thomas t

Hi Mommy, yes, you should, (watching) incest porn is really worrying. You have to take action now, in my opinion, you can't keep on keeping on without addressing the issue, in my opinion - Ok, you did obviously. If I were you, I would consider the following: As porn is legal, child porn is not. My suggestion in general, make it two topics: 1. watching porn and 2. watching incest porn. I would exclusively focus on the second topic for a certain time to come. Now I would ask him about consensual agreement and what is his stance about consenting partners in sex life. Can he understand that anything that is shown about father/daughter relationships in porn … can't be anything consensual? Any sexual relationship between father and daughter can never be considered to be consensual, since there is always a power gap, can he understand that? Can you still talk to him? Regards, Thomas

Hi Cletus, I read that twice. I didn't find that. Everytime we make a flawed argument for faith, the atheist will say no. Without them being naysayers. And 2 Kor. 5:7 reads: for we walk by faith, not by sight. Some smart postings here pointed that out. Well, it is true that nature testifies to God's greatness. But sometimes, Christian's arguments are flawed. Regards, Thomas

Please Uber G, treat me as any native speaker, if I don't understand idiomatic use... the web offers plenty of dictionaries where this is explained. I don't want to have extra treatment for not being native, this would make everything more complicated than as it is already. I am more than glad to be here as I can't partake in discussion at jesus.de anymore, as I'm banned there. Thank you, I find this is a real strong answer, I'm glad to be able to read it. Regards, Thomas

Hi Uber Genius, I've waited a while to see if maybe others interpret your statement "it's a human problem". So now I understand it as saying that this problem can be found everywhere - in every human community. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Even if child abuse is wide spread it shouldn't be considered as normal or as intrinsically linked with human existence, in my opinion. I also think you were talking about churches, since churches is what this thread is about and you were replying to the opening post. So I conclude that, in your opinion, it can be found in every church. So you're implying, that I attend a church that has this problem, too. For me, this is where the problem lies. So now you're implying that the church I attend is equally prone to child abuse than the Catholic one? I mean proportionally? This would be a bold accusation, could you back this up, please? I attend a FEG church in Germany. I'm not saying that you can be sure there are no cases of child abuse committed by church officials in any FEG in Germany, since I don't know all of them. Neither am I making any comparison between the US and Germany. (Actually, you brought up the cross-culture comparison). I'm just saying, if you're implying that the church I go to is guilty of it, please present the numbers, epecially if you come to talk about proportions. If you can't back it up, why bring this claim forward? I think every claim needs to be backed up. That's true for accusations in particular. If you see child abuse occuring in the one church and maybe in some others, too, this doesn't mean it can be found in every church, just because you see this happening in the first group. I find this statement was quite generalizing without even trying to back it up. Moreover, when you say "all cultures", you seem to have quite a good knowledge of these (all of them)... Regards, Thomas

Hi Uber Genius, I think you're presenting a cheap excuse for child abuse. Just being human doesn't make you a child molester. Agreed. But abuse, as I see it, is all about displaying power. The perpetrator wants the sentiment of being powerful at the expense of the rest, especially the victim. The Catholic Church offers for pastors an enormous position of power: Only he is entitled to shrive somebody, (#Boston Born please correct me if I'm wrong). Only he is called the priest, as opposed to the rest of the members of that church. And only he is entitled to make use of the holy instruments during service. The Pope himself is called "infallible" in certain circumstances and he is said to determine who is holy and who is not. This, in my opinion, gives evidence to the fact that human authority is valued high in that church. Very high. Conferring excessive power to humans can foster child abuse, as this is all about power in my opinion. I'm not saying that other churches don't make the same mistakes... We shouldn't be finger pointing at them, I think. Nevertheless, a sound analysis of the situation may be done. Regards, Thomas

Hi Still Alive, I don't agree, at all. There were so many trees they could have eaten of in the garden. Just one tree that was banned. You can't accuse God. Lions like to eat a lot, but why does man want to know so many things? I for one can be happy with the knowledge I have. Especially in the context of child abuse this comment seems a bit disturbing. Are you saying every man or woman is prone to abuse children or anything of this sort? I am not. I would be very happy to have an adult woman as a partner. Regards, Thomas

Dear community, I hear so often from atheists, so-called agnostics, that they don't believe because they don't see any evidence that the Bible is true (here again). But do you think it is reasonable to refrain from converting until the Bible is proven as truth? Even if you think there is a 50% probabilty of the Bible being true it makes sense, in my view, to proclaim Jesus as Lord, already. ("Jesus, if you are there...") Just to be on the safe side when it comes to the question where we spend eternity. Regards, Thomas

