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

by AGuest 404 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  Then just answer a question.

  Of course, dear NVL (again, peace to you!)...

  If the foreskin was not bad in an of itself, why did you mention health, disease and cleanliness in relationship to it?

  Because there were those whose poor sex and hygeine habits directly effected the NEED (or lack of need) of the foreskin. Which was the original question: why have it removed.

  Only when you don't understand the words you are using, which you do frequently, such as suggesting that was was an antiseptic.

  Dear one, if it's that important to you that we only use the word as a noun, then so be it.

  Sorry, there is a specific meaning to that word and you used it incorrectly.

  If you are only referring to it as a noun, yes. But I was not; it is also an adjective, dear one. Truly.

  Water is not, has not ever been, does not mean and never has meant "antiseptic" by ANY definition. You are just wrong on that.

  Please see above. But, if you need me to be wrong, so be it.

  I know what you mean too. It means that you had no clue what the word antiseptic meant

  I did, actually, in both the noun and adjective form. I think you only knew of the noun, though, which caused this misunderstanding...

  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.

  That you and perhaps 2-3 others believe it clear... if indeed that is the case... is of no consequence, dear one, truly. There are just as many who believe I was totall clear...

  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'm not going to respond to the first part as, again, no point. You're grasping for straws there, and you really needed to. As to the definition of antiseptic, if you take a minute and go back you'll see that I did look it up... and even posted the definition...

  Yes, I often need to ask clarification questions the the writer has no idea what they writing about.

  Or when you don't comprehend... which is often and becoming more and more prevalent. Again, that bottle may have something to do with 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.

  There is no such reason... today. There wasn't one much after the nation reached the Jordan (as now there was plenty of water)... and so Israel COULD have ceased doing it then. They COULD have said, "Hey, look, disease is no longer a threat as it was when we were out in the wilderness, so if you don't want to put your tiny baby through that... don't. No one will hold it against you." That would have been the FULFILLMENT of the Law. BUT... they didn't do that. They kept requiring it, even though it wasn't hygenically necessary. Thankfully, the apostles clarified that as to the NEW Covenant. So, today, there is absolutely no reason for it, other than aethestics.

  Ah, so the identifying mark didn't need to be seen. That makes absolutely no sense.

  Sure it does. It was an exterior mark, but the FULFILLMENT of the Law Covenant would been to NOT have judged a man by his outward appearance. Meaning, if an alien resident came among you and exhibited LOVE toward you... that SHOULD have been ENOUGH. But, because Israel was so busy looking at the Law as a WINDOW... instead of a MIRROR... and pointing the finger OUT instead of IN... they missed the point of why it was a HIDDEN mark. He is not an Israelite who is one on the OUTSIDE - he is an Israelite who is one... on the INSIDE.

  Of course, it occurred at 8 days for babies. For the grown men that had to cut it up, that makes no sense.

  It did if one had the Law written on their hearts. That Law would have told them that SURPASSING the Old Law... with love and mercy... was better than worrying about who was transgressing it.

  Documentation, please.

  Absolutely!

  "Na´a·man, the chief of the army of the king of Syria...proved to be a valiant, mighty man, though a leper. E·li´sha sent a messenger to him, saying: "Going there, you must bathe seven times in the Jordan that your flesh may come back to you; and be clean." "... he went down and began to plunge into the Jordan seven times according to the word of the man of the [true] God; after which his flesh came back like the flesh of a little boy and he became clean."

  There you go. Done.

  I am suggesting that conditions were much worse and the rate of death much higher from infection. You suggested they used spit.

  No, I didn't - . I said some peoples (and mentioned some in the Amazon region) use spit. I never said the Israelites used spit. However, my Lord did... but not necessarily as an antiseptic.

  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.

  Okay, now I know you totally misunderstood as I said nothing of the sort. I said that circumcision was required due, in part, to the LACK of water. And I never applied the use of spit to them.

  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.

  I totally agree and NEVER suggested otherwise. Never. However, you totally rule out the risk of infection due to STDs...

  Sorry dear, you missed the first round, they were adults when God asked for their foreskins.

