thomas t

Hi Omegaman, thank you for your answer. If you lie, confess. Jesus will brush that sin away. And then you are clean again, no more a sinner. This is at least my own theology. Even if this happens 10 times a day, the outcome is always the same. ... but when it comes to sexual orientation... we are talking about a personality trait. So... will Jesus brush personality traits away? If so, prove it please. This is what I'd love to tell you. Prove it, please, before you say it's just to make them leave when they make their relationship apparent. Moreover, a close relationship belongs to your life. Jesus sees relationships as parts of your body sometimes (see Zech 2:12). Jesus never speaks about a lie as having a part of your body. So, there is a difference, I'd conclude. Regards, Thomas

Hi all, yesterday, a fellow poster said homosexuals can be asked to leave at church. In my view, sexuality is part of the identity of a person. It belongs to them. Asking them to leave just for entertaining a same sex relationship would mean condemning the person - not the act, I think. Moreover, this would stand in sharp contrast to the treatment of remarried couples (marrying a divorced woman). From all I know from churches, they never get asked to leave church. Disclaimer: In this thread I will be discussing discrimination only - as opposed to the question whether or not it is sin to live in a same sex relationship. I want to keep the thread as focussed as possible. Let's discuss discrimination at churches. Regards, Thomas

Hi Blood Bought, agreed. Ironically, the Christian's reputation isn't stellar, primarily because of how we deal with homosexuals. So, we are the ones who need to take care, lest the others blame us to be scornful against LGBT people. This is my personal impression. Moreover two researchers, called Kinnaman and Lyons, also state that image problems are linked to how we treat homosexuals, among others. I see this as the No.1 threat to our reputation. Difficulties in outreach may be altered for the worse if our reputation deteriorates, in my opinion. Thomas

Yes Tigger, I am. Both of us do. Since I'm not making any call for discrimination, it is ok for me to do so, I think. thank you very much. It's very polite. Thomas

Hi Tigger again, yours is an in-depth presentation of what many Christians think on that matter. Thank you for presenting it in a calm manner. This attitude's really wide spread, so for me it's so important to adress the issue. Even if more or less everyone, including myself, also makes assumtions in this regard... if anyone goes as far as to call for open discrimination ... you definitely need more than assumptions to bolster your stance. No facts => no discrimination please. Even if there was no Steve in the Garden of Eden, this shouln't lead to discrimination, either. God is an artist, see High Song 7:2. From all I know about arts, artists hate messages boiling down to simple one-liners. There were no different races in the Garden. We are not to draw any potentially racist conclusions from that one, either. I'm speaking hypothetically - nothing against you. Moreover, Lesbians can multiply today using modern technology driven support. Gays can adopt children, at least. Sodom could have been bombed by fire due to various reasons. Discrimination against women could be one of those, as they weren't present then. The Sodomites tried to rape. Homosexuals not necessarily. The Sodomites were hostile to foreigners. They didn't respect the right to property. And so on. .. by saying that others, including victims, are born free. Rape is an infringement of their rights. To me, it's mandatory to back assertions up. This particularly true for claiming that more men become gay while in prison; that sexuality led to the downfall of Rome; that other nations before their demise were more gay than others; and that gays know deep down that they are wrong. Citing a mere title of a book can't serve as backup, I think. You would need to present proof for Rome's defeats having had something to do with sexuality. Actually, I'm not making homosexuality as something beautiful. I'm just speaking against discrimination. My motivation is that we as Christians stick to the Golden Rule in that we shouldn't call for discrimination against others so long as we don't want to be discriminated against ourselves.

Hi Tigger, I appreciate your way of answering my post! Really. but if a pedophile dares to abuse a child, he infringes the identity of the victim. So even if they claim child abuse to be part of their identity, this can't reasonably lead to accepting child abuse. Your reasoning says that sexuality must be a choice since if it wasn't, God would be unjust. Not necessarily, I think. If sexuality leads into trouble in the spiritual, God can expect less from gays and lesbians and everything would be just (in my opinion). Homosexuality as a mere choice. I see this as an assumption of yours. This, in my opinion, is basically how you justify discrimination against gays and lesbians, if I get you right. Discrimination, however, should never be based on assumptions, I think. Since I see sexuality as identity being more than a array of actions and behavior... I would conclude that you can't love them the moment you speak up against a part of their identity. Their identity belongs to them. Thank you for your friendly attitude towards me in your last post, again. Regards, Thomas

