thomas t

Not more than sterile heterosexual couples. [...] but here (Europe) nobody is concerned about biblical standpoints about anything, sorry [...] As above. Nobody really cares about biblical compliance, at least here in Europe, obviously. Ciao - viole Hello Viole, this is perhaps true for the village you live in. But please, don't draw any conclusions from your neighbourhood to Europe, thank you. Thomas

Hello Selene, I disagreed with that part: In your first part of the posting, you were complaining. The second part was introduced by "and then comes the homosexuals", as if they were a plague adding to all the things you complained of. I don't want proofs from you. However, I perceived you didn't prove that through the legalization of same sex marriage the family structure is weakened.

Good evening (?) GE, thank you for inviting me to pursue any reporting according to the ToS. I just would like to add, that I didn't go that far to disagree with the moderation, here, I simply was wondering how the decision not to intervene, would arise. Yes, of course I agree that a Christian can disagree with other people's choices. Thomas

The devil attacks the family structure. A stable family structure leads to moral values while a broken home can lead to moral decay. It's usually the woman the devil goes after. Even in the Garden of Eden, Satan approaches Eve in stead of Adam. In today's society, women are being convinced to be "equal" to men and part of that equality is to either take away or control her ability to bear children. When this is taken away from her or controlled through the legalization of abortion and the use of contraceptives, it only turns women to be used as objects of pleasure. With the use of contraceptives, the purpose of marriage is no longer about procreation as it was before. With the legalization of abortion and the use of contraceptives, men and women no longer need to feel any responsibility in the sexual act. This lack of responsibility on both partners has consequences, which weakens the family structure. What then is the purpose of marriage? When one takes away the purpose of marriage, couples can rationalize about living together. Women who are convinced of this "equality" then strive to take the role of being "Head of the household," causing disruptions and conflicts in marriage. This is one of the reasons why one of my friends ended up separated from her husband. And then comes the homosexuals. With the use of contraceptives, homosexuals can now make the argument that marriage is no longer about procreation. The purpose of marriage then comes into question, and homosexuals were able to legalize same sex marriage, and again the family structure is weakened. Now, that some states have same sex marriages, homosexuals want to adopt children. The adoption of children into homosexual families also has grave consequences, and again the family structure continues to weaken and go into moral decay. First Thomas let's look at the context of the comment by Selene which was in response to the OP (taken directly from Romans 1). Hi Thomas. The claim is Selene is complaining about things. So this bring me to three questions. A. In general terms are homosexuals not arguing that procreation is no longer a factor when considering marriage? (artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, etc.) B. In general terms are homosexual relationships something that one should approve of from a Biblical standpoint? (Please point to the passages that say two people of the same-sex can be defined as a marriage in the Bible so we can study this together. ) C. In general terms are homosexual relationships (two fathers or two mothers) as God intended marriages to be from a Biblical standpoint in the context of raising children? (If so please point to the passages stating as such so we can study this together. ) Hi Golden Eagle, let me first express my congratulations that you are now no less than a board servant among us. I want to thank every board servant for the work he or she is entertaining. I think, the questions you ask are worth discussing them. I don't have the answers, I'm sorry. The thing is, Selene started her paragraph by "the homosexuals" followed by general complaints. It was that what I disapproved of. The ToS, that you surely take seriously, say "discuss the topic not the person". You could formulate "not the personS", as well. Be blessed Thomas

Hello Selene, while I disagree with the logic you have shown in the first part of your posting, I would like to adress the part mentioned above. You start this one with "then comes the homosexuals" and complain then about things. I think this is simply slenderous. Wondering, why the mods didn't intervene. You didn't provide any proof for what you claimed to be true, in my opinion.. Thomas

Hello Moseby, fully agreeing. I also find this waving of hands in the air by GOP-passionates a bit nerve-racking. It's sometimes hard to read. Have a good day Thomas

Hello Viole, "but if I do not know that [...]" .... but you do know, Viole. I really hope you won't mind if I choose to not answer this. Btw., may I ask you, what is your motivation of asking a 100% hypothetic question about a situation that will never occur in your reality anymore? This question has been discussed on other threads, if I remember well. Have a good evening, Thomas

