thomas t

Hi community, it sometimes happens to me that a fellow brother or sister tells me that they sought help from their parents, although they don't believe in Christ as their savior. I mean it could be that they offered it.... but what if they did not or rather reluctantly? and without getting their potential grandchildren involved? I think the Bible is clear (Eze 34): Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. 5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. 6 My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them. I think the elders of your local church are the ones that should look after their local church members. It is their task to help somebody who is in need of and belongs to their church, IMO. I also feel that this applies to physical churches only. This board is really nice, no doubt, but I think a PM discussion in here could resolve 1% of someone's trials only. What do you think? Have a very good day Thomas P.S.: I'm sure that GoldenEagle has discussed this verse somewhere in the leadership threads, however, I didn't read all of his threads... I hope I don't double post here.

A "theory" in science is not promoted to fact or anything of the sort; a full-fledged "theory" is the highest honor an idea can get in science. The point is that we don't need to attribute the supernatural to gravity, and we do know (at least in part) what gravity is and it is an emergent property of physical characteristics. I don't know how to interpret that as supernatural. Hello D-9, have a good new year. Let me just add something to what Citizenship already has said. I think we should differentiate between what a scientific theory does perform and what it does not. Gravitation: you can do experimenting about that. How many experiments, that show common descent, can be made? How many experiments that show how fossil records are generated can be effactuated? You can observe, as Citizenship said, some effects of the fact that animals did live here for at least some thousand years...., but you can't repeat evolution in and of itself (I mean in a large scale in a sense of evolution of all the animals and not only the development of a new rip bone in foxes or something). In contrast, you can let drop your pencil as often as you want. Thomas

Dear friends, here is the link for what Salomon Korn said: http://www.zeit.de/g...eidigt-augstein - just for you so you could verify if you know to read some German. But now I would like to discuss what Die Zeit had to say about Jewish settlements Die Zeit said that Israel "is about to prevent a two-state solution by new settlements" (the link for the source is the same as (iiii) from the above posting.). Their argument is that the west bank would be devided into two parts (i). But let's have a look at the map: http://www.google.de...iw=1280&bih=859 I think it's clear that E1 won't cut the west bank into two... Thomas (i) http://www.zeit.de/p...kampf-besatzung

Dear friends, there is an ongoing debate in Germany these days about whether the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (Los Angeles) included German publisher Jakob Augstein for good reason. Jakob Augstein is the son of SPIEGEL's founding editor Rudolf Augstein and writes on SPIEGEL ONLINE. SPIEGEL is one of the most important media in Germany. The list can be found here: http://www.wiesentha...}/TT_2012_3.PDF I think, anybody can read that Augstein dispersed anitisemite slogans. BTW the list quotes Augstein transmitting thanks to Günther Grass, who wrote a strongly antisemite poem not long ago (i). So, I ask, why the outcry in Germany? Is it only because Augstein is placed in the same category as Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood or Iranien President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Augstein received backing by the vice-President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Salomon Korn, as well as from deputy leader of the governing CDU, Julia Klöckner. One of the leading German newspapers, namely "Die Zeit", that also published an interview given by Wiesenthal's Abraham Cooper (ii), cannot understand how Augstein could be included in the list. In contrast to Klöckner, that argued that Augstein only made use of his right to freedom of speech (iii), "Die Zeit" goes as far as blaming Israel of destroying the prospect of a two-state solution by building new settlements (iiii). I think that "die Zeit" is referring to the newly envisaged "E1" settlement. Angela Merkel also does not like the E1 settlement, either. However, her criticism did not go beyond a polite "agree to disagree" style during her meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu some weeks ago, this is at least how she is reported to have said in "Die Welt" (v). Have a good day, Thomas (i) http://www.guardian....srael-poem-iran (ii) http://www.zeit.de/g...-cooper/seite-2 (iii) http://www.zeit.de/g...ismus-vorwuerfe (iiii) http://www.zeit.de/2...itismus-vorwurf (v) http://www.welt.de/p...nter-Druck.html

Good day Viole, I agree with you on the green one, although a scientist can always have his beliefs in private. I agree with you in a sense that, if God was supernatural, then yes. But maybe he isn't. Maybe he is just hiding in some place... I don't agree with you on the red one. Science cannot exclude anything supernatural IMO. Even if they work using methodological naturalism only, they cannot exclude God, I think. What science can do, however, is to formulate a model by which they explain things about the origins of the earth without ever using the notion of "God". If it's that what you are wanting to convey, then yes, I agree. No, I don't, but I think your comparison isn't just. They ban every scientist form observing their stone, as far as I know.... Have a good day Thomas