  You are correct, I did miss that and so did not take the initial requirement into account, so I apologize for that. But that actually only makes my point as to the purpose as to hygiene.

  Of course they had water, they would have died without it.

  No, actually, for the most part they didn't. For a greater part of the trek, they would drink only after the Most Holy One of Israel provided water. Same with food...

  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.

  I think you're in error here. First, Job knew of it... and Abraham came from the same region (Orient) as Job. Also, the Orientals knew... and both Job and Abraham were originally orientals (from the East). Third, the Israelites were descendants of Abraham and so would have some knowledge. But finally, they resided among the Egyptians for 400 or so years... and the Egyptians not only knew such a basic process... but had among them very learned (for the time) physicians, chemists, and herbalists.

  In other words, you are spouting off personal wacky theories out of an ignorance of history.

  Maybe. But my interest in Egyptology... and a recent visit to the Egyptian Museum in San Jose says I'm not speaking from my own theories at all...

  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.

  Yes, I stated that at based on dear CD's opinion that a group of men go together and decided FOR THEMSELVES that that was what they were going to do. And that is all that I addressed that statement to. But, because I understand you to be unusually pedantic, I went on and stated, as to today OR then... "unless God... or a doctor... told him to do it. Or... a woman..."

  Which, of course, you left out. But please don't think I am going to be SO careful with my words, dear one, that I won't say one thing and not further clarify a few sentences further. I type very fast and I don't always go back and reread every word. I shouldn't have to. If you want to pick out such things but leave out their fuller explanation, so be it. That is your choice. WHY... is a bit of a conundrum... other than perhaps you now feel it your personal life's work to pursue me and take issue with what I share on these matters. If so, then I have to say that I am VERY glad to have been the one who added some purpose to your life. My Lord knows you need some.

  Sorry, you being ignorant is not the same as me misunderstanding.

  Oh, sure it is. Your misunderstanding is born of YOUR ignorance as to the things that I share. Just as mine is of yours. We're no different. You know oranges, of which I have little or no understanding. I am not afraid to admit that. I know Christ... who knows apples... including what's in the Bible... of which YOU have little or no understanding. For example, there really are 3 places in the Bible where the 144,000 are mentioned... by number. Yet, you stated there was only one. Definitively and affirmatively. Now, it's right there... in writing... in black and white. Yet, you misstated it, as if you knew. Why was that, exactly?

  Peace.

  Again, to you, as well!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA

  Peace.
• 

  watersprout

  where are your brothers that stand fast WITH you?

  I am one of them...

  Peace and light
• 

  notverylikely

  Because there were those whose poor sex and hygeine habits directly effected the NEED (or lack of need) of the foreskin. Which was the original question: why have it removed.

  But Shelby, sex habits have nothing to do with the foreskin. And if, in some mythical world, habing a foreskin require additional hygiene, removing it acutally required much MORE hygiene and cleanliness and increased the risk of disease. You still aren't making sense, dear.

  Of course, it also raises the question, is the foreskin is such a danger, why did God create it in the first place...

  Dear one, if it's that important to you that we only use the word as a noun, then so be it.

  It doesn't matter whether you use it as a noun or aqn adjective, you were still 100% wrong. You were and are 100% wrong, truly.Of course, you keep suggesting that I have limited knowledge and that's what's causing me problems. I invite you to show me one reference where water has antiseptic properties as an adjective. Go for it.

  I'm not going to respond to the first part as, again, no point. You're grasping for straws there, and you really needed to. As to the definition of antiseptic, if you take a minute and go back you'll see that I did look it up... and even posted the definition...

  Yes, grasping at straws is what you do when you use a word wrong and then start claiming similar definitions that match similar definitions of adjectives are what you REALLY meant and it's totally clear. Sorry, dear shelby, and peace to you, but I don't NEED you to be wrong. You just ARE. Truly. I challenge to prove me wrong with a reference that shows water to be an antiseptic in any form of the word.

  There is no such reason... today.

  And in the entire rambling unrelated pragraph you didn't cite one for then either.

  Sure it does. It was an exterior mark, but the FULFILLMENT of the Law Covenant would been to NOT have judged a man by his outward appearance.

