From: sheila-mcginty@geotec.net
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:04:55 EST
Sondra,
God promised that He would be the Husband to the husbandless and the Father to
the fatherless. Given that, I agree with you. Mr. Winterstein's ideas seem
more like a cult that God-given.
Sheila
Quoting Sondra Brasile <sbrasile@hotmail.com>:
> Don,
>
> I see some fundamental problems with your theory, just off the top of my
>
> head; when did God become the husband? You easily go from one to the
> other
> with that, you agree that Jesus is the bridegroom, but then proceed with
> how
> God has to make for *himself* wives. I'd say I have a pretty good
> knowledge
> of what the Bible contains and nowhere does it ever say anything other
> than
> God being "FATHER".
>
> I'm not dispelling your theory, I in fact had a similar "revelation"
> about
> two years ago, of course it was during a time in my life where I was
> blatantly sinning in the worst ways.
>
> Since then I look back at my "theory" and wonder if it came out of my
> own
> indulgence in sensuality and sexual sin. It occured to me how
> "spiritual"
> sex can be and wondered what that was all about, that was about the time
> my
> mind began wondering about the sexuality of God. Of course I was drunk,
> not
> only on alcohol, but on everything the Bible says NOT to do, sex is
> intoxicating and seems spiritual the part that makes me worry is within
> the
> confines of what God says is ok, acceptable by him, it is rarely like
> that,
> it makes me wonder whether there's a Satanic link (oh the sin of it
> all!).
> Now in my right mind I see that A. whenever we try to give God human
> characteristics (we try to shove God into a human package) we are in
> trouble. and B. The only reason sex exists is for us to procreate, (get
>
> together, male and female to begin with) face it, without physical sex
> we
> have very little need or want or reason to be together. We have very
> little
> in common and all we really do is annoy each other to death. If we were
>
> asexual (I sure hope that's the right word) do you think male and female
>
> would mix much? I don't. (If there were such a thing as male and female
> if
> we were asexual). I know people who have sworn off sex (my female
> cousin,
> and a male friend of my husbands, they aren't gay either, just had bad
> experiences I guess, or maybe they're being celibate for religious
> reasons,
> I don't know) they are all alone and have no mate, therefore they will
> never
> procreate (I'm a poet! Unless science steps in, that is).
>
> Maybe sex is the closest thing we can use to *compare* the pleasure God
> gets
> out of us, but it doesn't necessarily mean it IS sexual. We consummate
> the
> marriage with Christ not God, so I don't know where you are coming from
> with
> that. Some small parts of your theory may have some merit, but not how
> you
> seem to present them.
>
> Sondra Brasile
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> >To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> >Subject: my new paradigm
> >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:44:16 -0800
> >
> >
> >
> >Iain Strachan wrote:
> >
> >
> > >But I think what Don means (trying to goad him into divulging more of
> his
> >secret theory ... :-) …
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I’ve been leading people on long enough, and you’ve just given me the
> >entrée or rationale I need to proceed. A big problem for me is that I
>
> >regard my new paradigm more as revelation from God—that is, as the
> result
> >of an actual instance of God’s punctuating the equilibrium—than as mere
>
> >theory. But regarding it as revelation puts tremendous pressure on me
> to
> >try to eliminate unnecessary offense in the way I present it. To think
> of
> >the new paradigm as mere personal opinion or theory takes the pressure
> off,
> >because anyone can then dismiss it as my weird idea, and I won’t need
> to
> >hold myself to such high standards. So present it as mere theory I
> will,
> >and perhaps I’ll learn something useful from feedback. To a
> considerable
> >degree it is my conclusions from revelation rather than the revelation
>
> >itself, anyway.
> >
> >
> >My new paradigm is extremely simple in essence, but it has far-reaching
>
> >implications. Because of its novelty it can also be difficult to
> describe.
> >In a nutshell, God is fundamentally a sexual person, one whose
> fundamental
> >goals involve his engaging in sexual relations. All three persons of
> the
> >Trinity are sexual, but they are so in different ways. For this
> discussion
> >I focus on the Holy Spirit.
> >
> >
> >
> >The Spirit, of course, has nothing like physical genitals, so the
> >definition of sexuality needs to be broadened to make it apply to
> spirits.
> >Briefly, sexuality is defined spiritually in terms of interaction
> between
> >two persons, where a submissive person (considered female) submits
> herself
> >to a dominant person (in this case God) to be redefined in him.
> Although
> >God has no genitals, he has spiritual counterparts of genitals, and
> both he
> >and his lover(s) in their spiritual intercourse experience something
> akin
> >to human sexual pleasure.
> >
> >
> >
> >The paradigm introduced by Jesus had God as loving father. The new
> >paradigm has God as loving husband. Both paradigms in reality have
> always
> >been in effect, but for historical reasons different paradigms come to
> the
> >surface and dominate at different times. A third paradigm dominated in
> the
> >period from Abraham to Jesus.
> >
> >
> >
> >Scriptural support: Everyone is familiar with New Testament
> descriptions
> >of Jesus as bridegroom with the Church as bride. The usual
> >interpretation—when the marriage is taken as more than just metaphor—is
>
> >that the marriage is to be consummated in the hereafter, at the second
>
> >coming of Christ, not in the present age. In the Old Testament,
> several
> >prophets speak of God’s two wives, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
> Hosea
> >and Jeremiah pursue this line of thought at some length in their early
>
> >chapters. Ezekiel in chapters 16 and 23 elaborates with vivid imagery.
