thomas t

I'm against any corporal punishment of a child. Actually, I'm against all sorts of violence against children. Solomon said it's wise to use the rod according to my interpretation of Proverbs 13:24. However, in Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 the same Solomon pointed out that the pursuit of wisdom is foolish. Amen Who me, very well pointed out with regard to the ouija board. very well pointed out. Amen, very well said. This is a very good use of vocabulary in this case, I think. Jayne also used that word. Comparing his family to a situation in which children get stoned... this is where the abuse started, I think. Today, there is a right to life. that's the point, Behold. Very well said. of course not. Thank you. Regards, Thomas

Hi Plavius, I once had the opportunity to accompany a missionary on her trip to a very poor country in Europe some 15 years ago. We were visiting another missionary. They realized they had to instal water pipes, because the entire region lived off wells. Once installed, very quickly the local population found that the pipes could be of great use for themselves, too. And they found no problem dismantling the new water supply. The missionary gave up. No police there, just clans and their bosses. When someone works abroad and sends money home, then the clans want to have their share, too... Companies don't invest there, cause Russia is close and thus the danger of wars... That country has a huge problem with street children, too. But the missionaries working in the field unanimously said it was really hard to find good workers. The locals very often misappropriate any money given for the sake of the chilrden, they said. Regards, Thomas

I don't see where Rick Warren has anything to do with the absence of good workers. Just checked that one out on facebook, it's an evangelisation site. My point here is: we should never disencourage any woman from serving at church, cause we need them! Thomas

Hi MissMuffet, what is a Deacon other than a servant? The Bible is very clear for the word used for Phoebe in Romans 16:1 is diakonos. Mm, I know you have a great potential, and I like your style. But don't play word games, here, please?. To use a source, here is gotquestions: Question: "What is the meaning of diakonia in the Bible?" Answer: Diakonia (Greek) is a noun used 32 times in the New Testament and variously translated as “ministry,” “service,” “relief,” or “support.” It is used in Luke 10:40 of Martha’s meal preparations for the Lord, while Mary sat at His feet and listened to Him. It is used in Acts 6:1 referring to the “ministry of the Word” and in Acts 6:4 regarding the serving of food. In Acts 11:29 diakonia refers to famine relief in the form of a monetary contribution. In Acts 20:24 and 21:19, Paul uses the word to refer to his ministry among the Gentiles. In Romans 12:6–7 it is referred to as a spiritual gift—the gift of serving. [...] bolded mine Regards, Thomas

Frienduff, please... Missmuffet wrote: bolded mine. Willa answered this by saying that Phoebe was a deacon in the Bible (Romans 16:1). So Bible makes it clear that at least the notion that women can't be deacons was flawed. People here sometimes hail complete nonsense, so please Frienduff, it might be helpful to take a closer look next time at what you want to be solid truth ?. usurping is always wrong, I guess ?. Remember, we as Christians have a serious problem concerning the absence of good workers, as anounced in the Bible. Regards, Thomas

bolded mine Hi Frienduff, as Willa just pointed out here the teaching you're eloquently hailing was flawed. Regards, Thomas

Hi all, don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs any more of putting the atheists into an invisible section for posting. Just a few comments: ok, they were getting personal. But here Christians are also getting personal against atheists, we can still see the old threads and witness a couple of direct insults. As you said so often. But the way in which some of the posters of your linked thread use smear words etc. indicates that you must have done something right ?. At the same time, the postings from "our" atheists here on Worthy used to be rather polite, friendly, educated and funny most often, in my view. Your link gives a very ineresting insight into the state of the debate in general, I think. I think these resource pages in the style of your's are great when atheists keep saying they can't believe God because of science. Or anything in that sense. When you use them then: great. The current problem I see on Worthy right now is that people come up claiming "great evidence" for creation... without having been asked to do so by the non-believing side. Even if one Christian were to be right in what he or she says... then 2 other Christians come and join and post complete nonsense promoting some very own theories that are wrong, I think. At the same time, the Bible does not teach we should use more evidence to bolster our notion of creation to convince non-believers. In contrast, the Bible does dedicate great time in explaining Christians how to witness. Never said the evidence should be part of it. Tzephanyahu I still didn't manage to go through you pages... these were just theoretical comments on the way we treat evidence for Creation. And Tzephanyahu, thank you very much again for your very encouraging answer. I am more than glad to see you here! I'm looking more than forward to reading more of your great apologetics. Thomas

