The problem of evil

[William]

Q: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?

The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. eta:{SOURCE}

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #110]

I am averse to the assumptions you are making, the utter lack of evidence you are providing for your claims - including the lack of evidence you have provided for everything in this very post...

They are not "claims" they are statements of opinion in response to your own statements of opinion.
As such, neither of us are required to provide evidence...or find aversity therein.

as well as the double-standard you are employing in using the 'bible' to speak of "Satan" to begin with, all the while ignoring the very evidence that book provides about his nature.

My opinion to do with Satan is not ignoring what the Bible tells us of Satan's Character. His Role is specific to that, and obviously useful to the God of the Bible, as the Bible tells it.

William: You seem adverse to my understanding that the way Satan is utilized by God is reflected onto God and can be seen for what it is, by the audience.
I do not have those images you have in your beliefs about Satan, and am not accusing anyone, Satan, God or Job, Christ, David Paul or any other entity effected by God.

Accusing them of what? I'm not sure where that comment is coming from.

I am pointing out the irony re your accusations about me. All accusations [about me or anyone else] come from Satan - which is to say - are mirrored finger-pointing. My "Accuser" [in this case "Tam"] is regarded by me, as voicing accusation = "as coming from Satan" since he is the God-Father of accusation.

[Perhaps have a think about how Peace is formed...it is never formed through the voicing of accusation.]

William: I simply pointed out that there is no mention of Job being consulted on the matter before being cast into the role.

Why are you pointing that out when no one suggested otherwise?

Exactly! It is not expected that in the affairs between YHWH and Satan, that humans need be consulted before they are used re said affairs. This theme and it's varients run through the Bible in relation to the God and Human beings.

I listen to the TRUTHFUL voice of Christ Jaheshua, who is the Light.

That is a statement of opinion Tam. I appreciate it as such, and thus require no evidence from you to back it up.

I also think it is inappropriate for you to use my friend Joey (peace to you!) in an argument with me. So just don't.

Joey has shared with us all, his dilemma. You both share the same "hearing a voice" phenomena. It is appropriate for me to point that out, and so I did.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Did you see that God did not order the Adversary to destroy Job's belongings or to kill his children, or take his health? There is no suggestion that God wished for those things to happen. He gave Satan permission to do as Satan wished - but set some limitations on how far Satan could go.

.....gave Satan permission to do as Satan wished....... .

Yes.

I don't know how to answer for "Christianity" (the religion), though I think your observation might be different in observing different sects. Both exist (the Adversary and demons). We are also warned about lying spirits, and are told to test the inspired expression, because not every spirit or inspired expression is from God. (Test all claims/expressions against love - nothing true will be against love; and test them also against Christ, who is the Truth and who speaks the truth.)

Do you believe that God does not control everything?

He does not control our choices. He might influence them, but what we choose is up to us.

For instance:

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

What would be the point of setting a choice before us (life or death), if we were not able to choose to begin with?

Well, religion does not tend to be spiritual. Religion is more about walking by SIGHT (rather than being about walking by FAITH). But Christ is the Spirit. God is Spirit. No religion today is from God (and Christ did not start a new religion), but instead we are meant to be worshiping in spirit and in truth (in/through Christ, the Spirit, and in truth).

I perceive the word 'spiritual' to be about spirits and I can't understand any other use.

Yes, that just makes sense doesn't it? God and His Son are spirit. They are spirit beings.

...... Apart from experiencing all the emotions within life and thing/meditating about things, I've never worshipped any Gods, I tried to in my youth but for me it was a meaningless action and I just don't understand it.

If you do not know or even believe in God/gods, I can see how it would be hard to worship (where worship stems from love). That does not mean that you don't love - or know love - though. And love covers over a multitude of sins... it is the law that comes from God (the God and Father of Christ). Some/many non-Christians do NATURALLY the requirements of the law (which is love).

Of course, if you ever did WANT to know God, and HIS truth, then I would not suggest looking to religion, but rather to His Son, Jaheshua.

To the bold: to a point, perhaps... but I think if we followed nature's every 'wish', then there would be far fewer deaths from natural 'disasters' (called so mostly just because of the loss of life).

