The Issue is Not that God WANTS Us to Suffer...

by AGuest 404 Replies latest jw friends

AGuest

Shelby, dear, who is the "adversary", is it not one who would diminish the Divine to a thing, a deity, a person, and object? Rather than accentuate That which has no beginning or end and so can not be defined? Are you then, not that "adversary"???
The Adversary, dear JamesT (peace to you!), is Beli'a'el, who is a Satan and Devil, and the Accuser of my brothers... and myself. Indeed, of ALL of mankind.
Who here most accentuates a tiny god, one who walks into your room and talks to you like any other little man. It's you Shelby. It's you.
If you believe the Father... or my Lord... tiny... because they condescend to speak with me... or any other human who exercised faith in them... well, that's your opinion, dear James. IMHO, I am the tiny one... and that they do so condescend... as to me... or any other puny human... is beyond large. It is inestimable and often so beyond what my [also tiny] little heart and mind can often fathom. And so, what's IN my heart as to these two... and what they share with me (through the One)... I often share here. Because it's bigger than me... and so much more than I could ever contain within myself.
Your talk is sweet, but it's poison as it is nothing more than a huge EGO that thinks it is gods special and humble little messenger.
My talk may appear sweet, dear James... but I have openly admitted that I am not. I am not special, humble, sweet, nice, caring, loving... none of things. What you see here is me trying to be what my Lord is teaching me to be: to NOT return evil for evil or go reviling when being reviled. A reflection of HIS work... while he is teaching ME to become "subdued." Sometimes I do okay; sometimes, not so much. But I do try, which is all I can do, really. I would love to speak toward people as they do toward me... cuttingly, snidely, rudely, aggressively, hurtfully, perhaps even outright hatefully sometimes. If you knew the "old" me... you would that I am well capable of that. MY truth... is that there was a time when I could colored-girl "Zorro" someone like you (who has spoken to me as you have here)... so quick, SO fast... your head would have fell from your shoulders before you even knew you'd been cut. As I have openly stated and NEVER denied... I am indeed a foremost sinner.
But I am GRATEFUL that my Lord has me correspond with you and those here as I do. Because it is DISCIPLINE... for ME... and yields PEACEABLE "fruit" within ME. As I have said, time and time again, this isn't about you: it is indeed about me... and MY salvation.
The true Source, doesn't need you or anyone, Shelby.
You couldn't be more right, dear James. Because it is I who need him. Which is why I put myself through this:
"Happy you are when people persecute you and lyingly say every sort of thing about you for my name sake."
I am not here for you, JamesT... not at all. I am here for me. The Holy One of Israel gave his life and blood for me. So that I... a sinner... may have the privilege of living. What can I give him in return? Not a doggone thing. I have nothing he needs. I CAN... however, tell the TRUTH about him... to any who will listen. I CAN tell the truth as to how he deals and speaks with me. Even if others don't believe it. Do I CARE if others don't believe it? Not one wit. Because others did not give their lives... or blood for me. Not personally. And none of them can save my life.
So, please, don't flatter YOURSELF and think that I am here for you... or anyone other than myself. I am not and I have never said that I was. I do address what I share to his Household, as that house has been given him by his Father and mine, the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. Because HE loves them... and since I love HIM... I am servant TO them. And for the most part, those dears one DO hear.
And they also "see" those like you. Sadly.
Get off your high horse, dear, and surrender.
Surrender. To whom, dear JamesT? You? You are not my enemy. NVL? He is not my enemy. The Adversary? Sadly, I don't think I need to. I think enough of you have already surrender to him and his accusations against earthling man. I think enough of you, were anyone counting, would have already proved him right. Praise JAH... it only required ONE to prove him wrong... and we know of at least two who have, thus far: the man Job... and the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH.
If I can only follow a third of the way he tried to lead earthling man in proving the accusation made against false, then I am happy. And grateful. To think that I could follow ALL the way... and perfectly... is ludricrous. Again, I can only do what I can, sinner and very imperfect mound of clay that I am.
Now, if you cannot "stomach" what I share, then, please, by ALL means, feel free to skip any thread or post that bears my avatar. Neither my feelings... nor my ego... will be hurt, I assure you. Not one wit.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
OnTheWayOut