  Sorry, that paragraph doesn't jibe. First of all, you said it was an identifying mark, if it was hidden it would be identifying. Also, they already had, as Isralites, an identifying outwark mark of blue fringes upon their clothes. Your explanation is not internally consistent.

  There you go. Done.

  Oh, sorry, that scripture doesn't say the water cured him. Besides, according to you that isn't actually scripture and is therefore untrustworthy.

  No, I didn't -

  Yes, you did. You wrote that they had many other antiseptics besides water available, including spit. I couldn't care WHO told you, YOU wrote it here, so what YOU wrote was that they could have used spit. It was written in the context of antiseptics. To suggest that is not how it was meant is outright dishonesty.

  I totally agree and NEVER suggested otherwise. Never. However, you totally rule out the risk of infection due to STDs.

  Sure you did. I said that the risk of infection even today is higher in hospitals and you said "Hmmmmm... and what hospital would that have been in, say, the Sinai wilderness?". To suggest otherwise is an outright lie, Shelby. And that comment had nothing to do with STDs.

  You are correct, I did miss that and so did not take the initial requirement into account, so I apologize for that. But that actually only makes my point as to the purpose as to hygiene.

  It in no way makes your point except to demonstrate that it did disable the nation. The context was not about hygiene, so to suggest it somehow makes your point is wishful thinking at best.

  No, actually, for the most part they didn't. For a greater part of the trek, they would drink only after the Most Holy One of Israel provided water. Same with food...

  So you say they didn't and then said the lord provided the water they needed. Wow. So they HAD water. Which is what I said.

  But finally, they resided among the Egyptians for 400 or so years... and the Egyptians not only knew such a basic process..

  Wow, you say I am wrong, then fail to provide a singe reference and then use the Egyptians who often used dung to bandage wounds. You failed, failed and then infected the wound of the failure with an Egyptian cure. Which, BTW, was a total fail.

  But my interest in Egyptology... and a recent visit to the Egyptian Museum in San Jose says I'm not speaking from my own theories at all...

  OK, sure, provide a reference where the egyptians knew about microbiology. You must have learned it at the museum.

  Your misunderstanding is born of YOUR ignorance as to the things that I share.

  Sure, just show me where water is an antiseptic or that Egyptians knew about microbiology.

  For example, there really are 3 places in the Bible where the 144,000 are mentioned... by number. Yet, you stated there was only one.

  Yes, I was incorrect about that. Thank you for the clarification. However, since you were able to cite documention of that, I will expect the same from you on water as an antispetic and egyptions having cures that indicated they knew about microbiology.

  Since, as you said, it WAS in black and white and I WAS clearly wrong, I will freely admit that I was in error. The real question NOW is...will you provide documentation and show yourself similarly humble or continue to suggest that you were right when all evidence and documentation says you were not.
• 

  tec

  NVL - I'm not sure what you mean by knowledge of microbiology, but peat water has antiseptic properties, and those are found in egypt and from what I've looked up, the ancient egyptians used that as well as other herbal remedies to assist in curing infections and stuff. I don't think that means they had knowledge of microbiology, only that they knew what helped certain types of cuts and infections.

  Just thought that was interesting and that I would share with you both :)

  Tammy
• 

  notverylikely

  but peat water has antiseptic properties

  Sure, but she wasn't talking about peat water.

  and those are found in egypt and from what I've looked up

  Egyptian items have been found in Irish peat bogs, but the containers they were found in dated to much later than the Egyptian dynasties at the time of the Israelites association with Egypt, unless of course you have some other reference that suggests the Egyptians had access to peat and used it medicinally.

  the ancient egyptians used that as well as other herbal remedies to assist in curing infections and stuff

  They did use herbal remedies with no known medicinal properties as well as dung, though, "Many practices were ineffective or harmful. Michael D. Parkins says that 72% of 260 medical prescriptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no known curative elements, [8] and many contained animal dung which contains products of fermentation and molds, some of them having curative properties, [9] but also bacteria posing a grave threat of infection"

  I don't think that means they had knowledge of microbiology, only that they knew what helped certain types of cuts and infections.

  At least in 72% of the time, it was either not helpful or more harmful.