Hi Tigger, here we disagree, if you want to exclude right from the start that gays and lesbians (bi and others) can become leaders ... you are discriminating against them as their sexuality is part of their identity. I'm not saying they absolutely should be elected into power. Neither am I saying that you should bless their relationships. Neither am I saying that everything is fine for gay couples to live their feelings because of genuine love they share. You don't have to adopt a liberal stance on the issue. But in my opinion you should not discriminate against them, either. Sexuality, including partnership, should not be a factor in determining who becomes a preacher or not. If you ban a lesbian from preaching for a third reason, it's ok of course, (if the third reason is valid). Actually, I'm a happy Christian and I don't preach at church, neither am I a board member there. But if I was told "Thomas, you are a musician meaning you are not allowed to preach or become board member!" ... I would leave that place of course. Even if I am not interested to become a board member in the first place due to lack of time. Just for being discriminated against. Moreover, if God says "a lesbian won't enter a church board of one of my churches!" then he'll certainly find a way to exercise his will anyway. But a human shouldn't go as far as to set up rules that discriminate against others for identity reasons. I see it that way: Christians being hostile to other minorities is a burden for Christianity - not Christians wanting to keep the peace with the lesbian/gay community. Keeping the peace doesn't mean embracing their relationships. Just peace. If the secular world realizes how we deal with gays... they will ban us from secular working places, too. This time for identity reasons again: they will argue that, since we are Christians, we are not allowed to assume a certain position in work life here or there, either. Honestly: I fear the echo from the world. Homophobic views are held by Christians already, in my view, so discrimination concerning the rules in church would only exacerbate the situation. Sadly. Long story short: I'm not saying they should preach, be blessed from the church for the relationships they have, ..., just saying we should not discriminate against them. Regards, Thomas

Hi Inquirer, I honestly admire the depth and extent of your efforts to find the truth. Bible says- Mt 7:7: 7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. So you're on a good way! Just a little aside: what makes you think that it is a hoax? Btw, I've opened up a thread on it recently and discussed it with folks here. Please read, if you have time! It's an important issue for me. Thank you for your openness that you've shown already in the threads. I find this bold. Regards, Thomas edit: if anyone wants to accuse scientists again - conspiracies, altering data, wanting to hurt people or what ever - please back up what you say by using facts and providing the links to the data shown to illustrate the situation. "google this and that" won't make it. Please back up what you say, please avoid unsupported allegations, thanks.

thank you very much, Tzeph. it seems to me it is: a) disrespectful behavior against others and within the community b) when Christians get political we often lack respect for human rights standards. We should be in line with human rights, I think. When Christians get persecuted we call for human rights, too. The Golden Rule: treat others with respect, the way you want to be treated, too. c) worry about the kingdom of God first - money last. My two cent, Thomas

Hi all, I think it is really important to share the gospel in a good way. For that reason, may I add another suggestion to what I posted already? 5) don't post condescending remarks against other minorities, please. If a non-believer would dare to post any condescension against Christians, they're out. Instantly. So please, refrain from looking down on other minorities saying that they had a mental defect or disorder never providing the proof necessary to back such a bold assertion up... by Bible or scientific documentation. Please don't ever post condescending remarks against others. Since an atheist poster is not able to post the slightest arrogant remark against Christians here on Worthy, in case they want to remain active in the visible sections...... please do without these ever recurring remarks against minorities you don't like. exactly. Thank you. Thomas

Hi all, every nonbeliever can have some posts here on Worthy before George decides that they shouldn't be able to reply any more. While I don't want to discuss the new system... I would like to ponder about the question how we can contribute to make a convincing case for faith while they still can post in the main sections... in case they still come and do so. In my opinion we should try hard to argue as good as possible while we can discuss with them here in the visible area. It's very important for them, I guess. And it is very good for us, since spreading the gospel is what Christians are called to do, I think. As for me, the Gospel is everything I have to offer, more or less, right now. A few suggestions may be allowed... 1) if you have a new theory to offer, like earth water during the flood splashing as high as the moon... please don't promote it in the threads with nonbelievers. If you must propose your theory.... please do it in a Christians-only-thread. 2) turn-or-burn calls don't work, if the nonbeliever doubts: God's existence, the existence of sin, hence any need to repent... please do them in a Christians-only-thread. 3) if you want to do a science quiz... please do it in a Christians-only-thread. Science knowledge is great but put gospel first, please. 4) I think it would be best if only a few (very few, maybe just one) Christian posters could lead the discussion with a doubter at a specific time. If he is done, the next one please. Let all things be done decently and in order. 1 Cor 14:40. Please avoid chaos in the threads reaching out to nonbelievers. ... continuing tomorrow... Regards, Thomas