But I am GRATEFUL that my Lord has me correspond with you and those here as I do.
Previously: My Lord didn't send me here for anyone other than the Household of God, Israel... and those who go with them. No others.
I won't point out the contradictions because:
We already established that JOE-HASHISH MASSAGEJAYISSSUE MISCHEVIOUSSHOELESSJOE SMITHJOMAMA MISSESYOU JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH is either wrong, lying, or not with AGuest.
Now, if you cannot "stomach" what I share, then, please, by ALL means, feel free to skip... as you do with the real challenging questions of NVL.
AGuest

Ah, so then relating that to foreskins was completely off topic and worthless. Got it.
I'm sorry, but this comment is not really worth responding to, dear NVL (peace to you!), other than to say, that it's not really worth responding to.
Water IS a chemical solution and NOT in ANY way an antiseptic. Glad we are squared away that your suggesting water was an antispetic was 100% wrong.
Funny thing about words, dear one: along with many having more than one definition, or being used in more than one form (i.e., adjective vs. noun, as here)... when strung together they also required comprehension. Which you, brilliant as you are and so learned as to "basic" definitions, appear to be having some trouble with. For example, my comment that: "it is not so much an antiseptic as it is..." if we are speaking of chemical solutions that are antiseptic. Water is indeed a chemical solution, but my reference was to chemical solutions that are actually considered "antiseptic" as YOU define that word. And I stand by my position that water can BE antiseptic. But I don't need you to agree... or confirm. I know what I mean... and others do to.
But, again, if you've nothing better to "pick" at than the word "antiseptic" and our differing opinions, then I'm thinking you've just got WAY too much time on yours hands... these days. Again, my advice: get... a... hobby.
UInfortunately that was not what you actually said. If you now wish to amend your statement, go ahead.
I never need to amend with you; however, I always seem to need to clarify. That goes back to that comprehension problem you have, though...
Since cleansing with water, using antiseptic or having foreskins has zero to do with STD transmission...
Having foreskins, no. Cleansing... with water as and/or an antiseptic... much. True, there are some STDs that have nothing to do with cleanliness, but there are many that have everything to do with. I was not specific as to what particular diseases; only that they were "sexually transmitted."
I am not sure what your point here is. Are you suggesting that foreskins contribute to the transmission of STDs?
Omigosh. You chide me... and then say you're not sure what my point is? Seriously?? Dear one, may I suggest you put the bottle down when you read my posts? It would save both of us... and others here... SO much time. I absolutely am NOT suggesting that foreskins contribute to the transmission of STDs. And rather than restate to you what my point IS... I am going to kindly ask you to go back and read what I posted. Only, with a clear(er) head, this time.
Please feel free to name a medically sound or sane reason.
I did so, dear one. My entire post was devoted to it.
So why didn't he? Can you ask?
I didn't need to ask, for my Lord has condescended to reply to you on this, dear NVL, and his word to YOU is:
"Bbecause the penis is the 'conduit' of life among earthling man. Life comes "through" it. And just as with the creation of the physical universe... life came "through" that One... that One circumcised HIS flesh... let it be "cut it OFF"... so that through HIM... man COULD live... forever. Because it is the conquering, the putting away, and the putting OFF flesh... that leads to life through him."
That is the reply I received and I am to give you... and I, SA, have spoken it to you just as I heard and received it from the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH.
It just seems weird to me for God to ask men to mark their penises and they use that to identify each other and so would therefore have to go around checking out each other's penises.
My understanding is that they didn't go around identifying themselves, per se, as since the event occurred at eight days, it was assumed. Only when someone who believed to NOT be circumcised... and/or a lack of circumcision was somehow inadvertently "revealed" (which was difficult, as seeing one another's nakeness was not an ordinary thing)... was there an issue.
I mean, with Noah seeing another man's nakedness was a bad thing, so it seems odd that he would later require it.
Please see above.
She said depening on the wound.
Well, of course it depends on the wound, dear one. Water alone is probably not going to be affective against a wound that has already had some foreign bacteria or other microbe introduced into it. But, since it has been known to cure semi-advanced leprosy... who's to say?
That is not all that is used to clean circumcision cuts.
Of course, not, dear one... not even then. But you are trying to apply today's conditions to those then. Perhaps if they had stayed in Egypt... where there were doctors and medicine... but they didn't. That's not to say that initially, even the Israelites had some manner of salve and/or other Egyptian "medicine" with them. And/or knew how to make it. But they eventually ran out (it's not like the Sinai wilderness was rampant with herbs and other medicinal plant life. There wasn't even water, remember? And they were out there for 40 years). It wasn't a party out there. It was tough and rations... particularly food and water, so certainly medicine... were not just scarce but virtually non-existent. Otherwise, they wouldn't have started complaining just three days out... and the Most Holy One of Israel wouldn't have had to send them manna and quail... and Moses wouldn't have been directed to strike the rock-mass for water.
Even in hospitals with all precautions taken there is a much higher risk of infection and often followup treatment is required.
Hmmmmm... and what hospital would that have been in, say, the Sinai wilderness?
It would pose a risk to a nation because many would get sick and possibly die from infection and be disabled for days under the best of circumstances.
Ummmm... they were babies. And babies died from a LOT of things, not just penile infections. Indeed, infections of the flesh were easily dealt with - keep the wound clean. And water would have been conducive to that, when they had it. But babies died from others things, too. As did mothers giving birth. Neither posed a risk to the nation. It would only be if the MEN were effected in large numbers, dear one. And STDs could have that effect.
It happens all the time. No one needs to concinve you, it's well documented. The aborigines of australia, for instance.
Yet, no one can say WHY they do it. Again, I go back to my original statement ("God or a doctor"... which would include a tribal "medicine" man)
You deciding on your own without spending a single minutes lifting yourself out of ignorance has zero bearing on whether or not it happens, because it does.
See my comment above, which you again missed (bleary vision has that effect)... or failed to comprehend (no need to go there, again).
Again, peace to you, dear NVL, truly.
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
AGuest