We seem to be completely under the demands of nature, Tam. For example, was Genghis Khan a wicked man when he and his armies raced across the Mongolian/Russian continents in to Europe, pillaging, looting and consuming everything, or was that Nature's way of intermixing bloodlines, a surge, or a migration?

Something good can come out of something bad. That doesn't mean the 'bad' act was any less bad. People might simply have turned it around and made something good from it. If people can do that, certainly God can do that.

(I don't know if Genghis Khan was a wicked man or not (no more than most anyone else). He was obviously a man of war. But bloodlines can be mixed for other reasons and in other ways as well.)

I've often wondered about that. I don't like the idea of people overrunning our neighbourhood with all the outrages that it would bring with it, but I do wonder if humans are programmed to migrate like that. Nature?

I might think of that as more of a virus that infected the programming. A virus that we should be working to overcome, that we CAN overcome. So your flesh might say 'punch that person in the face for insulting us'... but YOU, the person you are on the 'inside'... should work to overcome that urge. Maybe you walk away; maybe you count to ten and attempt to make peace, maybe you allow yourself to be wronged and move on (or even forgive the person), etc.

On that I must disagree. A hawk is hunting food to survive. It is necessary for the hawk to survive. It is doing what it does, as you said..

I do not think that anything in Nature can be or do evil, Tam.

Okay, hold that thought until the next response...

But going out and harming others (murder, rape, bearing false witness, etc)... those are bad/evil things... and there is no comparison with the hawk hunting the rabbit. I'm not making a judgment against the person at all, but those things are bad/evil (<- synonyms).

When you included false witness with murder and rape, a truly disgusting action,

So rape is a disgusting action, but not a bad one?

When you included false witness with murder and rape, a truly disgusting action, I instantly thought of the laws of Moses, Tam..... What do you think about the laws of Moses?

They stem from the law that is from God, from the beginning: LOVE.

Love does not rape, love does not commit murder, love does not bear false witness, love does not commit adultery, etc, etc. Love also shows MERCY (which is what God desires).

A Christian is not under the law of Moses (that was needed for a specific people, and some of those laws were not even given because they were true from the beginning, but rather because the hearts of the people were too hard.)


But the law that is love though... that is the law even now that is from God, from the beginning, the law that is written upon the hearts (in the new covenant). That is the law that Christ emphasized. (Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul... love your neighbor as yourself... love your enemies... love one another as Christ has loved us.) Since God is love, it only makes sense to me that love would be the law that proceeds from Him. It then also makes sense that there is no law AGAINST love. And that it was always appropriate to show mercy even if the law said to stone someone (and Christ emphasized this as well... repeating the statement that God desires mercy, not sacrifice... and then living that statement by showing mercy and forgiveness Himself: for the woman who had been caught in adultery and brought to him to be stoned, and also asking forgiveness for those who had wronged Him.)

Peace again to you!

And to you, Tam.
Do you live in the US?

Thank you for your wish of peace!

I live Canada.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #110]

I am averse to the assumptions you are making, the utter lack of evidence you are providing for your claims - including the lack of evidence you have provided for everything in this very post...

They are not "claims" they are statements of opinion in response to your own statements of opinion.
As such, neither of us are required to provide evidence...or find aversity therein.

I did not give statements of opinion regarding the Adversary. I provided evidence, right down to the meaning of the word "Satan". This is demonstrated in previous posts.

William: You seem adverse to my understanding that the way Satan is utilized by God is reflected onto God and can be seen for what it is, by the audience.
I do not have those images you have in your beliefs about Satan, and am not accusing anyone, Satan, God or Job, Christ, David Paul or any other entity effected by God.

Accusing them of what? I'm not sure where that comment is coming from.

I am pointing out the irony re your accusations about me.

Is that an accusation, William?

All accusations [about me or anyone else] come from Satan

Says who?

All accusations [about me or anyone else] come from Satan - which is to say - are mirrored finger-pointing.

Well that is just not true, William.

If I accused someone of slapping me, it doesn't mean that I slapped them.

If I accuse someone of lying, it might simply be because they ARE lying. It does not mean that I am lying.

SOMETIMES a person will see in another person what is true about themselves. A cheater might be super jealous because they think their partner cheats the same as they cheat.

But that does NOT translate into 'all accusations are mirrored finger-pointing.'

