thomas t

Hello Shorryshaggy - in case you'd read again, I answered your question in my last post (I discerned one, even if there was no question mark..). I hope you didn't want to count me among people judging without knowing, 'cause this would be getting personal, in my opinion. Thanks. Thomas

Only Noah plus his wife and his sons with their wives were on board. The others just stayed there. The scenarios you figure out, however, violate the physical rules of this world... Thomas

Dear fellow posters, I gave my opinion about this part of a post which calls a child "a problem" ( - did I understand anything wrong?). However, I can't find it anymore here in the thread. Let me ask you aquestion: if a fellow poster calls her child publicly "a problem", isn't that a problem for you? What would, in your opinion, this child feel like the moment he finds out that his mother speaks over him (anonymously) in public that way? How would you feel? Thomas Thomas. I called him having problems cause that is how it is protrayed in public he is almost 18 has been in trouble with the police and calls himself a problem and is quite proud of it if you have a problem with what i have said how would you say it. Dear Shorryshaggy, may I suggest to you to read the book "Speak peace in a world of conflict" by Marshall Rosenberg? This is a whole book full of useful advice how we can word things in a way in a good sense that nobody get hurt. Even if he is a nonbeliever (well, I don't actually know), also a nonbeliever can give valuable advice, I think. Thomas

I suppose he could have put the whole of Egypt to sleep or something, and let the Israelites escape and cross the Red Sea before waking them. I always took the 10 plagues as punishments rather than a necessary means of escape. God had plenty of other options at his disposal if his only goal was "get the Israelites out of there". I can agree it's certainly possible the 10th plague was painless, however, drowning in the flood would not have been. From my understanding asphyxiation is a pretty terrible way to go. Yes, I agree that it doesn't sound so bad in the context of eternal life, but I think that opens up other cans of worms, and is likely a candidate for another thread. I agree with you, the ten plagues was punishment. And I do think that a sting from insect is painful, so the plagues must have been painful, too, I guess. However, I also think that putting them asleep would have been nothing else than postponing the problem. As you can tell by their reaction to Israel's leave, they would certainly have put together all their soldiers there were - that could perhaps have meant most of the men fit for military service back then - and hunted Israel down no matter how far they would have proceeded already. Having no more men, however, would have meant for Egypt to be open to invasion from any side, I think. If the children would have survived remains questionable in this scenario, to say the least, I hope you won't be wanting to resort to the argument that God could have erected special foster homes.... Furthermore, it comes with the territory, I think, that if a people has a plague, all suffer. Hence, it is, in my opinion, part of parental resonsibility to keep plagues off. Asphyxiation might be a terrible way to go, I agree. However, I also think that the Bible hints to the possibility that Noah's ark originally was open for anyone willing to join. I mean, Noah building a ship the size of a big cruise liner right in the middle of the scenery (without any transition route to the sealevel), that's quite a stong testimony. Moreover, the Bible shows, in my views, that the ark was open to more crew. I come to this conclusion in comparing the originally planned number of animals to the number of animals that actually entered the ark: You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Gen 6:19 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, Gen 7:2a Thomas

Thank you for your explanation Alan, however, I can't use the PM system, anymore, since pretty long. I don't know why. To PM the member first would certainly have been my first choice. I'm glad to read that you've come to terms with your past. May this stay so for you. Have a good evening, Thomas

Good morning Robby, later, many Egyptian soldiers lost their lives in the floods of the Red Sea ... these were also missing parents, I think. In those days, single mothers must have had great difficulties in raising up children so that they all could survive, I think. But I was rather thinking of another point. The tenth plague left out, how would it have been possible to get Israel out? It was actually that plague that made the Egyptians change their minds, as I see the story. God could have destroyed the whole of Egypt, or 80%, or anything similar - but this would have meant deaths, too... Let me explain to you my opinion about death. My attitude towards it is that it only means stopping your existence here on earth. We can argue about the actual process causing pain to the children or not. This is what we can do. But let's consider for a moment they all died without pain: where do you see the problem of an ending life on earth? (When people kill other people, that's a totally different story, ok?) Have a good day, Thomas

Dear fellow posters, I gave my opinion about this part of a post which calls a child "a problem" ( - did I understand anything wrong?). However, I can't find it anymore here in the thread. Let me ask you aquestion: if a fellow poster calls her child publicly "a problem", isn't that a problem for you? What would, in your opinion, this child feel like the moment he finds out that his mother speaks over him (anonymously) in public that way? How would you feel? Thomas

