thomas t

Hi Neighbor, I agree with you. Farmers choose to use fertilizers containing nitrate for their crops in quantity so that it gets too much. Actually, nitrate can be found in animal manure, also. Click here for more information. In an Greenpeace article, animal manure is blamed for Germany's problem concerning nitrate (this link is in German language, feel free to ask me for translation; I'd be happy to translate) alone. So there might be a difference between US and EU farming . My personal stance on that one: Regardless of which fertilizer the nitrate pollution is coming from, Germany is getting punished for it. But throwing away food means you need to rebuy it. So, farmers produce more. However, more food production results in an increase in the use of that fertilizer. Regards, Thomas

just as a little update: Yesterday, a European court held that Germany does not comply with international standards concerning nitrate pollution. So, Germans could help by fostering food sharing, for example. This is why (again): nitrate pollution is caused by stock farming, too much of it results in too high levels of nitrate in soils. If Germans wouldn't throw away good food, there would be less nitrate pollution. The Bible says we should comply with rules from public authorities in Titus 3:1 - if it's EU law, this passage is still valid, I think - so I conclude foodsharing can be seen as biblical. Regards, Thomas Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, Titus 3:1 ESV

Hi Neighbor, ok, the corners of the fields, you say... However, nowadays food gets thrown away because the label of its package is damaged. For instance canned food. Or five apples that are still perfect get thrown away if it is a package of six and the sixth apple looks a bit odd. There are other examples, I could go on like this. Friends of mine offer these things (I mean the five good apples) to wealthy and other people like me, alike. I agree. That's the flip side of it. But still, I find it reasonable to share out free food, which is still perfect. The food that is shared out for free at church is handed out in a quiet corner of the kitchen... to people that are working. It is a means of honouring God by avoiding unreasonable dumping of (His) good food, I think. Indeed, there are Bible passages that tell about different catastrophes yet to come... but still, the earth is all his: "Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool" Isaiah 66:1a. By the way, you mention charity, but foodsharing - like freegans do - isn't necessarily about charity. It is good food not being thrown away, as I understand it. Best Regards, Thomas

Hi Yowm, well. For me, food and environment belong together somehow. God created food, so we can live with it. Environmental madate? God created the environment, so we can honor him by respecting it. I mean, I agree that it is sad when the church engages in many things beyond their biblical mandate which is spreading the gospel of Jesus..... But respecting God's creation? that's totally fine. Kind regards, Thomas P.S.: yesterday, there was a holiday in southern Germany and I couldn't be online. I write you from public computers, and the place was closed....

When they praise Jesus for the food they get? In my opinion, it is another opportunity to praise the Lord on Sunday morning. First you get the sermon, then the worship and afterwards, you get an apple for free. Which is still good. Jesus has made all the earth. It is his work. Including every bit of nutrition we get. So we can talk about it and magnify Jesus' name. Even for an issue like food, I think. Hi Neighbor, it shoudn't be junk food, I agree with you. I mean the good food. And it is good. Yes, of course.

In Germany, there are foodbanks, too, called "Tafel". However, food still gets thrown away, here. I don't know why, but it still happens. My friend who brings food from her working place brings food in relatively small amounts. Too little to bring it to the local Tafel. The bakery friend also caters for the Tafel. But still, she gives us, too. As far as I know, the Tafel only opens its doors for giving out food twice a week. When the lady has bread half an hour after the Tafel closes its doors, she often calls us.

I meant environmental issues. But Christians in Germany are still passing out the Gospel of Christ. Thomas

no, Yowm. They are discovering the issue (my impression). I can only speak for some Christians in Germany and France.

Dear community, I understand foodsharing as handing out free food that would have been thrown away otherwise. Food, for me, is a gift of God. So, it shouldn't be thrown away. Additionally, producing food means creating an environmental burden. For instance, any production of foods causes co2 emissions. In regions with shortage of water, agriculture can be a threat for the water balance, in my opinion. And if the food is just going to be thrown away after having been produced, it comes down to wasting water. Furthermore, Germany has a huge problem with nitrate pollution. This is primarily caused by stock farming. Germany has too much of it. At church, friends of mine distribute foods that have been thrown away. For me, this is a blessing. This food is still great (although having been thrown away). For others, too. A friend of the church has a bakery and lets us know when she has bread to share out for free. Many people from the church praise God for this. Another friend brings leftovers from her working place for after service. The brothers and sisters enjoy apples, bananas.... Our colleagues from the local mainline protestant church go as far as to share out free food for anyone in town. They cooperate with an initiative that provides them with foods for their fridge; foods that would have been thrown away otherwise. Anyone can come in get their food and leave. Regards, Thomas

Hi Yown, It is a huge topic when governments don't tell the truth. I don't want to cover it all, just want to point to the fact that in the US, there is free press. In Nazi Germany, in contrast, criticising Hitler was a no-go. You couldn't read a second opinion that went against anything of what he said. The circumstances in which a US government would lie today are different compared to what was there in Germany during the Nazi era. You also have the possibility of listening to what other parties say concerning the government. In Nazi Germany, there was only one political party. Regards, Thomas