My "Accuser" [in this case "Tam"] is regarded by me, as voicing accusation = "as coming from Satan" since he is the God-Father of accusation.

Where do you get the idea that Satan is the 'god-father' of accusation?

He is the father of lies.

[Perhaps have a think about how Peace is formed...it is never formed through the voicing of accusation.]

True peace requires truth (usually also forgiveness, from the heart).

William: I simply pointed out that there is no mention of Job being consulted on the matter before being cast into the role.

Why are you pointing that out when no one suggested otherwise?

Exactly! It is not expected that in the affairs between YHWH and Satan, that humans need be consulted before they are used re said affairs. This theme and it's varients run through the Bible in relation to the God and Human beings.

And how does this relate to any point you were making?

I listen to the TRUTHFUL voice of Christ Jaheshua, who is the Light.

That is a statement of opinion Tam.

This is not a statement of opinion; this is a witness testimony (one that is backed up with testimony from others - such as in the accounts of what is written). I simply cannot prove this first-hand witness testimony to you.

I can I appreciate it as such, and thus require no evidence from you to back it up.

Well, you're the one who brought it up, so there is no reason I should have had to provide evidence to begin with. I simply corrected the flaws in your 'summary'.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #113]

Where do you get the idea that Satan is the 'god-father' of accusation?

The Hebrew term śāṭān (Hebrew: שָׂטָן) is a generic noun meaning "accuser" or "adversary", and is derived from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose".

Accusation in and of itself is not beholding to whether the one doing the accusing is telling lies or truth. Accusation is just being accusing.

William: It is not expected that in the affairs between YHWH and Satan, that humans need be consulted before they are used re said affairs. This theme and it's varients run through the Bible in relation to the God and Human beings.

And how does this relate to any point you were making?

The point is there in the statement made, is how it 'relates'.

I listen to the TRUTHFUL voice of Christ Jaheshua, who is the Light.

William: That is a statement of opinion Tam.

This is not a statement of opinion;

There is no record anywhere that tells us that it is evident your statement "I listen to the TRUTHFUL voice of Christ Jaheshua, who is the Light." is more than just opinion Tam.
If you want to upgrade the statement to being one of fact, then yes - you will have to provide supporting evidence.

William: I can I appreciate it as such, and thus require no evidence from you to back it up.

Well, you're the one who brought it up, so there is no reason I should have had to provide evidence to begin with

You are the one who [consistently] brings it up Tam. Please don't put that on anyone else, for no one else has stated that you "listen to the TRUTHFUL voice of Christ Jaheshua" - only you have stated that, and until it is supported with evidence, we have no honest choice but to treat it as a statement of opinion.

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to tam in post #113]

Where do you get the idea that Satan is the 'god-father' of accusation?

The Hebrew term śāṭān (Hebrew: שָׂטָן) is a generic noun meaning "accuser" or "adversary", and is derived from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose". Accusation in and of itself is not beholding to whether the one doing the accusing is telling lies or truth. Accusation is just being accusing.

Yes, I provided that definition earlier to you when you said it was not Satan who was being the Adversary in the account of Job.

Just because Satan is the Adversary does not mean that he is the 'god-father' of accusation. Nor does it mean that all accusations come from Satan (as you claimed in the previous post).

Satan is the father of LIES. (John 8:44, provided earlier).

I listen to the TRUTHFUL voice of Christ Jaheshua, who is the Light.

William: That is a statement of opinion Tam.

This is not a statement of opinion;

There is no record anywhere that tells us that it is evident your statement "I listen to the TRUTHFUL voice of Christ Jaheshua, who is the Light." is more than just opinion Tam. If you want to upgrade the statement to being one of fact, then yes - you will have to provide supporting evidence.

My statement was one of correction. You misrepresented the testimony that I have given (on other threads). I simply corrected it.

William: I can I appreciate it as such, and thus require no evidence from you to back it up.

Well, you're the one who brought it up, so there is no reason I should have had to provide evidence to begin with

You are the one who [consistently] brings it up Tam. Please don't put that on anyone else, for no one else has stated that you "listen to the TRUTHFUL voice of Christ Jaheshua" - only you have stated that, and until it is supported with evidence, we have no honest choice but to treat it as a statement of opinion.