Hi FoE, thank you for your trust to share. I can relate to this. Mean dad? Hard to respect? Maybe he's wonderful, Jesus will do the judgement! Oh my father didn't work either. I mean when I was 4 years old he quit his job. I saw him sitting down to read the newspaper all day long. All day long? No, he interrupted his session to tell me "work harder, boy!" (In German language he said "Tu was, Junge, Tu was!"). Maybe ten times a day. Was that being mean? No, I think he just wanted to be of use. And he seemed pretty frustrated, too. Actually, all his personal ambition he saw accomplished in me getting good grades at school. Since he didn't have success in his job life, he just wanted me to be the next world bank president. This is how it seemed to me. All he wanted was me being twice as successful as normal children, so that his ambition could be satisfied, too, it seemed. And your father wants you to be the same? Twice as good a girl ?? Let me tell you what happened in my life. At the age of 22, I couldn't any more. I used to serve at least two masters, before: my own ambition + the ambition of my father. That was two much for me. Really. When I was 23 years old, I started having depressions for many long years and my body just shut down. I couldn't hear well, I coudn't concentrate any more, couldn't sleep, sometimes couldn't speak clearly, felt stressed out just for washing the dishes or so, I lied on my bed doing nothing but sweating heavily, all these loops "work harder, boy, work harder" can drive you mad... and before this happens to you: let me tell you it's best to stop serving the ambitions of your father. Even if you don't serve them directly, all these fights can stress you out, too. I suggest it is best to tell your father "look, it is getting too much for me. I want to serve Jesus. Jesus alone." Jesus said: No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 16:13 So, you can't serve three masters ?. Either you serve yourself, or your father, or Jesus. You can't have it both ways. I tried to serve Jesus, and two and a half years ago I could recover my strength and, even if I'm not successful currently, I can only say THANK YOU JESUS. Thomas

Hi Tzephanyahu, thank you very much for your reminder with the encouraging words in it. Yeah, it may be best to drop the issue for now. I'm still thinking about the linked thread in the other forum. Just a little comment on what Alan has said... Hi Alan thank you very much for your explanation that was helpful indeed. For a moderator that you used to be over the years, you must have some overview about what went wrong. + Me too. This thread was an attempt to analyse what went wrong and to find the way back to discussing things with non-believers in a visable way. That was my point. Of course I understand what's behind the decision of making them invisible. Alan just described it. But one can be sad about it, as you say, and describing the tremendous cost of that decision. Rightly made though for the moment... But Tzephanyahu said it's best to drop the issue for now, and that's what I'm doing now. Regards, Thomas

Hi Willa, I highly appreciate your efforts here on Worthy. At the same time I think rhetorics are the problem. "We are the light, they are the darkness. We are so good, they are so bad. We are so good, they are so evil. We are so good, they will end up in hell. And they deserve it. We are so holy, they are not. We should seperate, they be invisible. They are not worthy, nevertheless we are kind enough to answer." This is a mantra. This makes them feel like we think we are better. The problem I see is that you wrote taking things to the personal level writing.. bolded mine. Why can't we just hand out the bread of life? Why include condescending remarks? We see them every day. They have become a mantra on Worthy. Maybe they act in the form of self-fulfilling prophesies? The more we tell them they are hardened the more they become hardened, I'm afraid. How do you judge when someone is hardened? When they don't convert after 10 posts? 100 posts? Or even more? When our rhetorics confuse them they won't profit from all the blessings we may enjoy as Christians; such as a life with Jesus, the one we believe in. And being able to finally have found the sense in our lives. Please Willa, let Bible alone determine the way we speak. Not customs. In the Middle East they used to use female genital mutilation which is also a custom. Just to give an example that, in my opinion, we shouldn't base our actions on customs rather than the Bible. This, however, is a real problem, please see this thread I opened up. but the non-believers are there. And they do eat by reading the things we write. I hope that the bread of life is passed out by what is written. At the same time, they are made invisible by us. To stay in the picture, they eat somewhere below the table or in the cellar where nobody sees them. In my opinion, this is the same as treating them as inferior or as second class in the eyes of us. I agree with George that the descision is right, as I explained earlier. Even if the decision is more than sad. But I do not understand the rhetorics that come along. Regards, Thomas

