thomas t

Hi fellow posters, under the new regulation, it's impossible for atheists to answer posts in the visible sections. Here is why, according to George. If someone has anger in his heart - anger about atheists - please air it elsewhere, because here, in my opinion, we can't have a reasonable discussion about it without them having a say. When you want to say they'll have a bad destiny after death... please make sure that noone can understand your post in a way that you feel indifferent (or even happy) towards it. Please don't resort to any other condescending remarks about them, since they can't answer them. The goal is to invite people to faith .... not to keep them off. Luke 14:16-24 Regards, Thomas

Jeff, before you say they end up in hell, please note; as George has announced a few posts above, they can't reply here in the thread. I think it is particularly mean to speak about them in this manner knowing they can't say anything (in the thread). Regards, Thomas

Thanks John , My opinion: yes - Jesus chose us according to John 15:19 (my interpretation). yes - once you get chosen, Bible tells quite miraculous things happen: You get a new heart (Eze 26:36), for instance, thus your personality changes. But in my opinion, Jesus only choses people who want to be chosen - he's quite a democrat in my view. Gentleman. He won't choose anybody who resists, I think. He often speaks about the invitation (Luke 14:16-24) into the kingdom of God. And invited people still need to choose how to react to the invitation. Some don't show up. So there needs to be a decision on our part. And this decision can be reasonable. True - some decide in a non-reasonable way. But a decision for Christianity can be very reasonable, in my opinion. Thomas

Hi George, thank you for pointing that out. That looks convincing. Hi Jeff, you asked me a question: and I answered you that obviously, since a poster told otherwise in some post above, there would have been a lie spread on Worthy. here you're referring to the entirety of my postings, may I ask you to stop this? Of course I've posted some truth here so far. I didn't spread any dis-information, believe me. Referring to the entirety of what other people say is getting personal. and here... George never said this, btw. This being said... this quote sounds as if you are making a gerenic statement on unbelievers in general. It sounds derogatory to me. Even the Bible acknowledges that Non-Christians know to speak the truth, see Titus 1:12 for example. --- Hi Appy, so now I get your point. Thomas

Hi Jeff, then there has been another lie about unbelievers here on Worthy. Every lie makes it more difficult to witness. However, George has explained that the No. 1 purpose of this board is... reaching out to non-believing people. That's a great idea! Let's stay with the truth. Regards, Thomas

Hi Jeff, do you use a computer? maybe the Amish are the congregation for you... I like computers. And when I had a problem with my thumb I was hospitalized. Then a group of scientists came and fixed my thumb. Now I can play the piano again - using all my 10 fingers. That's nice. Did you ever go to a hospital? This is science... Did you ever outreach to non-believers? Just imagine a conversation: Unbeliever: "Scientists have shown that the earth is in fact 4.6 million years old. This doesn't support the Genesis report! Thus Genesis is wrong" Jeff: "I don't talk with you about these fleshly matters!" This is shying away? Science is not included in that list. Feel free to show otherwise using the exact scripture, please. Regards, Thomas

HI Tzeph, Amen, so often we agree. Jesus never shied away from anything. --- Hi Appy, rest assured you are free to post whenever, wherever and whatever you want. yes, I've heard people saying so. For some, it's hard to listen to, but that's what you get. Yeah, God has a right to ask why nobody is giving thanks to him for the creation, in my opinion. My point was, that you couldn't back up your phrase that atheists purportedly don't want to change. That doesn't mean that I despise everything you've said. Just to the contrary! I'm not saying that atheists do want to change, either. I'm just saying you didn't back anything up in this regard. Even the verses in your last post didn't say anything about atheists purportedly not wanting to change. The verse saying something about suppressing the truth, doesn't mean people don't want to change. When I drop a glass a day for being clumsy... that doesn't mean I don't want to change. This one, for example.. you didn't back this up either. No scripture provided to back this up. Just presumption. Don't take it personal, please, just a point on the subject level, Thomas

I don't see where the trouble is "when men are trying to debate on how we can win athiests or buddits , or muslims or whoever ," This is interesting. I didn't see anyone who went as far as to say we have to use science. May I ask: can you provide sources for this claim? I mean posts here on Worthy that show your allegation to be true? I know that Tzephanyahu sometimes happens to use science to convince. Tzephanyahu does great apologetics. He is very efficient in dissipating the doubts of believers and atheists alike (even believers have doubts sometimes). I'm talking about doubts that can be called objections to faith. Even some believers have it. If someone does such a greatg job like he does, I wouldn't criticize him for doing what he's doing. Do you know anybody like him who answers objections to faith here on Worthy? If so, tell me. It's interesting. I mean we have quite a couple of folks who answer people who are unsure, seeking... but when it comes to those who have strong doubts... who do we have apart from Tzephanyahu to answer them? Please tell me someone. If he goes to another board. then who will do his job? I have no idea, I don't see anybody willing and able to replace him? He is working and you call that what? I would call it outreach. Regards, Thomas