You can choose to treat it however you want. But you are the one who brought it up here, William. I simply corrected your misrepresentation. I suspect (<- note the indication of an opinion about to be stated) you brought it up in order to take the focus off (or make valid) the lack of evidence you provided for the things you stated.


From earlier:

You certainly have not provided anything to show His (Christ's) words to be wrong. Nor have you provided anything other than your opinion, for your personal claims about Satan (the Adversary). You are also taking the story of JOB - that comes from the bible - but ignoring the rest of the evidence in the bible which describes Satan. That is your prerogative of course, though the nature of that being is shown in that one book (of Job) as well. Even when his (Satan's) first accusations were proven wrong, he did not relent or have mercy or show compassion, he did not admit that he was wrong... no, he went even further, causing even more suffering, and he was still proven wrong. That image doesn't contradict the other information presented about him. But your claims are contradicted by the rest of the information presented about him.


Where are you getting the idea that such a person (or concept) as "Satan" exists in the first place?

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #115]

Just because Satan is the Adversary does not mean that he is the 'god-father' of accusation.

Who then, would better fit the bill?

when you said it was not Satan who was being the Adversary in the account of Job.

Best quote me on that, for the sake of transparency.

Nor does it mean that all accusations come from Satan (as you claimed in the previous post).

Why no quote Tam?

I wrote;

William: The public were the adversary, not Satan. That is a side issue re human involvement in the interplay between God and Satan....re my mentioning

I was referring to the humans making accusations against Job - reminiscent of the stone throwers bringing the accused to "Jesus" and making demands of him.

My point was and still is that Human accusers are a side issue to the gameplay between YHWH and Satan.

My statement was one of correction. You misrepresented the testimony that I have given (on other threads). I simply corrected it.

Enough of that Tam. If you do not quote me rather than simply make statements about what I said, I will ignore such unsupported statements.

From earlier:

You certainly have not provided anything to show His (Christ's) words to be wrong. Nor have you provided anything other than your opinion, for your personal claims about Satan (the Adversary). You are also taking the story of JOB - that comes from the bible - but ignoring the rest of the evidence in the bible which describes Satan. That is your prerogative of course, though the nature of that being is shown in that one book (of Job) as well. Even when his (Satan's) first accusations were proven wrong, he did not relent or have mercy or show compassion, he did not admit that he was wrong... no, he went even further, causing even more suffering, and he was still proven wrong. That image doesn't contradict the other information presented about him. But your claims are contradicted by the rest of the information presented about him.

Where are you getting the idea that such a person (or concept) as "Satan" exists in the first place?

When you do quote, you make no effort to show who you are quoting. Please tidy things up if you want to continue with this discussion.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #115]

Just because Satan is the Adversary does not mean that he is the 'god-father' of accusation.

Who then, would better fit the bill?

Why does someone have to fit the bill at all? Why does there have to be a 'god-father' of accusation to begin with?

when you said it was not Satan who was being the Adversary in the account of Job.

Best quote me on that, for the sake of transparency.

The public were the adversary, not Satan. - William

viewtopic.php?p=1090647#p1090647

Nor does it mean that all accusations come from Satan (as you claimed in the previous post).

Why no quote Tam?

Because I wouldn't think I should have to quote you to you. From some other thread perhaps (especially for clarity), but not in a post you just made. It is literally on the same page as you questioning why I did not quote you (page 12). It is there for you or anyone else to see.

All accusations [about me or anyone else] come from Satan - which is to say - are mirrored finger-pointing. - William

viewtopic.php?p=1091105#p1091105

I wrote;

William: The public were the adversary, not Satan. That is a side issue re human involvement in the interplay between God and Satan....re my mentioning

So I did quote you correctly.

I was referring to the humans making accusations against Job - reminiscent of the stone throwers bringing the accused to "Jesus" and making demands of him.

Who are you referring to exactly?

My point was and still is that Human accusers are a side issue to the gameplay between YHWH and Satan.

Humans did not accuse Job of being a fairweather friend. The Adversary is the one who made that accusation.

My statement was one of correction. You misrepresented the testimony that I have given (on other threads). I simply corrected it.

Enough of that Tam. If you do not quote me rather than simply make statements about what I said, I will ignore such unsupported statements.

As always, you can do as you choose.