It depends. On one side of the spectrum we have evolutionary theists. For them there is probably no conflict at all with any branches of science. That does not necessarily mean that we have examples of harmony between faith and science. It could be that we just see examples of people able to live happily in a state of cognitive dissonance. On the other extreme, we have young Earth Creationism. In this case, we do not simply have Science vs, Evolution, but Faith Vs. : - Biology - Paleontology - Astronomy - Astrophysics - Cosmology - Physics - Geology - Archeology Ciao - viole Happy new year Viole, I think Citizenship has already commented on this argument. Now, maybe it could be my turn. Perhaps you could say it's rather faith vs. what most people think scientific theories in cited fields are saying. I think it is rather faith vs. prevalent interpretations of current scientific theories as to what they imply for the origins of the earth. Some people say that twin nested hierarchy (*) is evidence for evolution. Why evolution? No idea. It could as well be considered evidence for creation, I think. In my opinion they simply say that this is evidence for evolution. They deem (want?) twin nested hierarchy to be that evidence. (*) since there could be someone reading this and not knowing: twin nested hierarchy, as I understand it, describes the existent analogy in similarities between different animals concerning the genes of the animals, on the one hand, and their morphology, on the other. Thomas

Hello Rip 34652, I really find that very impolite from your side! Please first read my posting before shooting nonsense about me personally. Don't accuse me! Thank you - Thomas P.S.: Well, I reread your posting and I think that maybe, you accidentally wrote that I made up the lines you quoted?

Hello Joe, I was just reading the introduction. Dembski et al only intended to provide a rebuttal for mathematical models that evolutionists used to back up their theses. He only debunked a model ot their's. This is how I understand his intention. It says.. Warren and Evens are from the evolutionist side, as reads the article. Enjoy the day Thomas

That is, miracles are such that they do not show God to the world. I.e. they are such that they might not be miracles at all Ciao - viole God day Viole, well, maybe, we can believe you someday when you tell us you are believer.... Citizenship failed to answer that one, so I believe he left it to me. Well, did you ever miss a miracle? Or have you seen all of them, so that you could give us this kind of evaluation? Thomas

Sure, but the existence of these people have been witnessed and recorded by multiple witnesses. No human being has ever directly witnessed the creation of the universe or of the origin of life. What rule dictates that conjuring up scenarios is "real" science? Okidoki. What evidence did Thor leave behind him? You claim that the stories about Thor have the same level of evidence as the Bible, right? Well let's do a little comparison. Did these writings ever prophesy that Sweden would cease to be a nation and that its people would be dispersed throughout the world and be severely persecuted? Did Thor ever prophesy, dispite all this, and dispite the fact that no other race of people who were driven from their country for more than a hundred years or so ever returned to their country again, that the Swedes would return to Sweden after 2000 years. Did he ever say these kinds of things to the people of a nation having the size of Ångermanland and surrounded entirely by hostile countries that they would reassemble like the scattered bones of a dead man: "Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.' " Did Thor say that in that kind of desparate situation they would not only prevail against their enemies, right under their noses he would make them prosper and make the desert land they live in thrive and flourish? Did Thor prophesy in various ways by various authors living in various times and in various places that Olof Palme would be shot on the streets of Stockholm giving all kinds of details about how he would die and the reason that he did die? Did he leave a vast bread crumb trail of testimonies fortelling the events of Palme's life, his birth, his mission, his betrayer? Did the words of Thor have such a powerful impact that they made believers of millions and millions of people? Do these people testify of countless personal miracles that they have witnessed themselves? Have you ever seen anyone shed tears of joy the moment that Thor has revealed himself to them? Has Thor ever answered any opf your prayers? Has he ever revealed himself personally to you? Has he spoken to you privately and validated what he said to you in the form of concrete events? Do you really think that normal, intelligent people believe in Christianity merely on the basis of some warm, fuzzy feeling? Think again girl! I am a witness to the fact that God actually does perform miracles and one of the MANY things that made me convert to Christianity was the fact that I saw with my own eyes the fact that this girl I knew just kept on getting her prayers answered. That, mind you, was just ONE of the things that turned me from being someone who held quite a lot of contempt for Christianity to someone who no longer has a shred of doubt that God not only exists, but also that he has set out a day when he will judge the world. If you knew what I knew and could experience the things that happened to me then your face would turn pale and your knees start to shake. I could go on, but perhaps this will do for starters... Get back to me with the list of things that validate Thors existence and perhaps we can make a deeper comparison. Amen brother. God is good and we love him. Thomas