double post

Hi Who me, as Willa explained here, the sections where non-believers can post are hidden lest the weak in faith go astray. Agreed. Imagine you were a non-believer living somewhere in central Swizzerland. Next good church in Zurich, it's a one our car drive maybe. Or consider Belgium, are there evangelical churches? No, there are almost none, I believe. Maybe in Brussels one or two. So I would say, in general forums are a second-best solution to learn something about Christianity. But not if you live in areas where you can't find churches around you. Before I converted, I was very much afraid that I would end up in the hands of cults... maybe other people have these problems, too. My mother always told me about strange cults everywhere. So I used to be really unsettled because of this. Thomas

Hi everyone, a moderator told me that new Christians and even young teens who are not established in our faith were being confused if not led astray by some of those unbelievers. She said this with regard to the discussions in the hidden sections. But I think this is also true for the discussions we had in the main sections and this, I'm afraid, is one of the main reasons for why they are banned from posting in a visible way. (see George's comment here) If there was always a compelling answer provided by us to the questions the unbelievers come up with, then there wouldn't be any confusion, I think. Jesus answered any question with flying colours. Regardless of how nasty the question was. So why can't we do the same with the questions of our non-believers/doubters. Not knowing the answer ... I thought it might be best if everybody could think and come up with one argument coming from the theist side that didn't convince anyone. If we can't convince our teenagers we have a problem. Whether or not we ban the nonbelievers from posting here, sooner or later the teenagers will encounter them anyways in their lives. We can't just go ahead and create a parallel universe for our teens in which they would never be in touch with any doubters, I think. So, if non-believers can "successfully" confuse us, our arguments are too weak. At least part of them, I think. So I would like to begin a debate presenting one argument stemming from the believing side that didn't impress, in my opinion. Maybe you know of others, too. Atheists have faith. In this discussion, for example, this argument usually proposed by believers just didn't work out. The atheist simply states he didn't have no faith, and then usually it is over for the Christian apologist. Honestly, I saw many debates on this, and the atheist's position always was more compelling than the believer's. And I think this argument from the theist side almost always turned into a far too complicated stance. We should keep things simple, I think. Why are Christians so eager to convince atheists that they believe? Is belief a shame? No it is not, I think. I would suggest to let them say they behave rationally. The Christian God, as I see it, cannot be discovered by reason alone, for it says: And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ Mark 12:30. Reason is but one fourth required to get faith, I think. Regards, Thomas

Hi Steven, needed some time to respond to your post. bolded mine. When Jesus wanted some time alone with his disciples he went to a private and/or calm place. Never the great public. I accept George's decision. Just wanted to comment on your argument that separation is a good thing in and of itself. George's reasons for separating the unbelievers from us rather center around protecting the flock, if I understand him right. Regards, Thomas

Hi Tzephanyahu, perfect post. I would have been wanting to post something in case you would have not ?. You managed to dispel all the doubts as presented in the op in one post! So great. I could sense the same spirit like Josua once had when the Israelites were supposed to enter the Holy Land... He will win the questioning session against us, you say ??? Look, God seems to have given you the right answer and this is because you boldly support a free debate open for all. I mean a free debate under equal conditions for all the participants. That's why God seems to have blessed you with good points. I think, if and only if all posters on Worthy agree in their hearts that a free and equal debate is needed when you want to answer the questions of the doubters then Worthy can win again in these questionings. Jesus, in my opinion, only provides these sorts of victories for Christians that in their hearts are in favor of equality. I mean discussions asking 'is God loving?' and so on. Best Regards, Thomas

