forgiveness (I've seen some,
    myself included, who've been "delivered" miraculously, but for most it's a
    battle) keeping the lines of communication open, BEING HONEST with God and
    *admitting our sin* (honesty is what God's going for here and humility).

    Study those who comitted sin in the Bible, how did God deal with them? If,
    when they were convicted (by someone else, or by God) they were "convicted"
    and "contrite" God deals with them very gently sometimes, like with David he
    still carries out punishment, but David KNEW better! If David had refused to
    repent and justified his actions, my guess is that God would have stricken
    him dead or something worse. If the people refused to repent and justified
    their actions instead (which there are numerous examples) God got ANGRY and
    severly punished them. With some it is a natural consequence from their own
    actions, depending on the intent I suppose, for instance a natural
    consequence of a homosexual relationship, is no offspring, as Rich has been

    We are doing the same things today, we commit a sin and either confess it as
    sin and repent, or many times we justify it and just move on, is this the
    actions of a bunch of people who are expecting judgement to fall at any
    moment? Numerous parables of Jesus are based on this concept; the virgins
    and the oil & the bridegroom (is that the same one or two?), the servants
    that were left alone while the master was away (I'm going off the top of my
    head, sorry) that's all I can think of, but there are a few. Either way we
    are NOT to change the "rules" to justify our actions which is what people
    are trying to do with homosexual relations, you just don't do that.

    Have you ever done a study on the "unpardonable sin". It's interesting to
    note that everytime God ceases to give a person recourse, it is within the
    context of self-justification. Only by the applying of Jesus' blood can a
    person be rightly justified, found blameless (not guilty) that comes
    exclusively through repentance (which includes an admission of guilt). If a
    person justify's his own actions then they are truly never "justified",
    according to God, the law OR grace, so they are just plain never freed of
    guilt and therefore never exonerated, this unrepentant sin puts a wedge
    between them and God because this and God cannot be joined together. Just an
    interesting note.

    It's not the fact of "being" homosexual that is a sin, it is the act of
    following it's desires that are not in accordance with God's will, and to
    add insult to injury "justifying" the act by saying "this is not sin" God
    cannot tolerate this blatant disobedience, dishonesty and refusal to be
    accountable. At least if a person were to be "enslaved" by the desires of
    the flesh by indulging them, they could admit that what they are doing is
    wrong, in this admission they are not calling God a liar, by saying what he
    clearly said is not the case, this tends to offend God and He gets a little

    Maybe we should take this off list, it's off the topic of the list. If
    anyone else is reading these; any advice? Should we go off list? I don't
    know maybe someone is getting a "kick" out of our little discussion, weirder
    things have happened.


    >From: "Debbie Mann" <>
    >To: "Asa" <>
    >Subject: RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don
    >Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:00:10 -0500
    >See below
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Sondra Brasile []
    >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
    >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
    >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
    >post. Just because you don't understand a post doesn't mean my "logic is
    >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
    >the verses.
    > >From: "Debbie Mann" <>
    > >To: "Asa" <>
    > >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.
    > >
    > >But,
    > >Prov. 17:15 "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the
    > >both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD."
    > >
    > > Is this acts? or people? If someone is righteous in Christ Jesus, and
    > >sinning - if he's born again and off the wagon, but permanently born
    > >-
    > >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
    > >that Christ is coming again.
    > >
    > >Romans 7 is more an argument for the other side. The jist of it is that
    > >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
    > >Jesus.
    > >
    > >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
    > >here is to get people to quit condemning themselves, quit focussing on
    > >negative and just get their eyes on what is right - Jesus - and move in
    > >that
    > >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
    > >light socket.
    > >
    > >Which is great in my opinion. Let's get full of Jesus, so full that He
    > >pushes out the bad stuff.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: []On
    > >Behalf Of Sondra Brasile
    > >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:49 AM
    > >To:
    > >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
    > >and since Don apparently has chosen to leave out the part where I
    > >to him that my "off color" remark (including an expletive) was to bait
    > >into questioning my "faith" which he promptly obliged in his next, and
    > >reply back to me, it was; "Your comments make a telling witness to your
    > >"faith.""
    > >
    > >(capitals are used for inflection only)
    > >
    > >I asked him "I see that this was sent off the list, is it because you
    > >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
    > >thought it would surely get the desired response AND it doesn't "curse"
    > >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
    > >for
    > >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
    > >but in fact only asked him if that's what he was afraid people will think
    > >of
    > >him) I did it simply to try to show him that A. swearing is not
    > >forbidden B. homosexual relations ARE but C. he would defend a homosexual
    > >union apparently 'till the death and reason that it does NOT endanger
    > >"faith" (even though is *distinctly* forbidden) and D. that he would
    > >quickly
    > >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,
    > >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
    > >and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and
    > >clever
    > >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
    > >and they abhor him who speaks with integrity."
    > >
    > >Proverbs 18:5 "To show partiality to the wicked is not good, nor to
    > >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
    > >repentance."
    > >2 Pet. 3:3,9
    > >
    > >"Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does
    > >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
    > >order
    > >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
    > >Rom. 7:13
    > >
    > >"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[Or
    > >flesh] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it
    > >out."
    > >Rom. 7:18
    > >
    > >"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,
    > >James 4:17
    > >
    > >I could go ON and ON and ON.
    > >
    > >Sondra
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >From: "Don Winterstein" <>
    > > >To: "asa" <>
    > > >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
    > > >won't repeat the word she used) for responding offline to her attack on
    > > >post I'd made, so I need to set the record straight. Please consider
    > >this
    > > >my online response to her remarks as well as my defense against her
    > > >accusations.
    > > >
    > > >First, I responded offline because I did not receive an online message,
    > >so
    > > >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
    > >go
    > > >into detail. In fact, she herself implied I was ignorant in a sphere
    > >where
    > > >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
    > > >was malicious; so I gave her the benefit of the doubt. I might also
    > > >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,
    > >an
    > > >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
    > >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
    > > > > completely different perspective on what's right and wrong, they are
    > >the
    > > > > *authority* not you or I, not our emotions. Have you ever even
    > > >the
    > > > > Bible? If you take such a liberal approach to the scriptures as
    > >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.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >Some of the comments people (not just Ms. Brasile) have made on this
    > >thread
    > > >emphasize how depraved mankind is. There is another side to the story.
    > > >Many statements in the NT say how virtuous and knowledgeable children
    > > >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
    > >become
    > > >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.
    > > >this necessary reinterpretation means the Bible and its inspiration
    > > >not
    > > >what a lot of conservative Christians thought they were.
    > > >
    > > >Where does the need to reinterpret end? In heaven. On earth we need
    > > >integrate our experience of the world with our personal knowledge of
    > > >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
    > > >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
    > > >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.
    > > >
    > > >Don
    > > >
    > >
    > >_________________________________________________________________
    > >Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

    The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 12:30:13 EDT