It seems you are taking the 'morality is subjective to God's mind' approach, or that which is moral is moral because God says so. That was not my personal choice when I was mentally forced to make the decision, I myself decided that that which is moral is moral because it is innately moral. Either way... God certainly demanded the destruction of these people, and by your post you obviously view it as moral, therefore it is not always immoral to actively kill children or infants. Could we then say that it is not an objective moral truth that we should never actively kill children? As an aside, both 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 25 note that the destruction of the Amalekites was for revenge for what they did to Israel during the Egyptian exodus. I could not find any mention of the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 20. They speak of the Amorites, but I'm pretty sure they are two separate groups that live in separate regions. I think you have a point. This is basic logic, really. If something is objective and absolute then it is... objective and absolute. For instance, 2+2=4 is objective and absolute and outside the control of anyone, including deities. That something cannot be a circle and a square at the same time is also objective and absolute. That pi is bigger then 3 is also objective and absolute, ... , well, maybe a bad example So, if X=" kill children" is requested by anybody, including deities, we have two alternatives: 1) the request is, in at least one case, OK; then X is not objectively and absolutely wrong. Unless, we have different categories of absolutes, the ones that can be changed by a deity and the ones which cannot 2) the request is, at all times, not OK. In this case, X could be objectively and absolutely wrong, but then the requestor demands something wrong. Ciao - viole Hello Viole, it offen so happens that atheists try to subject God to the same laws as man. I find this silly. Take an example: A man robs somebody of his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore.. God takes away his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore, either.. At this point, atheists usually forget that God is the owner af all things, including TV sets. He can give and take away whenever he likes. Some atheists conclude as well that for the person, the result stays the same, whether a thief or God took the set. However, God might have wanted him to let down the movies who tempted him all the time... a thief, in contrast, does not think in this kind of spheres. God sees the surrounding context of his actions. That is the difference between his actions and man's. Hence, God and man should not be subjected to the same laws. Have a good day Thomas Hello Thomas, I am not sure that "owning" something or someone gives you a moral free pass to inflict pain or death on what you own. If you think this is OK, then you just proved once again that objective moral values are not existing, since for me it is not OK, and you cannot resolve the issue without begging the question. But the main question we should ask ourselves is: what is more likely, that God ordered the complete destruction of a whole population, including women and children, or that a local conqueror wanted to get some Lebensraum and self declared himself a carrier of God's orders? A little check on any human history book should provide the easy answer. However, the moral argument, i.e. the existence of objective moral values deriving from a moral giver, is usually raised by theists, not atheists, for obvious reasons. You seem to indicate that the moral values we received are different from the ones of the giver. But how do I know, then, what is OK for God but not OK for me if I had never read a Bible before? More importantly: what does it mean objective if it applies differently depending on which side of the relationship "owning - owned" you are? Ciao - viole Hello Viole, everything we possess, God owns. We as humans never own things on our own (am I making an intelligent wordplay? Ok, I can't estimate how many language mistakes I'm making.). Hence, whenever we "own" something, we should never play God, no matter how intensively this is recommended to us... we don't have to know that. God knows. Have a good evening, Thomas

well, I think Christianity has been already widespread within the Roman Empire. I suggest that it woulnd't have made great difference for the spread of the Gospel, if Constantine would have decided otherwise. Christian missionaries were making a good job. However, I think it makes a big difference to people if there is religious freedom in their country or not. Of course, governments can do harm to their population, that's definitely true. Paul discouraged Christians to marry in a state of suffering persecution (1.Corinthians7:7). What about those who were already having children when Paul gave his advice? Well, that's a good question. Have a good day Thomas

Good day ollkiller, Well, I'm not saying that mortals can never understand what God is doing. However, setting up rules for the eternal ruler will certainly lead us to nowhere. We are mere creation, God is creator. “Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’?[...]" (Isa 45:9) Why are you doubting? Is there anything wrong? In my opinion, there is no sideway to heaven. Jesus is the way. We should trust him - he does the right things, everytimes, even without our understanding. Have a good day, Thomas