Dear Community, in the other thread, a user explained why he had difficulty with understanding Gen 1-2 in a literal way, one of the arguments being that the beginning of Genesis is just a copy from other creation accounts predating Genesis. A copy with some adjustments having been made by the one who wrote down what he heard God say? And why shouldn't Genesis be true then - just because of its resemblance to older accounts? I too believe that the first part of Genesis might be young indeed, as this is what scientists keep telling (my link is in German language, I just wanted to provide one link to back up my assertion that this is what scientists keep telling us, at least here in Germany. I hope noone has problems with this. It's easier for me to read in German). Look at great artist Vinzenz van Gogh, he also copied from others. However, he introduced some little changes with regard to abstraction... and years later he was declared a major pioneer of modernism. This is how arts work in my understanding. God is the great artist, and he can't be afraid of using what has been created by him, already, including literature... to write down an exact account of events. Regards, Thomas

If it's all but clear what Bible teaches, than anyone could cloud faith. No need to clarify things so then? Those who don't want to give it some more thought could ask: If you can't find clear answers in the Bible so why give it a thought? Everyone can stick no matter what in the Bible and expect it to be just fine? No. Ancient historiography has them, too. For instance Cicero. God is an artist, that's why he uses them. ... because man is responsible for that for the most part, I think. We shouldn't be shifting the blame and expect God to provide answers for that, I think. I mean, in the case of Job it was the devil. But we have the whole book analysing it, so why do you come up with the idea of "no defense" for it? it's not a lack of interpretation, it is overinterpreting it, I think. Just the way wise men do it. Like using mere gaps between the lines such as Gen 1:2 and Gen 1:3 as a means of conveying secret messages? One day in Gen 1 equals billions of years whereas the seventh day just a week or so? Just because it seems senseless to believe God to have made a long break? This, in my opinion, is picking and choosing of why we would take some passages metaphorically whereas we stay with literal understanding when it says that Jesus died and resurrected three days after? Best Regards, Thomas

Hi Still Alive, I still hold to the six-day creationism view, because we are told to only work six out of seven literal days, " For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " Exodus 20:11 God told all the spiritually important things for us to know in the Bible. If the gap between two verses in Gen 1 would be substantial in time and not just some hours, then God would have let us know and have accomodated our week accordingly. Regards, Thomas ---- Hi Mason, thank you for your reply of the opening post. I appreciate it. That's interesting. I don't take the snake allegorically, by the way. Jesus incarneted and became a literal human man - like all of us. Likewise, Satan somehow showed up in the form of a literal snake, that's what I believe. I'm not saying he's unable to become a human being, too. But this time he became a snake - somehow. Regards, Thomas

Hi One, thanks for sharing your links. The first link claims Genesis to be a sort of poetry that "is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.". Actually, I was having in mind a sort of portry that enables the reader to take things metaphorically. So please, you would still need to explain why this ancient "invisible" style of poetry justifies the modern way of thinking that Genesis verses should be taken metaphorically in every two lines or so... I mean, I also believe that God introduced some stylistic devices in anything he said in the Bible, but this doesn't mean we should never read it in a literal way. God is an artist who just likes to use stylistic devices: "How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O noble daughter! Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand." Song of Solomon 7:1 (bolded mine). The author of the second link basically claims "the analogy of Revelation" and concludes that, since Revelation is not to be taken historically, Genesis shouldn't be taken historically, either. I don't find this convincing. He further claims that Hebrews back then didn't have any questions of how the world evolved: "no Hebrew or Israelite back when these stories were told and written down would have even thought to ask such questions. " I consider this to be an unsupported allegation, his speculation. Thank you for sharing this. Regards, Thomas Hi Uber Genius, ok, but why is the firmament just an "idea"? I believe this to be literal firmament that was an element of the old creation that existed before the flood. which size of armies and military victories do you think are exaggerated? Regards, Thomas

Thank you, Uber Genius, for your replies. I hope so much that this thread might do without the ad hominems we see so often. In my opinion it is a sin. Mt 7:2 "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." Respectfully, I would prefer not to read it like I had a PhD (I don't have any by the way) but very much in the way grade schoolers would interpret it. ? If you say Gen 1-2 is poetry, then please show us clearly what poetic elements can be detected therein. For instance: if you read Revelations 5:6, ther's a lamb in the middle of a throne. However, we know, it's Jesus sitting there, because he is the king and not a sheep. Hence, that's why we could (should) interpret "the corners of the earth" (Rev 7:1) metaphorically, too. if you take galaxies, for example, the reason would be to show us the galaxies. I'm not saying he misrepresenting anything... but if we would only be able to see things younger than 6k years, we couldn't know of one single galaxy, since it takes more time for their light to come to us than just a few thousand years. So I stay with my opinion that the earth is just a few thousand years old as Bible teaches ... and God, sometimes, gave some things the appearance of age just because he is merciful. I saw this going on here... (please read my post there), this needs to stop! Regards, Thomas