Hi Still Alive, I agree with Neighbor: Bible should always be taken literally, in case a metaphor isn't indicated. You have context. You have the possibility to compare the translation of a Hebrew word that you prefer to other occurances in the Bible to cross check if your translations stay the same. Amen. No. It merely speaks about death. However, death in the Bible is always temporary, as I see it. Look at this, Samuel being dead while talking.... Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” 1. Samuel 28:15. Please note, Samuel died as early as in verse 3. Regards, Thomas t

Hi Warrior! My point is some jump in when there's a debate with a non-believer and/or doubter and preach it. They restrict their message to just that. When I converted there used to be street preachers around in Germany who restricted their message to "y'all burn in hell!". Horrible. Christians seem to love it because it gives them the feeling of being superior to the rest? When Jesus spoke about hell he first came up with some everyday subject, presented the problems within the issue and then brought the hell in. This is ok. Look I'm wholeheartedly against all sorts of universalism, the teaching that implies that everyone ends up in heaven after some time, regardless of their wrongdoing, for example. So I appreciate you having the same state of mind with regard to universalism. But what you're proposing here, to me, comes across as "ah Thomas, since you are there ... there is a topic popping up in my mind: HELL. HELLFIRE. SATAN. TURN OR BURN. BURN ETERNALLY in case you don't repent!!!!" (I took me as an example) This would be invasive! Why me of all people? This comes across like "Ah, Thomas, since you are there, I must think of Adolf Hitler!" This is so abusive, in my opinion. Please, Warrior, we need to keep some minimum level of conduct. Regards, Thomas

It's all about behavior. I think Christians are called to spread the good news. Please imagine you're a shop vendor in an earthly shop selling cokes to thirsty customers... Once you were telling some customer "you're a minion of SATAN" you will be fired. Simply fired. Here in Germany, at least. I have a friend giving speeches for money; some earthly topic for which you get good money, he has a good education, too. The moment he tells his customers "you're owned by SATAN - burn in hell" he will be instantly fired. Fired. No second chance possible, I guess. Why do you think this kind of behavior is ok for Christians? The coke shop wants to sell their stuff. The shop is interested everything goes allright, so that the customers come and bring some money in. Equally, we primarily want something from our visitors, we want them to listen. We are told to spread the gospel, it's not the other way round, we should have them learn all the things we could learn - the very things we are so greatful to know about. So let's have an environment that makes it possible to do so! So, please everyone adopt some minimum standards of good behavior. Thomas

Hi Firm, yes I did. As to the turn-or-burn message in Mt 5, which is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, Michael gave a perfect answer to this: this being said... I'm against slapping "burn"-messages in other people's faces before the slightest misconduct is apparent. I'm against the "you're a non-believer? BECOME FAITHFUL OR BURN IN HELL!"-mindset. Jesus didn't do that in Mt 5. Regards, Thomas

But I didn't discuss George. Let alone in a bad manner. I'm 100% behind George's idea do reach out to the outer world. That's what I want, too. As I said, not every atheist is trolling. In general, I don't believe that Christians are better human beings than the rest. What I see lately is Christians posting in an arrogant manner when it comes to discussing inviting atheists for faith. Let's spread love. Thomas

while not agreeing, I never meant to discuss him as a person. It was just a recent example of how it could look like when people are banned from replying? I find it is highly unfair to discuss him as a person in a bad way when he cannot reply, Neighbor. In my opinion, this is hostile behavior. This, in my opinion, is our No. 1 problem when George says he still wants to outreach to the world. How do we expect to attract new visitors? Let's share the best thing we have (the Good News) instead of displaying poisonous remarks against others, please. Thanks, Thomas