It seems you are taking the 'morality is subjective to God's mind' approach, or that which is moral is moral because God says so. That was not my personal choice when I was mentally forced to make the decision, I myself decided that that which is moral is moral because it is innately moral. Either way... God certainly demanded the destruction of these people, and by your post you obviously view it as moral, therefore it is not always immoral to actively kill children or infants. Could we then say that it is not an objective moral truth that we should never actively kill children? As an aside, both 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 25 note that the destruction of the Amalekites was for revenge for what they did to Israel during the Egyptian exodus. I could not find any mention of the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 20. They speak of the Amorites, but I'm pretty sure they are two separate groups that live in separate regions. I think you have a point. This is basic logic, really. If something is objective and absolute then it is... objective and absolute. For instance, 2+2=4 is objective and absolute and outside the control of anyone, including deities. That something cannot be a circle and a square at the same time is also objective and absolute. That pi is bigger then 3 is also objective and absolute, ... , well, maybe a bad example So, if X=" kill children" is requested by anybody, including deities, we have two alternatives: 1) the request is, in at least one case, OK; then X is not objectively and absolutely wrong. Unless, we have different categories of absolutes, the ones that can be changed by a deity and the ones which cannot 2) the request is, at all times, not OK. In this case, X could be objectively and absolutely wrong, but then the requestor demands something wrong. Ciao - viole Hello Viole, it offen so happens that atheists try to subject God to the same laws as man. I find this silly. Take an example: A man robs somebody of his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore.. God takes away his TV set. He cannot watch movies anymore, either.. At this point, atheists usually forget that God is the owner af all things, including TV sets. He can give and take away whenever he likes. Some atheists conclude as well that for the person, the result stays the same, whether a thief or God took the set. However, God might have wanted him to let down the movies who tempted him all the time... a thief, in contrast, does not think in this kind of spheres. God sees the surrounding context of his actions. That is the difference between his actions and man's. Hence, God and man should not be subjected to the same laws. Have a good day Thomas

[....] As an aside, both 1 Samuel 15 and Deuteronomy 25 note that the destruction of the Amalekites was for revenge for what they did to Israel during the Egyptian exodus. I could not find any mention of the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 20. They speak of the Amorites, but I'm pretty sure they are two separate groups that live in separate regions. Hello D-9, What Waldoz said regarding the Amorites, in my opinion, is also true concerning the Amalekites. Who offered Saul to kill him? An Amalekite. That’s how Saul was defeated by an Amalekite, 2.Samuel 1:8-10 reads like this: And he said to me, ‘Who are you?’ I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ 9 And he said to me, ‘Stand beside me and kill me, for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers.’ 10 So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord.” The thing is, this story is told to David by the very person who killed Saul. In my opinion, it is possible that he changed the facts a bit. In a way that he originally offered Saul to kill him and Saul answered him perhaps like this: “yes, you may!”. And he possibly wanted the Hebrew's crown for his own to have a nice decoration at home or something... The passage shows that if Saul had fulfilled the order to kill the whole people of the Amalekites, this would not have happened like this. Have a good day Thomas

Hello GoldenEagle, I just want to express my view about the issue of God's purported omniscience. Actually, in my opinion, there is no Bible verse stating that God indeed knew everything although there are many verses that point out how big God's knowledge is. To avoid a lenghty discussion: I do not want to say that God does not know everything. I just keep in mind that there is no Bible verse that gives the evidence about God's omniscience. Look perhaps also at the thread "Why Is God All Good" in which this question has been discissed among others and many scripture verses were cited. Have a very good day Thomas

Hello, I find it quite astonishing how you make your way from the topic of arts and music to the topic of sin... Arts and music are made by God and are, due to its Creator, good. Nevertheless, man can do bad things with it. I don't think there won't be any music in heaven anymore. It says in the scripture you quoted: I think, the emphasis lies on the words "in you". This is not the same as "in you and anywhere else!" Blessings, Thomas