Hi Valencia, thanks for loving me. Love you, too. As I said: lumping all atheists together, speaking in a disparaging manner about them knowing they cannot answer is very offensive. Sound doctrine you say? Where is the following quote sound doctrine? ... but Neighbor didn't mean the Pharisees, I think. He wrote in answering the opening post. However, the op wasn't about Pharisees and Scribes, as you surely may have noted ? (just in case you want to try to equate atheists with devout Pharisees/ Scribes this time again?). When I read in the Bible someone goes straightly to hell, it is often those who try to serve the law... like in Matthew 8:12. Jesus is about to judge, so let's leave it up to Jesus. He will decide which non-believer he takes and which one he leaves. Read about Rahab the whore in Joshua 6:25. She even is mentioned in Matthew 1:5 according to my own interpretation. I think she still lives. Just one example. Please note, if someone stays an unbeliever for all his life and converts in the last second, he gets .... saved (my interpretation). Yes, of course. Because they wanted to kill him. Then he was offensive. That's natural. Are you saying non-believers are going to kill you ?? Thank you for clarifying. yes (concerning the question whether or not the Pharisees were non-believers). Thank you very much, Valencia, you too! Thomas

Hi Selah They believed in the biblical God. The God of Moses, Abraham and so on. Atheists, in contrast, do not know who Jesus is. Thomas ----- Hi Valencia, it is "the Worthy Pavillion" - an invisible place. The way you post here in this thread saddens me. You voted up a post that was condemning non-theists lumping them together. A totally generalizing comment. We should not judge, Jesus said. Tzephanyahu pointed this particularity out in an excellent manner. But you think you should in my reading? Even if God judges, we shouldn't. Even if God slammed all atheists in the Bible, we shouldn't (my opinion). Leave the judgement up to Jesus! "offenses or biblical truth" you say, but the one thing doesn't exclude the other, Valencia. You say, if it's biblical truth you may offend, right? When you think you are better than the rest (non-believers), and when you show this mind-set, you are offending, I think. The moment you are conversing with non-believers in this manner, you will offend in my view. Speaking about them in this manner (see the post you voted up), when they can't reply, is offensive in itself, in my opinion. It's bullying, I think. Yes of course, Valencia. so this is going round in circles, please, as you failed to adress indicated Bible verse. I stay with my opinion. Thomas

Hi Valencia, what an answer. Let's go into the detail: thank you, so why didn't you say anything. We see offences against non-believers all the time, here on Worthy, you didn't do any work to expose. Tell me if I'm wrong. Let me put it that way: wisdom is foolish - cause any thoughts of the wise are futile. As it is written in the verse you quoted. Well, here we disagree: However, the Pharisees believed in God, they were no atheists, and I stay with my opinion, that they even believed Jesus was the son of God. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ Matthew 21:38 is speaking about the Scribes, in my opinion. (I hate going round in circles: just in case this happens: let me tell you I humbly stay with my take on that one, please ?.) when they say something, it is locked up in some invisible forum here on Worthy. When we say something, in contrast, the whole world can read. There is no equality, Valencia. Amen, this is how it should be. It's a hard truth that many servants of God will end up in hell, as it seems. See Matthew 25:30. Regards, Thomas

Hi Wayne, thank you. German evangelical (+pentecostal) churches are slightly growing, I think. But they are a tiny minority. The main problem I see is that half of the Christians don't want chuches to grow. Look at this post (and please count the numer of times it has been voted up). In my view, it has been about keeping the doors of churches shut. They want to keep everything for themselves so they get more I'm afraid. But Matthew 14:16-20 shows how Jesus operates: 20 And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. I think this should be taken spiritually for passing out the bread of life: The more you pass out the more you have (my interpretation of that story). People are forgetting this right now. So sad. Wayne, let's work to keep all the insults against non-believers out of here. Which non-believer is going to convert when you compare them to "pooping deer" (see again above how many times this had been voted up). Even people who dare to post in this very thread you opened up, they also voted that post up containing the "pooping deer" comparison. So let's work on respecting other people more, please. Thank you. Thomas Edit: Considering my time ressources, I could do some .5% of that work as descibed above.