But for the sake of transparency, you said:

That you hear an encouraging voice you call "Christ"... ()... tells me that you have dealt with your dark side more effectively and made friends with it. - William

You brought this up (not me). I corrected it. To truthful voice. I corrected that because 'encouraging' could be denoted to mean a voice that tells you 'good job' no matter what you do, or one that encourages you in anything/all things that you do (which is not the case; my Lord is not going to encourage me to go against His word, or to go against love, for instance). I also did not just hear some random voice and decide to call it 'Christ'. My Lord is the One who confirmed to me His name. And finally, since you seemed to relate Him and His voice to a 'dark side that I have made friends with'... I made certain to clarify that Christ is the Light. Not the darkness. He is the OPPOSITE of darkness. So it makes no sense to describe this as 'a dark side that I have made friends with'.

From earlier:

You certainly have not provided anything to show His (Christ's) words to be wrong. Nor have you provided anything other than your opinion, for your personal claims about Satan (the Adversary). You are also taking the story of JOB - that comes from the bible - but ignoring the rest of the evidence in the bible which describes Satan. That is your prerogative of course, though the nature of that being is shown in that one book (of Job) as well. Even when his (Satan's) first accusations were proven wrong, he did not relent or have mercy or show compassion, he did not admit that he was wrong... no, he went even further, causing even more suffering, and he was still proven wrong. That image doesn't contradict the other information presented about him. But your claims are contradicted by the rest of the information presented about him.

Where are you getting the idea that such a person (or concept) as "Satan" exists in the first place?

When you do quote, you make no effort to show who you are quoting.

The above is a quote of my words to you (I added a couple of clarifications in brackets), again, on this very thread.

viewtopic.php?p=1090660#p1090660

Please tidy things up if you want to continue with this discussion.

I don't care if we continue or not, William. I did as you asked for transparency, and for the reader.

[oldbadger]

Peace to you,

And peace to you, Tam.

I read all of your post, Tam, can only answer just some of your sentences.

Yes, that just makes sense doesn't it? God and His Son are spirit. They are spirit beings.

Of course, all Jews thought that they were the children of their God, but Jesus referred to himself as 'Son of man'.
Because I believe that the all-powerful governor here is Chaotic Nature, I don't believe that any other power is around.

If you do not know or even believe in God/gods, I can see how it would be hard to worship (where worship stems from love). That does not mean that you don't love - or know love - though. And love covers over a multitude of sins... it is the law that comes from God (the God and Father of Christ). Some/many non-Christians do NATURALLY the requirements of the law (which is love).

I can love, Tam, and I can be kind, but the absolute quality that I give respect to is trustworthiness, or integrity. I know that some bacteria can kill us, but I don't hate it, I know what it can do....... it has integrity. I know that Nature will end my days somehow and I trust in that, but Nature allows me to be during this second, writing to you. I love my wife and ours, but don't seek to hate any others. That's all the love that I can perceive.

Of course, if you ever did WANT to know God, and HIS truth, then I would not suggest looking to religion, but rather to His Son, Jaheshua.

I began to take interest in the life of Jesus many years ago, and became an historical Jesus researcher. I found what I could, Tam.

So rape is a disgusting action, but not a bad one?

I think that's a strange question, I cannot imagine liking a thing that disgusts me.

They stem from the law that is from God, from the beginning: LOVE.

Love does not rape, love does not commit murder, love does not bear false witness, love does not commit adultery, etc, etc. Love also shows MERCY (which is what God desires).

OK, but I think that love can commit adultery, Tam. Certainly. We just don't know who we will fall in love with.
I would find it strange (today) to think of adultery as being as bad as murder. Back in the day when the Israelites were, adultery was a killer, it could transmit death right through a whole community....it's different today.

A Christian is not under the law of Moses (that was needed for a specific people, and some of those laws were not even given because they were true from the beginning, but rather because the hearts of the people were too hard.)

But the law that is love though... that is the law even now that is from God, from the beginning, the law that is written upon the hearts (in the new covenant). That is the law that Christ emphasized. (Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul... love your neighbor as yourself... love your enemies... love one another as Christ has loved us.) Since God is love, it only makes sense to me that love would be the law that proceeds from Him. It then also makes sense that there is no law AGAINST love. And that it was always appropriate to show mercy even if the law said to stone someone (and Christ emphasized this as well... repeating the statement that God desires mercy, not sacrifice... and then living that statement by showing mercy and forgiveness Himself: for the woman who had been caught in adultery and brought to him to be stoned, and also asking forgiveness for those who had wronged Him.)