  Just thought that was interesting and that I would share with you both :)

  Thanks!
• 

  thenoblelodge

  Myelaine..... Hey I'm another.
• 

  AGuest

  Dearest NVL... peace to you. Have you truly nothing better to do than have a hissy fit over whether water is an antiseptic or not? Again, as a noun, it is not. As something that abates septicism, and thus is "anti" septic, it can be.

  Now, scream, shout, jump, pull out your hair, and stamp your dear little NVL foot as much as you wish: while I do consider you rather "smart" (although not the smartest human in the world) I have stated what I was given as to why circumcision was the choice... versus marring some other part of the skin. If my calling water an "antiseptic" in the process sticks in your craw, well, if I were you I would ask myself just why that is (i.e., "Considering the entire discussion Shelby, I, and others are having here, why is the issue of whether water is, literally, an antiseptic or not, so... well, HUGE for me... so much so that I can't move past it?"). Because it really is a very trivial detail in the scheme of what we're talking about.

  But since you insist (and obviously cannot grasp what I am meaning), I offer you the following:

  When a woman gives birth in westerns, why do they always boil water?

  "... Boiling water kills germs, but this was not widely understood until the late 19th century. Prior to that time few saw the need for cleanliness. Doctors in the 1780s, for example, complained about midwives with dirty hands poking around in the mother's innards during labor.

  Truth is, as long as it was just midwives doing the poking, sterility wasn't that important. Only when doctors got involved did it become a matter of life and death. During the 19th century, as doctors began to supplant midwives at the bedsides of women giving birth, there was an alarming rise in complications such as puerperal fever. This often fatal illness resulted from the infection of vaginal or other tissue torn during childbirth. Midwives weren't major carriers of this disease, because they saw only a handful of patients a week. A doctor, on the other hand, might handle diseased tissue during an autopsy and then proceed to the delivery room, where he'd unwittingly infect the mother.

  Some doctors tried to warn of the danger, notably the Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis. But few paid much heed until 1880, when Louis Pasteur showed that puerperal fever was caused by a particular type of bacteria. Meanwhile the English physician Joseph Lister was persuading his colleagues of the importance of antiseptics in surgery. By 1885 hospitals had begun to adopt antiseptic methods such as boiling water to sterilize instruments, including those used during childbirth. (Previously many cases of tetanus had resulted from cutting the umbilical cord with a dirty knife or scissors, and of course there were the infamous forceps.) Presumably word about antiseptic practices eventually reached the prairies, and boiling water both to sterilize things and, after it cooled, to wash the hands of the attending midwife/doctor/cowpoke became a standard part of the prenatal drill.

  That's not to say no one ever boiled water before the 1880s.

  The excerpt is taken from an article in The Straight Dope (which is fittingly subtitled "Fighting Ignorance Since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought".) I concur.)

  Now, I'm not saying that "Cecil Adams" really IS the "smartest human on earth" but it seems to me that I am not alone in attributing antiseptic properties to water, particularly when it's boiled. So, now, let's move on, shall we? Because this really is a tremendous waste of board space.

  And, again, peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  There we have it. Shelby decides who is part of the body of Christ...

  Shelby "decided" nothing, dear NVL (peace to you!). I only followed what my Lord told me to follow: "by their fruits you will know them." Although those "fruits" have been hidden, washed over, excused, denied, ignored, and pretty much been let run rampant for over 1,400 years now, it was all bound to come out sooner... or later. Now... is later, dear one.

  and decides that when someone disagrees it's blasphemy.

  Oh, no, this wasn't based on any disagreement, per se. Had she kept it to just disagreeing, that would have been fine - we are free to disagree, even if we are the of the same Body. Unfortunately, however, as with you... Michelle says different things in her PMs... and my response is based on that: the fact the Michelle has called my Lord, the One who is the Holy Spirit... an "evil" spirit. That really is blasphemy, dear one, truly.

  BUT... I have to say that I am quite curious that you, one who professes to believe in neither God, Christ, OR the Holy Spirit... would be concerned. I mean, if there's no God, then there's no blasphemy. Right? And so, I really didn't say anything... ummmm... "bad" to Michelle. Nothing more than, "you're a moron," which is what some like you have said to me. Right?