But I am GRATEFUL that my Lord has me correspond with you and those here as I do.
Previously: My Lord didn't send me here for anyone other than the Household of God, Israel... and those who go with them. No others.
I won't point out the contradictions because:
There is no contradiction, dear OTWO... but merely a miscomprehension (on your part) of what you read. I AM grateful that my Lord has me correspond with dear James... and you... and those here... AS I do. Meaning, in the MANNER that I do... WHEN I do. He did not send me here for any others than His House. I come, willingly, NOT because he makes me... but because it is all that I CAN do for him. Where can I go? "To the Household of God, Israel... and those who go with." Some just happen to be here... and so here I am. Others are sent elsewhere.
We already established that JOE-HASHISH MASSAGEJAYISSSUE MISCHEVIOUSSHOELESSJOE SMITHJOMAMA MISSESYOU JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH is either wrong, lying, or not with AGuest.
How can someone who doesn't exist... by your estimation... be wrong? Or lying? Or "not with" someone, dear one? If by my words here you are at least willing to acknowledge that he is "wrong" (but exists)... or "lying" (but exists)... or "not with" me (but exists)... then half the work is done. Isn't it? That you even bother with me is, as I stated to you before, proof that "something" has indeed "hit a nerve" with you. What puzzles EME is why do you keep fighting it?
Now, if you cannot "stomach" what I share, then, please, by ALL means, feel free to skip... as you do with the real challenging questions of NVL.
I can totally stomach you... and what YOU share. And I've answered every single question dear NVL has raised. Some twice. Some 3-4 times. He, however, has not responded to a SINGLE question/offer/challenge I've made to him. Nor have you. But feel free, please, to point out where I've overlooked anything from either of you. For it was truly not my intention and I will most certainly respond, as my Lord permits me to (and thus far, he hasn't stopped me, so...).
Again, and as always, peace to you, as well!
A slave of Christ,
SA
myelaine