Hi George, thank you so much for answering. So once you say someone is stirring up the pot, and this someone writes from an atheist perspective... you ban them from the mainsections I mean you move them to another area, . Ok, so they write maybe 30 posts and then it's over - good to know! My I ask a question as to how the timing might evolve? For instance poster natesute is now called seeker*. So he can't reply anymore, I guess. But this change in his title occured in the middle of a debate... so now, when he doesn't respond anymore in the thread, should we feel tempted to think that he does so since he was persuaded by the replies fom the believing side? Is this what the others should think? I mean how should new members or guests interpret him suddenly ceasing to reply? Is it clear to everyone that he doesn't reply any more because he can't and not because he was persuaded by the arguments? Thank you for your thoughts... and keep on reaching out to non-believers! Thomas

Hi Miss, I hate your approach, that's really true: I hate it! Wholeheartedly. Truth spoken, let's turn to the subject level . Are you telling me that the moment you discover an aspect of truth you think it should be spoken? No, Bible teaches otherwise.. that's the truth. Let's read John beginning chapter 8. A women was brought to him. She had sex with other men. Speaking truth wouold have meant telling her - right in front of 100 men - "you are an adulteress! Shame on you! Normally I don't speak with a whore like you are. People like you commit fornication. Ever heard of what God thinks of fornicators? I give you a bible verse to consider Rev 2:21! Turn or burn! Roast in hell! Meet Satan in eternal damnation!!! Forever!!!!" ?? But Jesus didn't say a word in John 8:6. Later he did, yes. When everyone has gone. Thomas

Then leave it. If you know it's harsh, leave it. Take Jesus as your example a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; Mt 12:20. Hurling turn-or-burn-messages around when you can't exclude that you might hit some of these bruised reeds Jesus is talking about... is silly, I think. It's not worth it. Jesus never said "always keep telling what you think is true - any occasion is welcome regardless of the rest". Jesus said "make disciples". After all, context matters. Regards, Thomas

Hi Melinda, thank you very much for your answer. It is telling. "turn-or-burn", for you, seems to be automatically evoking Hitler. Very honest. So what should people think who come here on this board asking questions seeking love and then someone slaps a fire-and-brimstone message into their face? They must think that the author on the Christian side confused them with Hitler, and that's the problem. Christians prone to judge, everytimes ready to be harsh against new people keeping them off at the worst. When will this come to an end? (I don't mean you, of course, I mean the turn-or-burn-fanatic messages.) Meanwhile, on the subject level there was already BB resonding to you, so I'd like to leave your question for a while? Thomas

Hi Miss, actually, this is not about the saying "turn or burn". I should have made it clearer. It is about Christians telling seekers "either you (instantly) follow my advice or burn eternally!" This is not caring, in my opinion. This kind of preaching, as I see it, also tries to establish a hierarchy "me: in heaven, No.1 - you, potentially burning in hell forever, you are the No.2" Thomas

Amen. For a Scribe or what used to be a Pharisee, John the Baptist used that language in Mt 3:7. If preachers use turn-or-burn messages it seems they lump their conversation partners together with folks John addressed in that verse? But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mt 3:7. Even if Jesus preached more about hell than heaven, as you say... he did more than talking. Christian life is more than the preaching and talking. Jesus had fellowship, I mean real-life fellowship eating together, praising God together and so on. He made some dead people come back to life, healed the lame, defended the defenceless, hailed the children, and many more... and then he also came to warn people that there is a hell and you should be careful. That was well balanced out! But if all some people do is talking about God and quickly reminding everyone about the hell... where's the balance in it? Just scaring people isn't nice. Thomas

Very well pointed out, Tigger, thank you. Thomas

Hi Vlad, no I'm in favor of it. What I'm against of is people telling others "repent!". If they do it in a good way, then ok. There are awesome things about repentance, indeed. But please don't just shovel down the calls to repentance through other people's throats. I don't find the love in these. Before Jesus came to talk about hell... he performed many wonders out of love. His message was well balanced I'd say. I would want the discussions with doubters here on Worthy to be loving and beautiful. "repent or burn forever!" can burst any discussion and to me, it seems to be ignorant behavior because the author of these messages doesn't make it clear that he emphathizes with the doubter. It often comes across as saying "burn you heathen! and I don't care!" I don't like the style of these fire and brimstone messages. Thomas