Dear pg4Him, every church has problems. This is at least my impression. You asked a normal or quite normal one if you could go there - their problems were there already before you joined. In the Bible there was one example when the pastor got critizised for a personal thing: Numbers 12, it went wrong. In that Bible passage Moses got critizised for something that was established long before he met with those criticizing him (my own interpretation of Numbers 12). Regards, Thomas

yeah. The question is, what the Bible means, and what the intention is in what is written. God wants to explain us his word, that's it, I think. When God makes it clear that someone is made from another living being, however, he uses different words as he did in Genesis chapter 2: "So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." As we see from this little Bible passage, if one being is derived from another, a whole theology is built on that. So, if man was created from animal, then it would be certain to conclude that, for God, the animals would say ... “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", as did Adam when he found out where his wife came from. However, this wouldn't make any sense, so the whole idea of God creating man from living matter is junk, I'd say. Best regards. Thomas

Hi Kennith, Evolution, ok. But I think, Genesis 1&2 and the Theory of Evolution cannot be combined. As an exaple, the ToE claims that man evolved from another animal. But Bible says man was made of dust. There's no way to reconcile these two, I think. Best regards, Thomas

Hi Erin, in my opinion, even if there was abuse, there are reasons to present her your child. It is her grandchild. And your child might appreciate. I'm not saying you must present her your child. Abusive patterns could even repeat towards your child, as well. Just saying that there are reasons to do so. In case you want to invite her to meet your child you could ask her to bring an independent moderator; and to meet at a neutral place. You could ask her to answer you via a moderator. Like this you could feel safe. Moreover, just because of someone being there at the meeting she might refrain from yelling at you or your child, for example, in an attempt to avoid making a bad impression. But... If you can't, you can't. Your body can be very clear about this, too, showing you the symptoms of an illness the day set to meet her... In my opinion, in this case you could try to explain to her why you can't. You could tell her that you are afraid of being exposed to potential further violence - verbal abuse is violence, too, in my wiew. Fear is nothing to be ashamed of if it's there, in my view. This explanation could require the presence of a moderator, too. You could ask her to reply via an independent moderator. BTW, I wouldn't send gifts for holidays. If you are afraid of some of her ways of interacting with you, sending gifts would certainly be the wrong message, I guess. Honouring your parents in this case could mean that you could refrain from calling her abusive (in an approach to let God do the judgement). Instead you could refer to deeds or words as being abusive. Regards, Thomas

Hi ytLiJC, The Bible knows salvation. Either you are saved or not. There is no nuances concerning salvation, when you are saved. Saved is saved. “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Mt 25:31-34, ESV "When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents." (Gen 25:27) I think, this passage doesn't mention "world spirits", you are constructing this. Sounds as if you're doing complicated semantics, here. What it means to hate somebody is defined by the Hebrew word for it, I think. "I have hated Esau" in Romans 9:13 is citing Hebrew Malachi 1:1-3. Regards, Thomas

Hi N2thelight, after having had a little break in our discussion, I would like to comment on this statement: If I got you right, you say this only makes sense in case there is a pre-existence of souls. Otherwise, according to what I understand to be your point, the persecution of Christians wouldn't be just or fair. As One Light put it here, God is not to be blamed for what humans do. Humans have the possibility to make choices he continues. And sometimes humans go as far as to kill other humans, this is what we see. I think this is a very simple explanation of why evil things can occur. So, there's no need to resort to any form of preexistence to explain the occurence of sin in the world (my opinion). Regards, Thomas

Dear Unfailing Presence, Oh I didn't get your point. Now I understand: you were aiming at the *original* passage, Paul is quoting from. My Bible at home says this was Malachi 1:2-3 (KJV) Was not Esau Jacob' brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau,

I've cited this Bible verse, as it is, and yes I also think, Paul is referring to something written prior... Regards, Thomas

Romans 9:13 KJV.

Hi Shiloh, hope you're doing well. And if we followed that warped logic, we should not talk about spousal abuse, rape, [...] human trafficking [...] either. Everyone might have an idea of what rape is. But I think that people wouldn't have understood Jesus very well back then, if he would have talked explicitely about subjects such as spousal abuse, rape or trafficking in women. Human rights organizations operating in the field of (action against) violence against women don't adress rape as an isolated issue. This, at least is my impression after having had the opportunity to cooperate in one of these organisations (actually "my topic" there has been violence against women). These organizations seek to explain sexual violence against women analysing the context in which this happens. And this context, as I see it, is anti-women bias in general. Before talking about about subjects such as rape or spousal abuse it makes sense, in my opinion, to adress anti-women bias in general. However, Jesus did adress this in John chapter 8, first paragraph (my own interpretation). As he adressed gender issues, he opened the way for an understanding of and a debate about violence against women, as I see it. Many people might have an idea of what child molestation is. Surprisingly, many previously molested children themselves only discover the abuse at a moment when their adulthood is already well advanced (this is my personal impression). So I think, it might very well have happened that people wouldn't have understood Jesus right back then, when he would have analysed child abuse. In my opinion, it makes sense to expose an environment that is hostile to children, before referring to child abuse. Because understanding the patterns of child abuse requires an understanding of enmity against children in general, I think. Children viewed as second class members of society - this would be a context prone to fostering child abuse, as I see it. To my knowledge, child abusers refer to customs in society that are hostile to children to cover up their abuse and to sell their behaviour as normal. However, Jesus made reference to rejecting children in Mt 19:14, and by this he opened up the opportunity for a debate about this, too, I think. Suprisingly, he adressed this issue reacting to something his own disciples had done: "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Mt 19:14 KJV Regards, Thomas