>
> >Many OT statements refer to idolatry as sexual interaction with false
> gods,
> >so one might infer that worship of the true God is sexual interaction
> with
> >him. I suspect that most Bible interpreters take all these marriages
> >strictly as metaphor. I have compelling reasons to take them
> literally.
> >
> >
> >
> >Jesus from the perspective of the new paradigm presents an image of God
> to
> >his wives as one who is worthy of their love. God thus wins wives
> through
> >the attractive witness of Jesus. I say wives, because it’s much easier
> to
> >think of God as having many wives than as having just one. Each
> different
> >Christian denomination, perhaps, is a separate wife; and in some cases
>
> >Christians of one nation or period of history might be a wife distinct
> from
> >Christians of another nation or period. In the hereafter Jesus is to
> have
> >one wife, the whole Christian Church as a single entity. But God in
> the
> >present age has many wives. The concept of wife for God is fluid and
> we
> >don’t need to bother defining it precisely. The underlying idea is
> that
> >God sometimes sees groups of people collectively, as a wife, in the
> same
> >way that the Church is seen as the bride of Christ.
> >
> >
> >
> >This brief sketch probably raises far more questions than it answers.
> I
> >wrote a book that addresses many of the details and put it on my Web
> site.
> >But some of the things I say there will cause unnecessary offense, so I
>
> >want to cleanse the site before divulging the URL. However, no matter
> how
> >“clean” I make it, the things I’ll leave in will cause more than enough
>
> >offense.
> >
> >
> >
> >So what relevance does this paradigm have to science? I can’t predict
> how
> >others will respond, but to me it gives profound relief particularly on
>
> >questions pertaining to origins and the problem of evil.
> >
> >
> >
> >The fundamentals once again are extremely simple and intuitive. The
> >following three paragraphs come from my Web site:
> >
> >
> >Sexuality of God explains his mode of creation. God’s goal involves
> finding
> >a person whom he can love sexually. One does not have sex with one’s
> >children. That would be perverse. From the kind of creation described
> in
> >Genesis, God gets only children. That is, a dominating father figure
> like
> >the God of Genesis, who brings the world into existence by speaking a
> word,
> >does not create persons suitable for marital relations but only
> children
> >who are forever dominated by their creator.
> >
> >Persons whom God can love sexually must somehow come into existence
> >independently of him. When a man takes a wife, he does not choose a
> >daughter, sister or other close relative, but someone who has grown up
>
> >independently of himself. Therefore, to satisfy his need for a lover,
> God’s
> >creative activity must be so subtle that the persons he creates must
> seem
> >to come into existence on their own, independently of him. This is why
>
> >species appear to scientists to have originated haphazardly and not by
>
> >design. Those of us who believe in God know that he somehow guided the
>
> >processes to give him the lovers he needs, but his touch has been so
> subtle
> >that we can think of ourselves as having come into existence
> independently
> >of him.
> >
> >A consequence of God’s sexuality is thus that the old problem of evil
> >disappears. Question: How can an all-powerful and good God allow this
> or
> >that terrible thing to happen? Answer: God wants a lover more than he
> wants
> >a child. The world in many ways functions as if independent of him. His
>
> >control nevertheless remains sufficient to yield his desired outcome.
> >
> >
> >
> >An associated concept is that the creation is not God’s toy or idle
> >diversion but is an undertaking that is integrally tied in with his own
>
> >meaning. He gives himself fully to it and eventually will identify
> with
> >it.
> >
> >
> >
> >As I said, I have no idea how others will respond, but these concepts
> put
> >me completely at ease with such things as the great age of the world,
> the
> >“haphazardness conundrum” and the problem of evil. With God as loving
>
> >husband, all such conceptual difficulties disappear, and I can be
> >comfortable with God and with the world as science has revealed it.
> >Science in fact has helped humans become the kind of independent beings
>
> >that God seeks for a wife.
> >
> >
> >
> >How I came into these views is a long story, but I can say they derive
>
> >immediately from experience of God I had over an extended period more
> than
> >40 years ago. On my Web site I call this experience “my revelation.”
> The
> >views have benefited also from different kinds of spiritual experiences
>
> >since that time. I emphasize that the views I express are not the same
> as
> >"my revelation" but derive from it. They are conclusions I have drawn
> from
> >contemplating my revelation all these decades. As such they are no
> doubt
> >flawed, but they're the best I've been able to do with what I have. My
> Web
> >site presents superficial descriptions of some of these experiences of
> God,
> >so readers eventually will be able to judge to a limited degree for
> >themselves whether my conclusions have any merit.
> >
> >
> >
> >As an ex-scientist I cringe at the idea of presenting information
> publicly
> >that comes from experiences that others cannot access and verify, but
> I’m
> >consoled by the thought that all of God’s prophets had to do exactly
> that.
> >
> >
> >
> >Don
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
Sheila McGinty
sheila-mcginty@geotec.net
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through GeoTEC Webmail: webmail.geotec.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:05:29 EST