Dear fellows, let me discuss another special issue (my last one) from the closed "convert-me"-thread. The Bible describes His way of being. Sometimes, the Bible says "God is ...". In my opinion, this is a description of his self. The self-descriptions, however, are limited to a specific number of characteristics. Nevertheless, many people start "finding" many more. If it's positive, it's ok, I think. However, if it's criticizing, it means pretending to sit in judgement on God, I think. Even if the Bible describes how he ordered the killing of an entire people (see Numbers 31:17), it speaks on the level of *actions*. That doesn't mean that it is anybody's right to infer from this action of his to the entire *person*, that is to say that he actually was racist. His reasons to order a killing could be multiple, we can only have a guess about it. With sexism, it's the same, I think. When Jesus tells his disciples to go to the Jews only, this meant it wasn't their task to preach to the other nations. As a comparison, VW USA only sells their products to USA, that doesn't mean VW is a racist company, as VW USA simply has its working field in the US. That was easy. Now let's turn to 1.Sam15, when the Lord ordered the killing of Amalek. The Amalekites were so enormously dangerous to Israel, Saul later was killed by an Amalekite BTW, that God wanted to have them out of the way, in my interpretation. Have a good day Thomas T

Hello fellow posters, this is not meant to reopen the other thread but to discuss one specific item out of it. This is the quote, I'd like to refer to (see #128 of the "convert me"-thread): My take on collective punishment by God: the people of Egypt apparently didn't have anything against the collective punishment of the people of Israel (Exodus 5:6-10). Pharao ordered the punishment of the entire people just because of one man, Moses, having committed the "crime" of free speech in front of the Pharao. God treated Egypt the way they apparently seemed to see fit. My stance to the death of children: If parents died back then, their children would die, too, to my knowledge. The last plague out of ten against the people of Egypt happened to be the decisive one, as I understand it. After that one, Israel was allowed to go. We, of course, don't know what would have happened, if this plague wouldn't have occured in the first place. My guess, however: these children would have died anyway at this point of the story. Have a good day, Thomas

Both these four insinuations about me behaving .... and these three direct offenses (I added numbers): are wrong and against the ToS. I think, this should stop, Thomas T

Dear fellows, in the other thread, there was someone claiming that Bible says the earth was the centre... I’m not sure what Bible are you reading exactly, but my Bible says this, for example: “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.” So, the only reason for the stars is “to give light upon the earth” and to be “for signs, and for seasons”. If that’s not a geocentric universe I don’t know what is. See also Joshua’s day, when the Sun (not the Earth) stopped. [...] I think the passage quoted does in no way support geocentrism. While it's true that God made lights and they sould be for signs and for seasons, they can also be for signs and seasons in a heliocentric (planetary) system. Also we have days and years in a heliocentric system, I think. What does the Bible say in Josua concerning this question? Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Josua 10:12-13, KJV I chose the KJV. In NIV whe read (verse 13a).. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped. .. (and 13 c).. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. In my opinion, KJV wins, because it's closer to the original text in my opinion. The sun standing still does not preclude heliocentrism, in my opinion, so I don't see any biblical support for the geocentric world view, sorry. Thomas Disclaimer: I'm not going to google things that I'm told to google. I would like to have sources.

Dear fellow posters, I wouldn't make this biblical story about Eli a parenting issue. Eli had a problem in his institution that was caused by staff members and they happened to be his sons. But that doesn't make it a parenting issue, I think. Have a good day Thomas

Please let Jesus do the judgement. Or is it that you just would like to discuss responsibilities the way Nebula does? Why not "who is to take the responsibility for children's actions?" as your title? Would this suit your mood? Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[an arameic term of contempt, explanation by NIV, my comment] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. Mt 5:22b My interpretation of this goes the following: if you'd call a youth "problem" you will be answereable to a divine court. My point in showing you this verse is to show you what the consequences might be, if you'd ever call a youth names. Thomas

why not shifting the topic to the deeds and away from the persons. Do you think "are parents to blame for crimes committed by their children?" would make it, too? or, slightly more briefly: "parents to be blamed for their children's mistakes?"

Hello Ninhao, you are raising an interesting point here. Let me just discuss the choice of your title. "Problem Youths" is concerning the person of the youths. The notion of crimes, however, is directed towards the deeds. This is judging - in theory - people by their deeds. Jesus will do that, that's for sure. I think, youths are still young obviously. They need opportunities, we shouldn't blame them, in my opinion, to be of bad character for having committed crimes. What do you think? Thomas

Sculelos, I do not 1. blatantly ignore or twist the Bible, 2. sicken anybody, 3. want to be called sinful by you, 4. embrace a lie, 5. fence straddle, 6. mix a bunch of doctrines and devils together, 7. call mixing a bunch of doctrines and devils together Christianity. I find your post highly attacking and hope that this may stop Thomas

Hum, this is about the rejection of the Big Bang. Those who reject it claim to be subjected to discrimination by the scientific community. My point is not that the Big Bang isn’t true, so I don’t want to say anything about it here..

