thomas t

Well, I am a German living in Germany but thanks for the compliment. Here in Germany, just for you to make a comparison, the book "To Train Up a Child" (Pearl) was prohibited as being harmful to young people. This is a difference between our two countries, I guess. A homophobic (among other traits) catholic website called kreuz.net was put on the Index of publications harmful to young people before they shut it down on their own. I'm not bent on this, Lady... I do think that it matters. Thomas

This is getting personal, I think, please read the ToS, thanks. I think that your mind towards me is already set. So what is the point for me in further discussing with you? Thomas

Good morning Kwik, hmm, I don't fully understand. Everything is said. The title and the content of what this person has said... is also clear by now, I hope. You want to have humor. Let me think some seconds... I will think further and then I'll come up with a good joke out of this thread! Thomas

Hello Ninhao, I also think that Genesis is not a scientific account for its first purpose. However, the correct order of things is what we expect from a true narrative account, as well, wouldn't you agree? Thomas

I would be interested in knowing the answers to those questions myself. Free speech becomes restricted speech if it is curtailed in ANY way. Umm, not that I support his assertions in the Op, but is not Thomas asserting his right to free speech as well? [...] The truth will always out... Thanks, Thomas

Good morning Lady C, I won't say my position again, my attempt was to get off this merry go round. Actually, I was having from the atheist side who accused Christians of having supported genocide in America. I couldn't judge if this was true or not. However, at this moment I remembered Christians advocating life sentences for other people just for their identity, so I thought this thread should be my next one. yes, it is as stated in the titel of the OP. And then, since Cobalt and others had doubts on what this person has said, I thought by myself it would be nice to have this included in this debate. I love America. Actually, Christianity is my family and this is not about choosing anybody. I only have one family. [added numbers mine] first point: that' wrong. As you've correctly said in point (3), he supports that bill. That aswers (4), too, I guess. second point: this is merely the specific interpretation of this newspaper, to which you seem to be adhering to. CNN, in contrast, argues that concerning the revised bill "there are conflicting reports on whether the original death penalty provision remain". Thomas

First, let me tell you that the Ugandan bill in question here supported by that person would not prescribe more lenient punishments. On the contrary, it would further aggravate the situation for LGBT people in Uganda prescribing life sentences. I would go even one step further estimating that the mere discussion of this catastrophic bill in the Ugandan parliament already aggravates the situation for them - your neighbours by the way. Further, in my interpretation of what you have said, this covenant is still used by you to justify "lenient" prison sentences for gay people, in the first place. (Did I misunderstand you? This can be possible) There shouldn't be any prison sentences for people solely for the sake of their identity, I think. Thomas

Good morning Q, for this question, a agree with poster flameoffire: if you want to have one law out of the Mosaic covenant, you need to have all of them. This covenant makes sense in its entirety only, I think. We souldn't show any favoritism. Thomas

The question I was asking here is what happens to those people that don't live up to these standards. Should somebody among us call for them to be treated according to a bill that sends them to prison? And should his statements be backed up by us? Thomas

That’s not true either. He merely said that he thinks the bill would be too harsh in the letter, please read closely again. The existing laws already allow policemen to arrest homosexuals (wikipedia). Thomas I will not refrain from saying it, when it is true. You clearly say that the man was calling for homosexuals to be arrested. He never once said that in the article you linked to, so that is dishonest. And you continue to misrepresent what he said. This is a direct copy and paste of the portion in question: Your accusation of me being dishonest, here once again, is horribly false. However, I refuse to state my statement once again to get off the merry go round here. Thomas

Good morning Lady C, I stay with my opinion, Lady. actually I don't. I just think that sexuality is part of one's identity just like profession or religion. Thomas

That’s not true Cobalt, the first article I mentioned quotes him frankly stating that he “gives the revised bill his support”. I would be happy if you could first read closely and then refrain from accusing me of being dishonest, thank you. That’s not true either. He merely said that he thinks the bill would be too harsh in the letter, please read closely again. The existing laws already allow policemen to arrest homosexuals (wikipedia). Thomas

Good morning Neb, this one is about using the Alien Tort Statute in the US. A Ugandan organiazation invokes US law to prosecute a citizen of the US in America. Best wishes, Thomas

Good day Q, however, this particular opinion I spoke of, was about calling for other people to get arrested solely for their identity. Free speech as a right is to be weighed up against the human rights of others when it comes to offending them or even call for them to be arrested, in my opinion. You evoked racism ("neo-nazis") in your post, so let me point to another story in which free speech was involved and weighed up against other things: Germany recently was rebuked by the UN anti-racism committee for not having punished a former politician who spoke disrespectfully against what he called "the Turks", people who actually are Germans but may have Turkish anscestors. I personally agree with the committee. Dispersing racism is not the same as displaying religious symbols or sharing the gospel of Christ. Have a good day Thomas

Hello fellow members, a Christian recently called for homosexuals to be arrested (read the last four paragraphs of this Christian Post article). And now a non-profit organization called Liberty Counsel is currently defending him on court pleading his right to free speech. I think that sexuality belongs to one's identity. The right to free speech is to be as open within the constraints prediscribed by the protection of others from discrimination. In my opinion, a call for someone to be arrested for his or her identity is discriminatory. Thomas