In my opinion Jesus supported all the law, all of it. He trusted in the law. The Priesthood had discarded much of it in favour of greed, corruption, hypocrisy.
All the laws....... every one.
If all the laws were returned to, then nobody could die of starvation nor neglect. The poor laws.... and all the others.

Thank you for your wish of peace!

I live Canada.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And peace to you, Tam.
I live in Kent, England.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #117]

Why does someone have to fit the bill at all? Why does there have to be a 'god-father' of accusation to begin with?

Because Christians created the image in that way. You even wrote that "Satan is OUR accuser, OUR adversary, and he seeks to destroy us (mankind, and in particular, anyone who belongs to Christ, to God). He is an enemy."

"Why does someone have to fit the bill at all?", is a good question, and just going by your telling of it, Satan seems to be the one most likely to do so.

Why does there have to be a 'god-father' of accusation to begin with? Yet there it is in all its biblical reference.

The public were the adversary, not Satan. - William

viewtopic.php?p=1090647#p1090647

You are quote-mining. That is not portraying the whole truth of what I stated.

So I did quote you correctly.

No. You did what is called 'quote-mining' which is incorrectly quoting someone.

All accusations [about me or anyone else] come from Satan - which is to say - are mirrored finger-pointing. - William

viewtopic.php?p=1091105#p1091105

Again with the quote-mining. It is not the truest form of discussion one can use.

What I wrote in full was what I thought and why I thought it.

William: I am pointing out the irony re your accusations about me. All accusations [about me or anyone else] come from Satan - which is to say - are mirrored finger-pointing. My "Accuser" [in this case "Tam"] is regarded by me, as voicing accusation = "as coming from Satan" since he is the God-Father of accusation.

To further explain, this rolls off of your statement that Satan is OUR accuser, OUR adversary, and he seeks to destroy us (mankind, and in particular, anyone who belongs to Christ, to God). He is an enemy and the irony I mentioned re that.
Your quote-mining plus finger-pointing appears to be something of a double standard as it accuses Satan of being the accuser of "anyone who belongs to Christ" but when "anyone who belongs to Christ" accuses others, that is somehow 'different'.

Accusing is accusing, no matter who does it. They take after the ol' devil 'imself,...

Humans did not accuse Job of being a fairweather friend. The Adversary is the one who made that accusation.

I don;t know what you are referrencing here, but Job is definately under judgment from humans in his company as the story tells it.

Job answers his accusers;

Chapter 16
Then Job answered and said,

I have heard many such things: miserable comforters are ye all.

Shall vain words have an end? or what emboldeneth thee that thou answerest?

I also could speak as ye do: if your soul were in my soul's stead, I could heap up words against you, and shake mine head at you.

But I would strengthen you with my mouth, and the moving of my lips should asswage your grief.

Though I speak, my grief is not asswaged: and though I forbear, what am I eased?

But now he hath made me weary: thou hast made desolate all my company.

And thou hast filled me with wrinkles, which is a witness against me: and my leanness rising up in me beareth witness to my face.

He teareth me in his wrath, who hateth me: he gnasheth upon me with his teeth; mine enemy sharpeneth his eyes upon me.

They have gaped upon me with their mouth; they have smitten me upon the cheek reproachfully; they have gathered themselves together against me.

God hath delivered me to the ungodly, and turned me over into the hands of the wicked.

But for the sake of transparency, you said:

That you hear an encouraging voice you call "Christ"... ()... tells me that you have dealt with your dark side more effectively and made friends with it. - William

So If I go searching for where I wrote that, will I find yet another instance of Tam-pering in the form of quote-mining?

Lets see...

Yes here is the full quote;

How you tell it, is no different than how any other Christian tells it.

That you hear an encouraging voice you call "Christ" while Joey Knothead hears a tormentors voice he calls "Cowardly" tells me that you have dealt with your dark side more effectively and made friends with it.

I was making a comparison between different voices that folk claim to hear.