Hi Scott, Yeah, I know this theology is popular. I personally prefer an explanation model in which God makes himself *comprehensible*, as in Daniel 9:22. To issue a curse *before* the wrongdoing, who would understand that? Of course, God stands outside time.... However, he values relationships with us humans high, as can be seen in the Garden of Eden with Adam+ Eve. So he wants to be understood - even by people not intelligent enough to think different and sophisticated time models that seek to explain the timing of God's actions, I think. All humans could understand a chronologic line of actions, but a mixture of past, present and future is hard to understand, I think. Furthermore, it seems that God likes order *when he takes action*. This is my impression when I read the first chapters of Genesis (the creation). Order implies chronology, in my opinion. Jacob and Esau were too young in the womb to make lasting decisions, this is my interpretation even in lights of Psalms 58:4. Regards, Thomas

Hi Aldo, I think, a racist remark should always be called a racist remark, even when you speak to your own parents. God doesn't judge according to colour - this is my interpretation of "For God shows no partiality." (Romans 2:11) Once you've told your parents your take on racist remarks, would be interesting to see how they will react. Regards, Thomas

Hi N2thelight, ... before conception. Some people mix up conception and birth.... The Bible is full of references to personhood before birth, as I see it, for instance Psalms 58:4. But I like your idea of aborted babies going to heaven.... All I can do is speak for myself: in my opinion the stars are just stars. The simple interpretations are the best, I think. I agree in that it's at least an allusion to Gen. chapter one. But Jeremiah is about Jerusalem. So: Jeremiah talking about Jerusalem makes an allusion to how the earth looked like in Gen 1:2? Why not. Maybe God was so disappointed at that point that he recalls the stage when the earth was void. Regards, Thomas Edit 27.2.: oh, I note that I misunderstood the first quote. Let me clarify: Noone here, as I understand it, rules out that we existed (and therefore were with God) before conception. People are saying *Bible remains silent* on this, as I understand it.

Hi Scott, I'm thankful that you gave your attention to this thread. Assigning a mere point of time to the above mentioned Bible verses and calling that a 'report' doesn't answer the question of the title - or why Esau was hated before birth, in my opinion. I have difficulty in understanding what you mean here. For me, it 's quite difficult to decode the "just as 'I am'" of your quote. Rather than talking about yourself you could be talking about God, here, making an allusion to one of His names... May I ask you if it would be possible for you to be more precise in describing what you mean next time? So I assume now you were talking about the way God is. So I answer this. I see a difference between the way God is and the way humans are, for example Abraham (John 8:58 ESV): Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Regards, Thomas

Hi N2thelight, I believe so. Now I'll try my answer to this one: If you say there were angels (I'm not saying there were not, btw.), why don't you distinguish between angel-sons and human-sons of God, I'm asking myself. Angels can be old... But now I want to share with you my thoughts on the question who the 'sons of God' were shouting for Joy. It could very well be some of the first humans who were there on earth already, I think. Let's have a look at what time Job 38:7 is referring to. The context before this passage, in my opinion, is indeed referring to the period when God created the world (1:0 for you ). However, Job 38:8 is describing what happened after the flood of Noahs days, I think: “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, 9 when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, 10 and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, 11 and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’? This is perfectly parallelled by Gen 9:11, I think. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” Gen 9:11, by the way, also says that the flood of Noahs days 'destroyed the earth'. So, I am not convinced by your thoughts about an alleged pre-Adamite earth age, here: Although there is an astonishing similarity between the two verses... the context of Jeremiah 4:23 is entirely different, as I see it. Jeremiah 4:22 is about Jerusalem, as was the wohle chapter 4 up to this verse. Jeremiah 4:29 turns back to Jerusalem, as well. Hence, to me, it doesn't make any sense to say that the passage 4:23-28 suddenly changes to what happened in Gen 1:2. Jerusalem and God's anger about this town, that's what the whole chapter is about, in my opinion. God created the earth in as many as *six* days, I think. The Tohu, as you say, in Gen 1 went on for no more than two days. No reason to say that, if God created a void earth on day one, he would have lost sight of his plan creating everything in 7 days. That's at least my opinion. Even if there was a void earth on day one - that changes in days four to six when everything became inhabited, just as it was God's plan indeed, I think. Regards, Thomas