dear Aguest...
you said: "The Adversary, dear JamesT (peace to you!), is Beli'a'el, who is a Satan and Devil, and the Accuser of my brothers... and myself. Indeed, of ALL of mankind."...
sadly...YOU share all the familial traits of the spirit that activates the GB of the WTBTS...why don't you see this?
YOU are the loudest accuser here...why don't you hear this?
love michelle
notverylikely

I'm sorry, but this comment is not really worth responding to, dear NVL (peace to you!), other than to say, that it's not really worth responding to.
Then just answer a question. If the foreskin was not bad in an of itself, why did you mention health, disease and cleanliness in relationship to it?
Funny thing about words, dear one: along with many having more than one definition, or being used in more than one form (i.e., adjective vs. noun, as here)... when strung together they also required comprehension. Which you, brilliant as you are and so learned as to "basic" definitions, appear to be having some trouble with.
Only when you don't understand the words you are using, which you do frequently, such as suggesting that was was an antiseptic.
Water is indeed a chemical solution, but my reference was to chemical solutions that are actually considered "antiseptic" as YOU define that word.
Sorry, there is a specific meaning to that word and you used it incorrectly. Water is not, has not ever been, does not mean and never has meant "antiseptic" by ANY definition. You are just wrong on that.
And I stand by my position that water can BE antiseptic. But I don't need you to agree... or confirm. I know what I mean... and others do to.
I know what you mean too. It means that you had no clue what the word antiseptic meant and that you will worm and try to turn any possibly related use of water as a cleaning agent to mean that. It's not MY fault you had no idea what you were talking about. It's very clear to others that you have no idea what you are talking about as well. At least we agree on that.
But, again, if you've nothing better to "pick" at than the word "antiseptic" and our differing opinions, then I'm thinking you've just got WAY too much time on yours hands... these days. Again, my advice: get... a... hobby.
Nice double standard! It's awesome when you insist and get picky when someone slightly misunderstands what you write and you point it out, but when you display wholesale ignorance and misapply definitions, it's just "being picky". Nice WT move, there, kid. And BTW, what "antiseptic" means isn't an opinion, it's very clear had you bothered to spend two minutes looking it up before you started writing.
I never need to amend with you; however, I always seem to need to clarify. That goes back to that comprehension problem you have, though...
Yes, I often need to ask clarification questions the the writer has no idea what they writing about.
I did so, dear one. My entire post was devoted to it.
Sorry, I meant medically sound, not ignorant rambling. Please post a medically sound reason for an entire nation cutting off part of their penis.
My understanding is that they didn't go around identifying themselves, per se, as since the event occurred at eight days, it was assumed.
Ah, so the identifying mark didn't need to be seen. That makes absolutely no sense. Of course, it occurred at 8 days for babies. For the grown men that had to cut it up, that makes no sense.
Well, of course it depends on the wound, dear one. Water alone is probably not going to be affective against a wound that has already had some foreign bacteria or other microbe introduced into it. But, since it has been known to cure semi-advanced leprosy... who's to say?
Documentation, please.
Of course, not, dear one... not even then. But you are trying to apply today's conditions to those then.
No, I am no. I am suggesting that conditions were much worse and the rate of death much higher from infection. You suggested they used spit. So again, they either had to use water which WASN'T, ISN'T and NEVER had been an antiseptic or spit on each others penises. Awesomely stupid thing god would suggest.
Hmmmmm... and what hospital would that have been in, say, the Sinai wilderness?
Had you bothered to do any research whatsoever, you would know that after ANY surgery there is a higher risk of infection, even, and in some cases, especially, in hospitals.
Ummmm... they were babies.
Sorry dear, you missed the first round, they were adults when God asked for their foreskins.
Indeed, infections of the flesh were easily dealt with - keep the wound clean. And water would have been conducive to that, when they had it.
Of course they had water, they would have died without it. Of course, there is no suggestion in the bible that they knew to boil water to purify it or had any idea about microbiology or how it worked. In other words, you are spouting off personal wacky theories out of an ignorance of history.
Yet, no one can say WHY they do it. Again, I go back to my original statement ("God or a doctor"... which would include a tribal "medicine" man)
Yet, you were 100% wrong when you said " Sorry, but no one can convince me that a tribe of men agreed to do ANYTHING that would cause pain to a penis." Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
See my comment above, which you again missed (bleary vision has that effect)... or failed to comprehend (no need to go there, again).
Sorry, you being ignorant is not the same as me misunderstanding. Peace.
AGuest