  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?

  I am not sure what you're implying. That I don't agree with what is often attributed to Paul... or with Paul himself... does not mean I don't stand fast with him IN UNION WITH CHRIST. He and the apostles didn't agree on a number of things. Would you say they didn't stand fast with one another as to THEIR union with Christ? What does one have to do with the other?

  ...do you stand fast with any who who give you council through the pages of the bible?

  Depends, actually. On which pages, what counsel, who is giving it... and whether my Lord corroborates it. Because if you think that when someone does "counsel" me that I don't test that "expression," particularly if it is claimed to have been inspired... you are seriously mistaken.

  ...wouldn't you have known that hyssop was added to water for a reason?

  Ummmmm... not really. Would anyone, in light of the discussion? . I mean, I know that hyssop has anesthesizing properties, even perhaps euthanizing. But no, I did not know of its antiseptic properties. If that is the case, however, well, then, there you go!

  ...I gave YOU that "council" from the bible for a reason...

  Really. And just what was that reason, Michelle?

  but YOU were unthankful and kept on foaming up your own shame...

  SOOoooo, you throw in something about hyssop to say what? That hyssop oil was used as an antiseptic? That when added to water it acted as an antiseptic? But neither address the point I made: that (1) given the ABSENCE OF WATER, (2) THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE LIVESTOCK, (3) THE HABIT OF SOME TO "VISIT" THAT LIVESTOCK FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN SHEPHERDING, and (4) THE LIKELIHOOD OF MULTIPLE WIVES/SEX PARTNERS... the Israelites had serious issues regarding hygiene to overcome. For example, preventing the spread of STDs. Which can effect everything from life... to procreation... and thus the viability of the nation istelf.

  It amazes me that something so LOGICAL... just flies over some folks heads. Truly. The obession with WASHING... was for a REASON.

  and consequently laid bare YOUR OWN ignorance on the matter

  That I am ignorant as to the use of hyssop at that time? I mean, okay. But I don't believe we were discussing what kinds of antiseptics WERE available... and may have been used by the Israelites... and for what purpose... including purification. We were discussin why circumcision. Again, (1) given the ABSENCE OF WATER, (2) THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE LIVESTOCK, (3) THE HABIT OF SOME TO "VISIT" THAT LIVESTOCK FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN SHEPHERDING (which is why the exhortation against it), and (4) THE LIKELIHOOD OF MULTIPLE WIVES/SEX PARTNERS (who may or may not have been women)... the Israelites had serious issues regarding hygiene to overcome. For example, preventing the spread of STDs. Which can effect everything from life... to procreation... and thus the viability of the nation istelf.

  ...as well as the ignorance of the one who leads you to speak.

  I have told you who leads me to speak, Michelle. I have not hidden that truth from you... or anyone. And, again, you blaspheme, as the Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, who is the Holy One of Israel... is not ignorant. But you are in his hands now and no longer my concern. So, say what you will.

  where ARE your brothers that stand fast WITH you?

  What, you assume the entire Body of Christ is HERE?? Seriously? I am here so long as there is but one. Because the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, IS merciful. And based on the responses above, there is at least one. Two, actually.

  And now, I am directed by my Lord, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, who is the Son and Christ of the Most Holy One of Israel to ask YOU... what, please, is the name of the "spirit" that YOU follow... the one that leads you and tells YOU to speak... and blaspheme againt the Holy Spirit? What is its name?

  love michelle

  (Shaking head)...
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  There is no contradiction, dear OTWO... but merely a miscomprehension (on your part) of what you read.

  Nope, sorry. It's plain for all to read. You are changing what you meant about what you said right here in the same thread. You are being caught in your web of trying to pretend that the Holy Ghost is guiding you and you cannot remember what you said/meant clearly. Just be careful that your psychotic breakdown might come when you are not ready for it.

  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?

  Learn how to argue. If one person insists that God or Jesus or the Holy Ghost exists, the other is allowed to point out inconsistencies and expectations as if that entity existed. It's standard debate. The Holy Ghost, were He actually whispering in your ear, would have explained to you all that. Really, I don't have any college at all under my belt and I get this, I don't have any supernatural help and I get it, I bet most readers get it too.