Let me now discuss the first statement made by my friend Joe. This is indeed very strong criticism. In my opinion, there is also an other side of the coin and this fits in nicely here. In your current present an analysis that has actually made it into one of the top scientific journals and that was also discussed by a National Geographic article. The subtitle of the National Geographic article reads according to poster Luftwaffe like this: The author himself argues according to National Geographic like this: Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors. The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said. (cited from your OP) Poster Davis pointed out that You didn't have an answer to that, as I see it, so may I conclude that you also think that this test about "Creationism" (National Geographic wrote that) simply left out the Creator, our holy Lord? My impression is: Joe's harsh criticism comes at a time when a proponent of science claims to have tested "Creationism" but left out the possibility that God actually *created* someone... In lights of that story, I find his reaction just natural. God is Joe's father, as he is the father of every believer, and he feels under attack the moment science claims to have tested "Creationism" in this manner. Thomas

Can we read this? Then it would help to get a picture of the situation..

Sculelos does not represent christian views, in my opinion. To evaluate at what extent his works reflect christian views just have a quick look at how much criticism he has received in from the community. And that one was just the first thread he created... (I hope he can see this through my link..) Noone in here is going to buy this:

But Gerald, I don't see where I'm moving the goalposts. In your hypothetic analogy, a particular geologist/ group of geologists were adressed and criticized. In my opinion, there is a difference between criticism of a collective and critisizing a single person. BTW, I didn't watch that movie, but I've read your answer to me in the other thread, of course. Thomas

????? That was my reaction because told me that not knowing the content of these sites was equal to not knowing that banks handle money. ????? What are you talking about? I've never said anything suggesting I would have a problem with you visiting an ID creationist website. Heck, I provided you links to creationist websites! So your question is truly strange. So you are actually arguing that the article, and creationist organizations in general do not criticize the work of scientists? Ok then. No. My point was, that the article did not criticise any scientist in particular.

Good day Faith vs. Science users, Gerald says that creationist organizations do not submit their theses to the scientific community. He reasons that "they've never written up this historically astounding material and submitted it to a scientific journal. As we discussed, even if they get rejected repeatedly, if their arguments are scientifically valid then the rejection letters will necessarily be arbitrary, which RtB could then present as clear evidence that their scientifically valid material is being arbitrarily suppressed. " In response to the apparently missing rejection letters, a fellow brother pointed to the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed hosted and directed by Ben Stein". To my knowledge, this film didn't purport any rejection letter by a scientific journal, either. Please correct me if I'm wrong, thank you. So, I want to ask you, are creationist organisations not trying to get their discussions into the scientific community? If so, why? Thomas

Would you ask for a source if I claimed banks handle money? If I said museums display artifacts? I would hope not, since that is precisely what those institutions exist to do. Similarly, criticizing the work of the scientific community is precisely what creationist organizations exist to do. If you want to clearly demonstrate this point, then I challenge you to provide something from one of those creationist organizations that doesn't contain criticisms of scientists' work. Good day Gerald, I think you are making a mountain out of molehill. On Wednesday, I visited my first ID website. I've never done so before. Where do you have a problem with that? Now you're just splitting hairs. That article criticizes a specific paper written by specific authors. That's exactly what you asked for. I don't see where I'm splitting hairs. In my opinion, this article doesn't criticize or even attack the authors of that paper in particular. It rather criticizes evolutionism as a whole, as I see it. It later tries to convey an alternative interpretation of the data citing the authors of that paper in an effort to back up this alternative interpretation. I stay with my conviction. If you want to expand on it, could you please open up a new thread (since it would be a bit off topic here, I think)? Thomas

Look Gerald, I'm relieved that you weren't going to express doubts on my honesty. If I've learned anything then that one should be careful with third party assertions in which sources aren't provided. You said already, that you are anonymous, why should I have blind trust in an anonymous person? I mean, I have nothing against you, Gerald. However, every human can make mistakes. So, I think it is only fair to demand sources when it comes to allegations about third persons. But I'm happy that you finally agreed to give me an article to read. First, let me discuss this.. I stay with my opinion that it was not. It would have been a statement about God's intentions, if I would have taken the premise of the previous sentence seriously. But I did not, so I didn't effectively say anything about God's intentions. The premise was totally hypothetical and I was neutral towards it. I don't have any problem, if I read the word of God and find assertions about his intentions in there. It's his word, he can tell me whatever he wants. In your hypothetical sentance, in contrast, an assertion about God's intentions was made that didn't purport any reference to the Bible. In my opinion, it's only through the use of scripture that you get on the safe side. So now the article. We don't read any assertion about God's intentions that didn't made the use of scripture. Luckily. The article doesn't adress any particular person, as I see it. So how can this one be nerveracking? I'm not saying that it is not. Would you be annoyed if I tell you: if you don't like it, don't read it ...? I mean, I'm open to read your explanation.... feel free to express your thoughts. Thomas