Thanks for the debate. If ever you'll have a problem again when you explain faith to some newbies, let the forum know please. Thomas

Ah I get your point. Ok, there are rich Christians in Germany. Look at the cars in front of the location. Sometimes it's a Porsche, a Mercedes and so on. Actually, when I was 22 I shared a deep mistrust in the richness of some Christians, too. So I went to a congregation where the people were most often rather poor and really active. This is where I converted to Christ (that was in France). There are people in the Bible that were followers of Christ AND rich at the same time. The rich man that provided the grave for Jesus, for instance. Or Abraham. Abraham was rich, too. Thomas

my two cents: if you're the only one that wants some freedom for the people... just leave. Like Lot did in the end. Actually, many Germans did emigrate in '33. They weren't welcomed everywhere, but many countries accepted them. In my opinion, those Germans who left '33 fared much better than those who stayed and then had to suffer the poverty after 1945. In Germany, believers voted for Hitler indeed, sadly enough*. Thomas * if you want to read more, and if you have a good translation program (if you are very interested, I could translate, too) look at this link here. They all voted Hitler. This church as of today still has some 120 000 members, as far as I know.

Hi Nad again, thanks for being open. As I don't believe we have an evil heart by default (see Abdicate's post)... some words on this: these German free churches cost large amounts of money. I would estimate 50 to 75€ per person every month. And the churches want to pay their bills so they let their people know. As they don't expect anyone to pay anything who truely doesn't have money, maybe your boyfriend does have a few. My suggestion: if he doesn't want to pay anything... don't force him to join your church. The Holy Spirit leads to freedom, see Luke 4:18. Is that a solution? Thomas

oh yes, thank you... Prussia is gone for Germany. Note that in Prussia, two thirds of the population voted for Hitler in '33. Turkey voted for Erdogan several times. So they truely chose him - and thus absence of freedom. Well Israel first cried and sighed but later said why did we leave Egypt... so they were quite unsure about this, I guess? Many believers voted for Hitler, too. In my opinion, it's the readiness to use unlimited violence that makes them rise. Sadly, here on Worthy, we had a thread embracing useless political violence, too. Click at this one (and look at the dates, the two first posts remained unchallenged for 18 months!!). But the Bible further explains in Judges 9:14 Then all the trees said to the bramble, ‘You come and reign over us.’ This verse really is about behavior believers show. As sad as it may be - blindness to political extremism isn't limited to non-believers. Thomas

Hi NotJohn, yes I have. Look at Germany under Hitler, Hitler was voted into power by democratic standards. Before, he wrote a book in which he laid out what he would do if in power. Moreover, people could see how he ruled the Berlin area (that's what he was in charge of before winning the 1933 general elections). In my opinion, Germans basically knew what that was. Many people say "Hitler was so mean", yes he was, but don't forget the Germans that voted for him. Hamas was voted into power in Gaza - by democratic poll. Erdogan in Turkey - this man is supported by more than 50% of all Turks. Putin in Russia knows that he has the support of more than half of the Russian population. All these leaders have their very own approach to freedom. Yet their peoples love them. Israel loved the Pharoahs, it seems. Numbers 11:18 said And say to the people, ‘Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat, for you have wept in the hearing of the Lord, saying, “Who will give us meat to eat? For it was better for us in Egypt.” Therefore the Lord will give you meat, and you shall eat. and then Numbers 11:20 but a whole month, until it [the meat] comes out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have rejected the Lord who is among you and have wept before him, saying, “Why did we come out of Egypt?”’” Yeah, Egypt was horrible, but they loved it, it seems. I mean they even wept when they were out. Thomas

mmh, that made me think. So you say he has remnants of belief? Since you said he could re-investigate faith. So let's dicuss first why he left faith. Most people leave for having been injured by believers (my impression). Don't have to tell me the details of your relationship to your boyfriend... but in case it is an injury, things get difficult. In my opinion, you can't be 100% sure that he opened up to you already (if he was injured). In my opinion, men - even today - have a big problem telling a women "you know, he kicked me out of the congregation.... and I was so so so so HURT" (just for an example). So if it's that way, you can't pressure him to believe again, you need to talk injuries first. When I converted, a friend of mine that never discussed faith with me before, opened up to me saying that he used to attend youth group at a Baptist church to where his family went... but then he was kicked out for lack of discipline. But this happened after I suffered some failures in my personal life and he since he knew it he felt somewhat superior and after having drunk tons of beer deep in the night he came up with that story when nobody else could hear us because the music was on. Only then. Thomas