  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?

  I have fully explained that. I thought I had divine guidance at one time and it was not so. I might have let it go, but your insistence on spreading a message is causing you to backtrack and change definitions and resort to scriptures then dismiss scriptures. It's getting dangerous. Someone else wanted you to know how the Holy Ghost gave them direction in their life to feed the dog and mail a package. People can get hurt believing your lies.

  Before you get all bent out of shape and try to think of what to say and pretend you are not mad, remember these words you said:
  "I AM grateful that my Lord has me correspond with dear James... and you... and those here... AS I do."

  Okay, I left off on page 15 reading your last response to me. Let me see what new crap you posted on page 16. I am so grateful to correspond with you, Shelby. I really hope you get some help though.
• 

  AGuest

  Dear OTWO... peace to you. I do believe you misunderstood me. But... okay... you don't agree. Cool. I can totally dig it. I am sorry that what you thought was divine guidance turned out not to be so. I understand that. I once convinced myself that "God" had led me to the Witnesses to. And then His Son showed me the who, what, how, where, and why of that time and I realized... that the truth is I had no one to blame but myself. There were all KINDS of warnings... and warning signals... and I didn't heed a single one: they had "sayings of everlasting life," at the time (well, they kept talking about the "truth" and the "anointed"... as well as "everlasting life"). And they showed me a name in the Bible ("Jehovah") that no one had ever showed me before. I have since come to know that even that name is false.

  I am truly sorry that I have presented such a conundrum for you - it was not my intention. I share what I do for the Household of God, Israel... and those who go with them. I do it because, as I said... my Lord loves them... truly... and I love him. With every fiber of my being. I do not take lightly in ANY respect the great privilege I have been given. I totally understand the implications... and the responsibility. Trust me, I am not subjecting myself to all that I receive here for nothing. Who in their right mind would... without some overarching compelling reason? That reason is what he has told me... and shown me. Things I CANNOT deny... even if it means having to "debate" (and sometimes poorly, unfortunately, for I told you... I don't know this stuff) with you and others like you.

  That I am given things to share... and share them just as I receive them... doesn't mean that I, myself, am going to be as articulate or... ummmm... "smart"... when I am called upon to defend them by you and those like you. I do the best I can. I could just share what I am given and leave it that; say, "Look, it's what I got and if you don't like it go to him and ask yourself." I personally find THAT to be unkind and unloving. It is an expression of my love... for HIM... because he loves YOU... that I even bother to keep explaining, keep trying to reason with ones.

  It is rarely anyone of the Body of Christ who put me to such task, though. They are just too kind. If they agree... fine. If they don't... again, fine. Because THEY know that I am NOT their leader, that it is NOT to me that they should listen... but to the One we call Lord and Master. Very seldom, however, does one tell me that their spirit does NOT bear witness with the TRUTH that I share. One or two may have to mull over what I've shared... even discuss it with our Lord... but thus far, no one has said to me, "That is NOT what our Lord has said!"

  I understand that all of this is... confusing to you. I truly do. It was to me. And it most probably would be if someone were saying to ME the things I share. I totally get that. Praise JAH... our Lord himself came to me and spoke to me... and speaks to me, still. I don't know why, dear one... other than as I have shared: faith. It is NOT because I am special. It is NOT because I am righteous. It is NOT because I am better. It is NOT because I think I am "God's gift." All of those things would apply to my Lord - and certainly not to me.

  But I say to you this night, that if what has happened to me happened to you... or anyone else here... you would do exactly the same. I say that without a doubt. And I say it with confidence because I KNOW that you would be able to do nothing else. Once the Spirit begins to use you... you are merely an instrument. Your life no longer belongs to you... because you understand that you were BOUGHT... REPURCHASED... and that a price was paid FOR your life. And so you go... voluntarily... willingly... and happily. Because since HE "wanted to".... YOU "want to."

  As always, I bid you peace.

  Your servant, still, and a slave of Christ, always...

  SA... who is NOT mad at you... or anyone. Not even and not by a long shot. Because it is not me who you are rejecting, so I can't... and don't... take it personally...