Hi Sieglinde, Thank you for inspring me to think... I see it this way: either you believe in miracles or you don't. If you do, you can't always give priority to what science teaches, because they never analyse miracles. At least they never did so far. Science either has a non-theistic explanation for things or, if they don't have any yet, they say science will. But if you consider anything scientists say or might say in the future as truth, just because it is the result of testing and observing... then there isn't any space left for miracles. I'm not saying scientists are dumb as justme007 implies here (justme, I still need to answer you in the other thread, but I would take the liberty of citing you)... ... but I'm saying that I want to provide a chance for myself to believe in the following verse: Is any thing too hard for the LORD? Gen 18:14a Regards, Thomas

Hi Justme, interesting what you wrote. Let me assure you I really appreciate being in an environment where most people believe that God created the species via direct miraculous event. This is what I believe, too, and this is what Bible teaches, in my opinion. And I don't take it for granted that a (Christian) message board follows Bible teaching in this way. I used to post at jesus.de message board and those believing Gen 1-3 in a literal way were just a tiny minority. Let's now look at the content of your post, as you seem to take something which seems plausible to you as universal "proof" for a universal creator. * To me, it seems risky to argue in this way, since the scienctists you call "unreasonable" might have found a very reasonable explanation for this issue, too, in maybe 10 years time only. Then anyone could ask where the proof is... ? * On the one hand, Romans 1:20 says that nature points to God (my reading of the verse). On the other, this could mean that nature as a whole points to God, whereas an individual happening in nature only points to God in the eyes of a few and and for others it doesn't. We read in Proverbs 25:2 ... It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. KJV I think, God is telling us here that, for each individual miracle, you can't always find the proof for it. He might have concealed the authorship of the miracle in question. * if a particular miracle would be proven to have been performed by God... then God's existence was proven and we wouldn't live by faith alone. My opinion. (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) Kor 5:7 KJV Regards, Thomas

Hi to all, the youth group leaders plan an afternoon in town to entertain the kids (11 to 14 year olds), before we come to talk about the gospel in the evening. During this afternoon, they envisage 4 game-like challenges for the kids to meet in town. They're two groups of four kids each. I am to host one such challenge, but I am to make up that game challenge for myself. And that's my problem - can you help me making up a little game for the kids? It should allign to the verse: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Mt 11,28. So, do you know a little game that the two groups could play? one that fits that verse? So that they can have a little fun, before we meet in the evening and pray and discuss the gospel? I'm quite new and not so experienced as a youth group leader. Regards, Thomas

Hi Shiloh, for now I want to keep the focus on stories about gays without the necessary back up information. Noone complained about that in the thread, so let me be the first to do that. At the same time I don't want to discuss homosexuality. For I think it is ok to keep the focus on 1 issue and not two at the same time. If these two get intervowen, then people appear to only concentrate on the debate about homosexuality but not on the way we treat gays. I think, for me it's perfectly ok to stay neutral on that if the situation is like that. Regards, Thomas ------ Hi Billiards Ball, no, you came up with that story. So, the onus is on you to document it if you can. Regards, Thomas

But, your assertion was: and again: and again: So please, that's your story. You didn't back that up, Billiards Ball Regards, Thomas

Hi Billiards Ball, you didn't back that assertion up by providing links, etc. ... To me, this comes across as if you were saying "if it's the gays, tell no matter what stories about them and don't bother to back this up by facts!" DISCLAIMER: I am neutral to the whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Regards, Thomas

Hi Cletus, please, could you please prove your point that every single study in this field has used manipulated or falsified data, or no controls were used? Please go ahead, cite every single study about it, and I will name studies if you fail to cite all of them, and then specify which data it was that they falsified, and please provide what you think the correct data is. Name sources. A mere "do your homework" is not enough to back up this bold statement. "google this and that" won't either. please be precise and detail which study that is you're talking about providing a link. Then please specify who stripped the author of that study of his crediblity. And please tell us how that study was dismissed and provide the facts necessary for dismissing a study. You came up with your story, please back it up, thank you. By the way I'm not talking about homosexuality but about the failure to back up claims. Regards, Thomas