Hi Nad, thank you for your wise words... very friendly. Ah your boyfriend. Thank you for your openness of sharing your problem. My stance to this: we can't convince. I can't recall one Biblical story in which a Christian convinced someone else (correct me if missed scripture or some excellent interpretation of something). Either Jesus will do... or it won't work. Actually, what you can do is reply in the sense of 1 Peter 3:15 "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect ". Since you're only one but evangelism needs more people involved... the moment you don't know a good reply... tell us (I mean the posters of this thread)? Most of us won't bite . Regards, Thomas

Hi Jeff, no. joined three years before you did. Actually you're adressing the entirety of my posts since the date of my sign-up. So this is getting personal, in my opinion. Please stay on the subject level, thank you. Getting personal was the biggest problem that we saw when atheists were there (in the visible sections). The posters from the Christian side didn't only insult themselves, but atheist posters were their victims, too. That was the biggest problem. I hope it will go away. Ah the verse. Oh you provided even two of them. Jeremiah 44:15-17 is about a group of self-declared believers in certain gods that didn't want to change their religion. This is not atheism. Same applies to Jeremiah 8:5. Furthermore, if one group some 2600 years ago didn't want to repent - doesn't mean that every nonbeliever in the world today doesn't want to change, either. This kind of generelization makes me wonder if you take this topic seriously. Rev 9:20 lies in the future, in my opinion. It is at a time when many people will have been fast tracked into heaven in Rev 7:9, already. Bible says it is " a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;" You can't rule out that the people your verse is speaking of... actually saw that great multitude getting jealous. Then they might have tried to take revenge by not repenting. In my opinion, Rev 9:20 is under circumstances that are different from today so that you can't necessarily assign its truth to today also. And Jeff, this... ... is not Bible! It's an interpretation of a Bible verse from someone. Doesn't prove anything. Regards, Thomas

HI Jeff, I won't play this game. If you have this verse, post it, if you don't, don't pretend you would. yes it is Jeff, as I said, the moment you say you're an atheist, you're out. personal attacks are the worst, in my opinion. Jesus was crystal clear we shouldn't do that. --- Hi Steven, none of your 3 verses says atheists don't want to change. Thomas

Hi Other One, no no I absolutely don't say anyone is a mob. --- Hi Steven the verse please (please look also at my response to Abdicate). If you cite the verse that says "Unbelievers love their sin and don't want to change!" everything is fine. If a post is voted up that does have a source, ok. But quite often people just vote up posts when their authors don't bother to back anything up. --- Hi Abdicate, here... it doesn't say that atheists don't want to change. Despite having a problem. Maybe they want to, but just don't like Jesus or don't believe or whatever... What we see here on Worthy as the standard procedure for accusations ... is making accusations and then - all of a sudden - period. Let's work on it. Worthy is a great board though. --- Hi Jeff, the moment an atheist comes out as an atheist... they are out from the visible area. So you effectively can't have a debate between atheists and believers in the main sections. Atheists in this board have to either hide their atheism or go underground to find a place where they can post something that a few people may read outside the limelight. yeah, we had that. If there would be more believing posters who know how to respond without resorting to personal attacks... Regards, Thomas

Hi Appy, can you cite sources for this: In my opinion, here on Worthy it is a huge problem that Christians think they can post no matter what about people they don't like. Other Christians vote these posts up frequently. They seem to love their brothers and sisters doing exactly this. So Worthy gets a place of unfounded accusations? There is a simple rule I would highly recommend: whenever you post something detrimental to other groups ... back it up using sources, scientific data/analyses. OR don't post it. Would you join this kind of behavior? Regards, Thomas

Hi Rebecca, I am an unsuccessful musician. But I am happy so. God gives me all I need. I am also heavily supported by friends. One problem: I can't marry I think. The women in church don't have this attitude when they look for a potential husband. They want a man that earns money - enough for himself but also for potential chilcren and for her, as well, when the (potential) children are little. "what else do we need" - that sounds so biblical... so romantic. However, when it comes to dating women, they are more interested in hard facts concerning income. That's at least my impression that I have from women who want to have children in their lives. I mean if you mesure success in recognition and appreciation that you get from friends, I am rich. When you mesure my success in contentness with what I am doing... the Lord lets me be successful, too. I do think my music is good stuff. But the moment it comes down to hard facts, I mean money, I almost don't have any success so far. And the women that I know want real money that you can go shopping with here on earth. Speaking from my experience... most of the women I know, however, are not really showing their cards. I mean they don't say "I want a man earning at least ***k € or so... ". Some of them do, but most of them don't. Here on Worthy, I see this dichotomy too. Everyone would agree that worldly success isn't spiritually important. But when it comes to marriage, they also say the man should provide. I agree, success might divert you from God, but not marrying is not so nice either. Best regards, Thomas