Hello D-9, when did the Jews destroy his homeland? What are you referring to? In my opinion, you just don't understand. Revenge doesn't preclude other reasons. Of course it was revenge in the case of the Amalekites, for instance. However, the Amalekites posed a great risk to Israel, as we can see here: Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys. Judges 6:3-4 ... and that was already more than a century later than the instance God referred to for his reason of revenge. After Saul failed to take revenge properly the way God ordered it, they still kept on attacking Israel and doing great harm to it. David and his men reached Ziklag on the third day. Now the Amalekites had raided the Negev and Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it, and had taken captive the women and everyone else in it, both young and old. They killed none of them, but carried them off as they went on their way. 1. Sam. 30:1-2 .. and that was already many centuries after God decided to take revenge on them. Did they still have any, after man acted against them? Can you be sure about your answer that you're supposed to give me now? Thomas

Good day Alpha, I like to look at the person behind the label and I respectfully stay with my opinion, thank you. Have a good day, Thomas

Hi, thank you D9, I understand what you're trying to convey. There is the one morality for humans and another for God, in my opinion. This leads us to the next point.. How can we as humans attack God, I'm asking myself, saying he was committing crime? I'm still having in mind this Wikipedia article having used this term to describe "genocide". But perhaps you put the God of the Bible on the same level as humans. Maybe putting it this way "when humans killed other people, it was and still is crime. Hence, what God did was also a crime!"? My answer would be: How many humans did Hitler create, in contrast? what was his motivation for this? Actually I'm not sure, personally. I only see this Bible verse saying that David's child went to heaven ... But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”2.Sam. 12:23 but this wasn't what I was trying to say. Actually, I wanted to show that, in my opinion, the problem breaks down to, first, the pain that a child maybe experiences during the moment of his or her death and, secondly, the loss of the opportunities life brings about. I left out the consequences of such event for the parents and for the rest of society as a whole. However, I think that in the case of the children God has killed they didn't have any opportunities left, in the first place. I respectfully disagree with that one. I'm convinced that God gives chances, but sometimes it is humans that take them away. Hence, at the end of their lives they don't have chances left, as sad as it may be. This is how it was in those cases, as I see them. Have a good day Thomas

Good day Alpha, well, I commented on a fellow poster's post saying "having a child that is a problem [...]". Moreover, all she had to tell about her child was, as I understood it, negative about him. The poster also added "If you were around him 5 minutes you would know something was off.". Please explain, what is it that I didn't understand in your opinion? Have a good day, Thomas

Hi Robby, you're welcome. To me, it seems at least to have been necessary to prevent the other Egyptians (those that have stayed at home) from doing further harm to Israel. Have a good day, Thomas

Hello D-9, I'll use the quote function, too, and keep my answers short, as my posts are not always popular with the mods, so I'd like to comment on the "strong" things in your posts, only. And answer questions. Concerning "genocide", I had the wikipedia article about it in mind that reads "This article is about the crime." [underlined mine]. But if you use "genocide" in your definition that's fine. I never use this kind of argumentation. I merely said that God is above all law. This is different from saying that we will never understand. In response to (1): Death will come when it comes. God knows. I won't commit suicide nor ... (2) kill anyone else, of course. I discussed this point with poster Viole half a year ago. God gives everyone life as a chance to do well here on earth and get rewarded each according to their deeds. I won't take away chances, D-9. Thomas

I'm not sure what you mean. Robby, my point was that on the one hand you talk about teleporting Israel as an option for God, but on the other hand, death, as a means of teleporting children to an afterlife, seems to be out of question for you, why so? ... I asked myself. My answer was: because this was your choice of thinking. Let's have a look on your assertion that option 2 would be better. The consequence of this would be that people might be persuaded to think that there isn't any consequence of sin, anymore, except people who are thretened by others being teleported by God. Long story short, God would have to maybe teleport one million people to one million different stars, wouldn't you agree? This isn't a better world, in my opinion. The first option is that children are innocently included in the plague and perhaps experience pain in the moment of their death. How do you know this? I'm not asking to be rude, but rather wanting to know if the justification is "because he says he won't lie" or if it is something else. You aren't rude with this question... I cannot find any contrdictions in the Bible the way you do. In this book, we find the assertion that God cannot lie. Thomas

Robby, I think in contrast, it takes a lot of choices to explain why he does things that appear bad. You made the choice to suggest God teleporting Israel to a place beyond pursuit, but you could have equally well made the choice and suggest teleporting children via death to another place. For you, your interpretation just seems to fit the evidence better, in my opinion. God cannot lie. Thomas

Hello D-9, my comments in purple.. Have a good day, Thomas

Only Noah plus his wife and his sons with their wives were on board. The others just stayed there. Okay. Do you feel the children stayed behind because their parents made them or because they chose to? Do you think (sufficiently young) children could really have understood the consequence if they chose, themselves? In either case, I don't feel that offering the choice to the parents or even the children is fair to the children. Good morning Robbie, I actually don't know. However, I think that children because of their young age still depend on their parent's views. Even if there would have been free choice for them to step on the ark, which might of course have been restricted by their parents, they wouldn't have done so if they were told by their parents: "look at this schizophrenic!" What child would have stepped on the ark of a so-called schizophrenic (or take any other insult)? I'm not saying that the Bible tells he was insulted, but I think this might have been the case. Have a good day, Thomas