I think you are taking it a bit far with that one. If this is how you think, then it is also a sin to live in a country that are unjust,such as killing the innocent because you have paid taxes into it to allow it to do what it does. I doubt there is any country that are sin free, then everyone would be sinning. If you do not invest in a certain company, you have no voice in it to make change. Just like if you don't agree with a country's policies, leaving it doesn't change things either. Well, I think it is like wishful thinking that a small investor can change anything when he stays. When he decides to go after he becomes aware of what they're doing, then all small investors going might change something as a collective. They would give a sign as they are no longer willing to carry the policies of that company. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 2.Cor. 6:14 You are giving the example with whole countries. I disagree with you on that, too - as I live in a country in that (pratically) more than 50% voted for Hitler some time ago.. They were telling me the same things as you do here.... Honestly, I promise you that if more than 50% of Germans voted for Hitler (well, some equivalent of him) again, I will be out. In my opinion, it is a sin to live in country that is sinning without addressing that. I fear, if I got you right, you seem to favor burying your head in the sand. Even if you can't change the policies of your country as a whole, which is true, you can give your best to make them change. Thomas

Hello udx, I first voted your post up, because I was focused on the reasonable part of reminding people that you shouldn't be investing more than you have.... But as I reread your post, I found out I don't entirely agree with the quoted part of it. According to "Die Zeit" (German newspaper), Deutsche Bank is said to have financed companies that produced cluster bombs. This would be sin. Whoever invests in companies have a responsibility for the way they act in society. Take Dow Chemicals as an example. According to amnesty international, they are still failing to pay back workers that lost their health in Bophal desaster more than 20 years ago (i). If you have Dow shares, you are resonsible for that, too, since you own part of the company. Enjoy your day, Thomas (i) http://www.amnesty.o.../ASA20/015/2004

Good day Viole, as I interpret your lines above, you make out of science a worldview. Stunningly. Now let's have a look what wikipedia has to say about this issue: What? did I read "emotions"? But Viole, emotions is the thing you mock at.... Just kidding... Weltanschauung (I take the German word, but I am sure you understand the meaning of it, too) is more than science has to offer. So I don't agree with you and the consequences you seem to offer to us. Bye, Thomas

Hello myboots, nice to have you here. That's of course insulting what the priest did. I would have left the second he adressed you as "evil". However your mother stayed some time longer and then you got insulted even more, I feel sorry for you. Well, it's third party, that's true, but insult stays insult, this has to be taken on board, I think... Have a good time Thomas

Viole, you have not answered this question...please, instead of telling us bible thumping, scientifically challenged ignoramus's what we are all about, take up the OP question. Batter up. No no, Barabbas, answering a question would probalbly give her the feeling of being on the same stage as we are... her likes are asking questions, I mean ... obviously. Thomas

Viole, I find it quite nerve-racking that you implicitely brag about being able to know us when you don't show any understanding for the Bible. We love God, we trust him this is why we are happy to use his products. Are you again pretending to speak for us believers? I would find it awkward that you assume to be able to speak for us. Can I ask you to leave your assumptions in the field of atheistic attitudes (if anybody is interested in this here)? I would like to speak for myself. Thomas Alles klar. Why are you so sensitive? Exposed nerve? [...] So, keep cool, and try to articulate a sensible rebuttal for my, potentially wrong, arguments. Ciao - viole Viole, nice to read some German. However, what I don't like is the following rubbish: you put up a claim about us. And when I tell you I don't like it, you suggest that I should provide a rebuttal. Are you robbing my time resources? Please stay with your opinions in the field of atheistic attitudes, then I keep cool. you seem to show quite a sound self-esteem in presenting your opinions about us believers. I don't have any idea how that could be justified... Have a cool evening Thomas

Viole, I base my attitudes on faith in the living and almighty God, who is here right among us. Here you're pretending to speak for us: Viole, I find it quite nerve-racking that you implicitely brag about being able to know us when you don't show any understanding for the Bible. We love God, we trust him this is why we are happy to use his products. Are you again pretending to speak for us believers? I would find it awkward that you assume to be able to speak for us. Can I ask you to leave your assumptions in the field of atheistic attitudes (if anybody is interested in this here)? I would like to speak for myself. Thomas

Hi Viole, no, I cannot make such example. Well, I'm not so much interested in scientific theories. In this, I am different than you. I am happy to use products that came out of scientific research, though. Ciao Thomas