Hi One, I wanted to wait for the others to post their point first. (That's why I waited to reply.) The big question still unclear in my mind is - Does the "face of the ground" refer to the entire globe, or to a smaller geographical area? I don't think we have the answer to that. Why does original Hebrew passage use the word "eretz" when an arguably much better word "tetel" could have been used with less ambiguity?  "eretz" = "face of the ground" is the opposite of "of the heavens". In my opinion, God used that word for the sake of the dualism: of the ground, on the one hand, and of the heavens, on the other. For me, it's a nice stylistic device to show that this was all encompassing. If God would have wanted to show that it was a regional flood, Hebrew would have had the possibilities to do that easily: For instance, here in 1. Samuel 15 we see God describing a regional desaster: And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, There is absolutely no linguistical problem to describe a limited catastrophe, everybody would understand. There is no reason to hide local restrictions from the text if there were any. But rest assured, I do believe you play a very important role in the thread, since you're the only one publicly doubting the "scientific facts" from those who believe in a literal interpretation (such as myself). In order for us to have a real debate we need you, since you're the only one arguing from another standpoint at the moment. So let's turn to your source that you say has biblical reasons to believe in a local flood, which I doubt. I will click on your source and try to refute one argument, the first one. I do not have time to read more, and if you think your source has a valid point besides the first argument I find, please explain which one of the arguments in the source you think is the best. The first argument they have is this: "all" as in Joel 3:2 ("all nations") did not mean literally "all", according to them. That's an unsupported allegation, in my opinion. Your source did not back this up by anything. They just hinted at "context", but they did not explain why the context could possibly exclude all from meaning all. I believe "all" in this passage literelly meant "all". So I'm against the conclusion that you can use a different interpretation of "all" in the flood story, since Joel 3:2 purportedly used another (hidden) meaning of "all", as well. All means always all in the Bible, I believe. But excuse me again, your source, for me, is too long to read. I found the first argument to be weak, so I won't bother to read the rest, if it's ok for you. EDIT: The problem with citing sources instead of one Bible verse... you have to go through all that source. Why not cite one Bible verse, instead? So I had to go through all that source till I came to the first argument. Waste of time, in my opinion. Regards, Thomas

Hi One, That's no hyperbole, that's what we should do. However, it's not the eye that causes temptation, in my opinion. that's no hyperbole either, that's a matter of fact I believe. John 14:12 explains. Nevertheless, hyperbole can be used as a figure of speech. We all do this. Everyone understands it. Even children do. Just because of Jesus having used a figure of speech sometimes, we are not allowed to always take something he said as figure of speech, I think. If you don't believe the Bible here in what it says without resorting to metaphorical interpretation... when do you believe it in a literal sense. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason in the text indicating the flood was anything else than global. Look I also use figures of speech when I am communicating with friends. But when I tell you "I'm Thomas. I am 39 years old, I come from Germany!" ... please don't go around telling people "hey Thomas just told me, he was 20 years old and comes from Swizzerland." No please no, you have no right to do this , even if elsewhere in speech I might have made use of figurative things. I'm no conservative. There's just one problem I have with this: the Bible indicates a global flood in Gen 7:23. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. Only Noah. Not Noah + people. The Bible is pretty clear. How should a child ever understand this flood to be local. Regards, Thomas

Hi One, we need you here on this board, because you do an important job exposing all the scientific falshood that creationists invoke sometimes! I think it is God's wisdom that thoses people who said you cannot be a Christian are removed from the board by now? It's just here that you stepped a little bit too far, I think. Hyperbole - in the Bible? You remember Volkswagen in the United States? These nice German cars... nevertheless they used hyperbole when it comes to emission values. The US government made them pay. Billions of dollars. Why should the almighty God resort to such minor tactics that could as well be used by a German car manufacturer? The Lord says “ ‘Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. Lev 19:35 Is that what we expect when a miracle is involved? But thank you again for your input to this board. --- Hi Who Me great post. Regards, Thomas

Dear Tampered With, fortunately, today I don't have doubts. I am thankful for that, because I used to have some. Just for clarification: This thread is in answering atheists/ nonbelievers whom I had a discussion with. It isn't designed to describe own doubts I used to have. I just keep wondering why they don't give it a shot until they think Jesus is 100% proven to them. However, to date they can't reply, so this thread is useless for now, I think. I'm waiting for them to come back once they're allowed again to do so. (Currently they aren't permitted to post in the visible main sections) I hope you don't mean me personally. But I noticed you had some great posts in the other thread refuting pro-Crusades posts, thank you a lot for that. Everytime Christians say yes to burning down synagogues on so on, doubters are driven away from us, naturally. So thanks a lot for being alert on that. Keep up your good work! Thomas