Michelle... I do not accuse my brothers but stand fast with them... IN [union with] the Truth... Christ. Not some church, or religion, or bible, or Bible writer, or organization, or institution, or organization, or with false prophets, or false christs (false anointed). Like them and with them... I keep my face toward the Cover... and my gaze on the Copper Serpent.
Those, like you, who are NOT of the Body of Christ (but rather, the body of the Catholic Church... who leaders are looking very "christ-like" right now)... have shown the Adversary to be true in his accusation against mankind in general.
Now, I will ask you one more time, here, publicly... in light of our PM conversations... which I will ask you again, here, publicly, to cease... to also cease your blasphemy. After this, I will leave you to the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... and, as I've said to you... ask for His mercy to be upon you. Because... that is all you've left me to do at this point... and so I will, as you truly don't know what you do.
A slave of Christ,
SA
notverylikely

There is no contradiction, dear OTWO... but merely a miscomprehension (on your part) of what you read.
Right, when Shelby thinks water is an antiseptic or that infections don't happen in modern hospitals or that no tribe would mutilate their penises without direct intervention from god and ALL the evidence proves her incorrect and ignorant ramblings to be wrong, you just misunderstood her.
And I've answered every single question dear NVL has raised. Some twice. Some 3-4 times. He, however, has not responded to a SINGLE question/offer/challenge I've made to him.
Right on, Shelby! Keep repeating the same tired wrong things and call them answers!
BTW, name a single question/offer/challenge made to me I haven't answered? I mean, you might be thinking of your "faith" hypothesis attempt, but since you gave demonstration steps that aren't independently confirmable and that's the very foundation of a testable hypothesis, that "challenge" hasn't been produced. Feel free to try again and get it right. That certainly would be a first for you.
notverylikely

Those, like you, who are NOT of the Body of Christ (but rather, the body of the Catholic Church... who leaders are looking very "christ-like" right now)... have shown the Adversary to be true in his accusation against mankind in general.
Now, I will ask you one more time, here, publicly... in light of our PM conversations... which I will ask you again, here, publicly, to cease... to also cease your blasphemy.
There we have it. Shelby decides who is part of the body of Christ and decides that when someone disagrees it's blasphemy.
myelaine

dear AGuest...
you said: "I do not accuse my brothers but stand fast with them... IN [union with] the Truth... Christ."...
...but not including the apostle Paul?
...do you stand fast with any who who give you council through the pages of the bible?...wouldn't you have known that hyssop was added to water for a reason?...I gave YOU that "council" from the bible for a reason...but YOU were unthankful and kept on foaming up your own shame...and consequently laid bare YOUR OWN ignorance on the matter...as well as the ignorance of the one who leads you to speak.
where ARE your brothers that stand fast WITH you?
love michelle

The Issue is Not that God WANTS Us to Suffer...

Share this