Hi Viole, you mean that science does not possess the requirement to conform to the words of Christians (or other religious people but let's focus on Christianity here). From this you infer that there must be a conflict between Christian faith and science. I don't agree with that conclusion and you didn't give any grounds, btw.. In my opinion, science always conforms to God's word if performed properly. In this I agree with the OP. Blessings Thomas

Hello Viole, Ehud seems to be quite emotionless, as I remarked when reading his article. I was going to write my opinions about that one Joe already has quoted. But I decided to wait one day, so you can't reasonably come up with your "you are so emotional in your postings". I'm not in the position to claim that scientists are dumb. Hence without doing so I need to answer your questions concerning my attitude towards scientists. You claim once again to have found a (the?) defeater for Christianity (that one Joe has quoted) without providing the tiniest bit of proof of why that should be a defeater. So, if I needed to infer from that posting from you to all of the atheists, yes, then I would call them biased. I have no idea. Well, to answer your last question about emotional thinking: could be. I think we as human being cannot abstract from our emotions. Blessings Thomas

Hello GlidingWings, brother, I don't have anything against America. I indeed like it very much. Let me turn to another topic of yours. Prostitutes: I think, this is mocking. Prostitutes are our neighbours. Thomas

May I remind you of the fact that you compared us first with Muslims and then with Zeus worshippers? I was referring to that. That happened in this thread. Am I obliged to start a new thread just for complaining about that comparison? No, I liked to do it here. I don't see any connection between my complaint and this question. I think you are again sidestepping here... I'll come to that question later. Thomas

OK, langsam. Nice sidestep. I don't see any connection between my complaint, that you've quoted, and my attitude I could lay out in answering your question. Maybe I'll start with pondering about your questions tomorrow. Thomas

Well, I prefer English. I complained about the fact that you compared Muslims and later Zeus worshippers to us. Can I ask you to read more attentively? Thomas

Hi Viole, you changed your posting yesterday. First you compared Christians to Muslims. Now, as that didn't seem enough to you, you liked to add the comparison between Christians and Zeus-worshippers. I believe, nevertheless, that you have the linguistical ability to display your thoughts without doing comparisons. Look, if we'd compare atheists to Nazis, I'm sure you'd feel attacked then. I won't be taking the history book of Zeus-worshippers out right now as to know about what bad things they have committed. Next time you could come up with another religious group and expect us to go into the library, take the history book out and verify if they were criminals or not to know if your comparison was offensive or not. So, I'd like to ask you: please don't compare us to other religious groups. Thank you. Thomas I am not so paranoid and it does not happen very often that I feel attacked. So, you can freely compare atheists with Nazis if you wish, and I will take it as an intellectual duty to disprove it, instead of getting irrationally emotional. For instance, the Nazis wrote "Gott mit uns" on their weapons. I doubt an atheist would do that, even if she were a far right, Jews hater extremist. However, I was not comparing the plausability of God vs. the plausability of Allah or Zeus, or how moral these religions are or are not; that would be absurd. If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I was comparing the respective attitude towards some scientific disciplines. My critique is mainly directed to the claim that atheists have a special bias towards common descent. Since for an atheist, with a scientific mind, common descent does not hold a special place when compared with astronomy or electromagnetism, my examples are there only to make it more explicit. So, I'd like to ask you: please read my posts more carefully, before getting all emotional. Thank you. Ciao - viole I did that. However, I came to the same conclusion. The fact that you don't have anything against being compared to a Nazi, does not mean that I wouldn't have anything against being compared to a Nazi, too. We aren't the same people, Viole. I would be very emotional - all emotional, I would take this as an offence, of course, depeding on how strongly the comparison would be formulated against me. In Germany, if someone doesn't have arguments on his side anymore, he makes a comparison with the Nazis, btw. It's a common strategy for discussion. Well, let's leave the Nazi thing aside, the "Gott mit uns" would be worth another thread. Using comparisons, one can btw produce moods and atmospheres, you seem to forget that. You write that your argumentation was leading to another thing. Hence, you made that comparison a side step. It's true, you "only" compared Zeus worshipping with praising the almighty God. However, praising someone for the things on earth, has a great effect on how we act in our lives, Viole. Oddly enough, you claim to be a former Christian, if I remember well. Since you apparently can't make up any consequence of who we are worshipping for our selves, you can't be a former Christian, I think. They (We) all have very strong feelings about it. That's also a good conclusion, I think, we all can lean back laughing when you'll be coming up with the "I am a former Christian"-story next time. Blessings Thomas