Hi Stina, people sometimes say bad things about a person. As one member here at Worthy has suggested: "discuss the issue, not the person!" Jesus is even more strict about that: But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother3 will be liable to judgment; whoever insults4 his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell5 of fire. (4 Greek says Raca to (a term of abuse), 5 Greek Gehenna) Matthew 5:22 Despite this clear and frank warning by Jesus, people still do that and say "you are so ...." Here is another verse: I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak (Mt 12:36) We should never say names to anybody else. If it happens to us, what can we do about that? We can ask the other person to stay polite. Even if we did a mistake, it is absolutely undue by the other person to refer to the person of us. Have a good and sunny day Thomas

Hello Selene, may I point out that some protagonists here at Worthy have already reminded you of the Romans passage which shows that this third group you are talking of does not have an excuse? And I would like to add that in Matthew 25, Jesus cited only two groups for judgement in the various examples he gave about this. Usually, you now add that in Saudi Arabia, it's forbidden to evangelize. Nevertheless ( and it was you who you told me), if one person commits a sin, the entire tribe suffers. Let's apply this to Saudi Arabia. If the government is cruel enough to prevent religous freedom from happening, then the entire nation suffers, of course. Blessings Thomas

Hello MissAgapelove, It's nice to have such a list you posted. I'm just wondering why, in English, It's called "Second Coming". Do the English know for sure that in between he doesn't show up? Maybe he is showing up without anyone being fully aware of this. Or, on the other hand, I have friends who told me that they saw Jesus. Have a nice and blessed day Thomas

Yes, It's an interesting study. Let me share with you about the experiences I made when taking Jesus into my whole life. I made different ones than OldShep. My entire circle of friends was made up by non-Christians. I told everybody about my new decision. Most of them liked that. One closer friend was telling me some objections she had, but on the other hand, she saw that I was making good new friends in the churches, so my new Christian attitude was deemed good. Other friends also seemed to reason like that. But my non-believing friends couldn't understand me throwing out everything that used to be important for me in my earlier life. In particular, they wanted to understand why I finished a promising career just for the sake of a new one which didn't offer any quick success. They started to worry. And they kept asking me questions about everything concerning my job life. My new Christian friends reacted differently. Because they trusted God, they didn't worry. My non-believing friends didn't have that trust and we spent evenings in deep discussion. It has been quite a lesson for them to just let me do. To put it briefly: my non-believing friends didn't have any problem with me accepting Jesus, they wanted me to have instant success in my (new) job life and they started to worry. Have a good evening Thomas

Dear Steve, if I had children and if they wanted to read the Bible, I'd prefer giving them a children's Bible to giving them the entire adult's version. So they don't read the things they could get scary of.. Have a nice evening Thomas

Hi Gary, I liked your posting because I think it would help if we as Christians refrain from labelling politics as 'christian' or a political party as 'christian'. When it comes to a policy there are loosers and winners. We as Christians have the aim to win the hearts (not the politics) of all - winners and loosers alike. However, those who are disadvantaged by a specific policy that is labelled 'christian' will probably hate Jesus for it and that's where the problem lies. We want to win the loosers, too! I think, there is a second problem in blending the names of Jesus and politics. As soon as any political party gets the honor of being said to be more 'christian' than the other, there is a problem once this party commits a serious mistake. For instance, if it forgets the environment, environmentalists will probably accuse God. And when the party that is said to be more 'christian' does harm to the environment, Christianity looses the hearts of environmentalists, which is a big shame for us. Have a good day Thomas

Hello Selene, please, don't speak on my behalf. Instead of using the word "we", You could also write "I", e.g. "I believe that....". Furthermore I think you misinterpreted the word "creature" in the verse you've cited (Mark 16,15). In NIV it says "creation". I have the feeling that this is what is meant by "creature" in KJV. And in the versions I read in German, it also says "creation". Blessings Thomas

Herod was making fun of him, he gave him that strange rope when he sent him back to Pilot. So I think Herod didn't take him seriously, that's why I find it just reasonable not to say anything... Good day Thomas