Hi Saved One, thank you, also for the link. But your linked article does not claim that "scientists [plural] agree that climate records were manipulated", as you say. There it says that only one retired scientist made this claim. But thank you for providing at least a link. Regards, Thomas

Hi JTC, I think you put it in terms that are too generalizing. When Jesus talks about that lust, he also covers consensuality or the lack of it in my view. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Mt 5:22 "looketh on a women to lust". Throughout this passage we don't read of him asking her if she wants to sleep with him... although in his thoughts that's what they did, as the ending of 5:22 shows. For me that's the crux of the matter. For wedlock, in contrast, is purely consensual: Gen 24:58 (my interpretation). So please, don't include me when you're talking about men in general. Rest assured, I don't want to have sex with anyone when I can't be sure of her willingness to have sex with me, too (provided she's not in wedlock, of course...). Regards, Thomas Now, I'd like to answer John, too, since he pretty much says the same as you did... Hi John, the Apostle Paul, in my opinion, wrote about liberties that others can't overlook. But is it possible for you to do without Instagram? Let me give you an example. I have severe money problems in a sense that I can't fully join the leisure program of the church I attend. But my professional failures are my problem, I don't want anyone to pay for it. I work on my professional development and I still join worship & praise, service talking to people afterwards, meetings outside church like small groups and so on. All of which is for free. And look, I can feel perfectly blessed with social contacts even without joining the expensive meetings... thanks to Jesus! I'm telling you this, since you might decide not to go on Insagram again to look for these beautiful women? Reagrds, Thomas

Hi Siegi, interesting what you wrote - and personally I'm as sceptical towards scientist's work as I am towards craftsmen's. I trust them almost blindly. For me, Bible trumps science in only one area: as soon as the Bible announces a miracle, I trust Bible more. For me, God is almighty and an almighty God can of course perform miracles any time he wants to do so. Let me give you one more example: Let's just assume a scientist was present at the wedding feast of Cana and was getting asked the question how old the drink was he was having. Of course, the alcoholic content of it would have counted as evidence that the wine was at least 6 months old, since this is the minimum timespan that it takes for wine to become wine. But Jesus made it in the twinkling of an eye ? let's see John 2, verses 3 to 10 (ESV). When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.1 7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. 9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” Tschüßilein, Thomas

Dear community, recently we discussed a science topic here on worthy*, and then it turned out that someone said scientists "manipulate" data, and everyone seemed to be perfectly fine with this claim. So, do we really think scientists are evildoers manipulating the data coming from their own research - their daily bread? The problem that I see with this is that scientists may take offence. If ever someone wants to accuse scientists here again, please back up your claim by using data and sources. Please use one example and be specific. Explain which exact data you think was manipulated. Please indicate your source and explain why you deem your sources to be more trustworthy than the scientists accused. "google this and that" is not enough to back up a claim, I think. ----- DISCLAIMER. Personally, I do believe that God created the earth in six literal days some 30 generations before king David, as Bible sais. But I'm aware of the fact that scientists claim otherwise. For me personally, I reconcile these two thinking that scientists reach the wrong conclusions from the data. However, I would never go as far as to say that they collected the wrong data or even manipulated them. I believe the world to look older than it really is, very much in the way it looked older right the first day of it's creation (Genesis chapter one). I also believe Adam to have looked older than he was in Genesis chapter 2 (one day old only). Regards, Thomas * https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/227835-climate-change-and-the-end-times/?fbclid=IwAR3m_kQ1FZbRjHC_QpHaqyQi0FT7wJAC5toSFxfpuQb_OQv15GvZJJR_IdY

Hi Madilynn, you have to submit, in my opinion. Let's come to talk about violence. In my opinion, there is verbal violence, too. I'm against all forms of violence against children. When they said "you've not grown" they didn't criticise an action but YOU. And this is where the threashold is exceeded: They're leaving the subject level. They could have said: "please clean the table next time when you eat!". But they chose to say "you are...". This is violence in my sight. Paul did it, too. 2. Timothee 2:15. But he has been under attack from the person he criticised personally. So, Paul's words were in response to what has happened against him. Rest assured: you're made by God, and you are created very special - Genesis 9:6. Jesus as I see it was against verbal violence, too, as can be seen in Mt 5:22. Genesis 9:6b: for in the image of God made he man. When they criticise you at the personal level, they criticise the image of God (my interpretation of that verse). Regards, Thomas

Hello Pahu, you say (in the previous version of this thread) "Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a)". That was the only thing I ever looked up from the information you gave. Now, a source claims that they already discovered two celled life: ... this is what they say here. Regards, Thomas