You have named you voice "LORD" and call him "Christ Jaheshua" and I accept that statement as your unsupported statement of opinion rather than a claim.
You have the option of clarifying it is a claim and providing supporting evidence regarding that, but there is no logical reason why anyone should think your voice is no different a phenomena that Joey's, and further to that, that the voice you hear and state is "Christ Jaheshua" is not really some "lying spirit" you have believed in.
I am not saying that it is of course. I am saying that there is only your stated opinion, without any supporting evidence.

[Do you write your posts as channeled from this "Christ Jaheshua"? If so, any accusing tone you use against me, bedevils said voice.]

it makes no sense to describe this as 'a dark side that I have made friends with'.

How many folk in the world are claiming to follow after "Christ" is nothing special Tam.
Even Jesus had to face his dark side...that is Satan's God-Ordained Role.
What personality involved with YHWH can we point to and say "That one was spared the Dark Night of The Soul"?
It comes with the territory Tam.

One can suppress ones dark side with drugs designed for that purpose, as in Joey's case. or one can transform the dark through the light, as you may have done.

Joey does not take liberties and I do not hear his accusers voice come through his expression.
You, on the other hand...appear to think it appropriate to do so, and on account of that, I don't buy it that the voice you state you follow after, is what it tells you it is or what you tell me it is.

I don't care if we continue or not, William.

My opinion on that is I think the real "Christ Jaheshua" would never say that to me Tam. I think a false accuser would.

I did as you asked for transparency,

It was helpful to furthering my understanding of spirit-voices and their ways, thank you.

and for the reader.

Best we leave it there then.

My door - as ever - is always open...

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

And peace to you, Tam.

Thank you!

I read all of your post, Tam, can only answer just some of your sentences.

I also read all of your post, even if I do not respond to it all.

So rape is a disgusting action, but not a bad one?

I think that's a strange question, I cannot imagine liking a thing that disgusts me.

My confusion here was with you saying,

"I do not think that anything in Nature can be or do evil, Tam."

So I was questioning how you could think that rape is a disgusting action, but not an evil (or bad) action.

They stem from the law that is from God, from the beginning: LOVE.

Love does not rape, love does not commit murder, love does not bear false witness, love does not commit adultery, etc, etc. Love also shows MERCY (which is what God desires).

OK, but I think that love can commit adultery, Tam. Certainly. We just don't know who we will fall in love with.

But where then is your love for your spouse? (speaking in general, not asking you specifically) A spouse you vowed to be faithful to, to care for? Where would your love for him/her be? Where would your integrity and your trustworthiness be?

(I'm not judging, just saying... adultery can and does cause pain, and it is unfaithfulness)

I would find it strange (today) to think of adultery as being as bad as murder. Back in the day when the Israelites were, adultery was a killer, it could transmit death right through a whole community....it's different today.

The pain it causes in the person who has been betrayed is not different.

A Christian is not under the law of Moses (that was needed for a specific people, and some of those laws were not even given because they were true from the beginning, but rather because the hearts of the people were too hard.)

But the law that is love though... that is the law even now that is from God, from the beginning, the law that is written upon the hearts (in the new covenant). That is the law that Christ emphasized. (Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul... love your neighbor as yourself... love your enemies... love one another as Christ has loved us.) Since God is love, it only makes sense to me that love would be the law that proceeds from Him. It then also makes sense that there is no law AGAINST love. And that it was always appropriate to show mercy even if the law said to stone someone (and Christ emphasized this as well... repeating the statement that God desires mercy, not sacrifice... and then living that statement by showing mercy and forgiveness Himself: for the woman who had been caught in adultery and brought to him to be stoned, and also asking forgiveness for those who had wronged Him.)

In my opinion Jesus supported all the law, all of it. He trusted in the law. The Priesthood had discarded much of it in favour of greed, corruption, hypocrisy.
All the laws....... every one.
If all the laws were returned to, then nobody could die of starvation nor neglect. The poor laws.... and all the others.

If the law that is love were adhered to, nobody could die of starvation or neglect. Love passes someone in need and offers to help them. Love feeds the poor (if possible).

Thank you for your wish of peace!

I live Canada.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And peace to you, Tam.
I live in Kent, England.

Well, nice to meet you oldbadger from Kent, England!

Peace again to you and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy