From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 12:49:17 EDT
Debbie,
Yeah I guess.
Since sometimes I get two copies of everything and sometimes I get one, (BTW
I think is really unecessary to send two, I can't understand why the people
in this list cannot simply post it to the list since we all get a copy of
it). I see no purpose for sending one directly and then another throught the
list I have seen other people in the past complain about the same thing.
I cannot remember to check if the message came through the list or to me
personally, I have messed up a couple of times on that, I think once with
Don, too. I didn't realize you had messaged me privately and I answered on
the list, I am very sorry.
Thanks,
Sondra
>From: "Debbie Mann" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>
>To: "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don
>Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:31:50 -0500
>
>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: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Sondra Brasile
>Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:56 AM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don
>
>
>Debbie,
>
>"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
>anyway.
>
>"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
>saying.
>
>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
>testy.
>
>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.
>
>Sondra
>
>
>
> >From: "Debbie Mann" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>
> >To: "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> >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 [mailto:sbrasile@hotmail.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:32 PM
> >To: deborahjmann@insightbb.com
> >Subject: RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don
> >
> >
> >Debbie,
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >Reply
> >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"?
> >Reply
> >
> >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.
> >Reply
> >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
> >impeccable".
> >Reply
> >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" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>
> > >To: "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > >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
> >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
> > >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
> >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
> > >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
> >the
> > >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: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> > >Behalf Of Sondra Brasile
> > >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:49 AM
> > >To: asa@calvin.edu
> > >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
> > >"faith.""
> > >
> > >(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
> > >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
> >"him",
> > >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
> >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
> > >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,
> >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
> > >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
> >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
> > >repentance."
> > >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
> > >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
> >sinful."
> > >Rom. 7:13
> > >
> > >"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
> > >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,
> >sins."
> > >James 4:17
> > >
> > >I could go ON and ON and ON.
> > >
> > >Sondra
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> > > >To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > > >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
> > >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
> >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,
> > >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
> >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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >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
> >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
> > >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.
> >All
> > > >this necessary reinterpretation means the Bible and its inspiration
> >were
> > > >not
> > > >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.
> > > >
> > > >Don
> > > >
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> > >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 12:49:28 EDT