Hi ClosestFriend, Thank you so much for pointing this out. Thank you for your participation in the thread. Thomas +++ Hi Valencia, Yes, of course. But when it comes to "entertaining" people here using philosophy, for instance, I have trouble seeing why making the unbeliever's posts invisible is "worship and praise". Look, I truly trust in George and believe that he made the right decision. Nevertheless, I'm against any cheering for shutting them out of philosophy debates, for instance. For non-believers can truly be great philosophers. George simply shuts them out, and he explained the reason. It is as it is, but we need to know the price he paid for this situation to exist. He sacrified equality, in my opinion. Non-believers now feel as individuals treated as inferior or second class, when they can't even participate in the philosophy discussions. They also can be of great help when Christians shout out loud to have found "overwhelming" scientific evididence for this and that - nonbelievers can truly be great scientists, so why can't they even participate in debating science (yes - I know why... just asking for the sake of the argument). They could help to pull down all the fake science that happens to appear on worthy, in my opinion. When they are shut out from participating in this, they can't use their skills in here, they can't show what they are good at. Hence they must feel treated in a condescending manner when the opposite is true. Jesus has been killed by - other than what people might think - believers, see Matthew 21:38. Those even believed in Jesus as the son of God (same verse). So I don't understand why people always try to link non-believers to Satan. Also read Tzephanyahus post in this thread concerning the same matter. Best Regards, Thomas ---- If they post, I think it's called "the Worthy Pavillion", as Neighbor pointed out on page 1. Concerning shutting out the non-believers, please read my reply to ValenciaRoses just above these lines. Thomas

Hi Valencia, nice to talk to you! I'm not saying we should not be obedient to God. We always should! God is our father. everything we enjoy comes from him and I am grateful for that. So let me explain what I mean. I am highly against the inquirer's position to remain unchallenged! I totally agree (once again) with brother Tzephanyahu. As he said in that thread: If you think the inquirer wrote something against the Lord.... challenge it! I would even like to add, challenge it quickly! So that the weak sheep among us remain in the herd! But do it right! Do it without resorting to strategies that are insulting or aimed at shutting the inquirer up, please. Regards, Thomas

ok, now I see. I see your passion. Thank you for all your work. But the downside of mentioned aspect being something like an ivory tower, in my opinion. Let me explain what I mean. While secularists can't say anything concerning theology, in my view, they can when it comes to philosophy: Take this thread, for instance. We have many Christians that bask in philosophy for some reason. The only poster from the atheist side, who was coming out as atheist in this very thread, couldn't adress all the points raised, I think. Here is my point: maybe a 50% of the arguments raised was flawed. But noone was there to adress it. Everyone just shouting halleluja and so on. The thread was about "proof" for the creator. But when these posters meet reality and encounter some resistance from atheists, all their points raised might tumble down. The problem I see here is that we have too many sandcastles (in philosophy and apologetics, in a more general sense). If there were atheists around, they would simply help burn down the useless stuff and what would be left could be called real "proof" for the creator? The human body, too, consists of more non-human cells that human ones, by the way. The invisibility of their posts, however, is what makes me wonder most. While believer's posts can be read anywhere, atheists here on worthy only enjoy the type of free speech that is made invisible. To me this comes across as classifying them as individuals who are treated as inferior or as second class in the eyes of posters here. Thank you very much for giving this topic so much thought. Thomas

Thank you George. All you say is prefectly right. Trying to disciple - that's so important, I agree. Of course there should be a possiblity to do this without anybody jumping in. But still, the section in which the non-believers can post is invisible to 99% of the users, and the public. Making them invisible - this is a really really hugh price to pay. The other part in contrast, which is reaching out to non-believers, cannot be accomplished, when they read in the main section comparisons with "pooping dear". We've read all this in this very thread. It's so sad. But what you say remains true: this aim cannot be reached, either, if believers call them "swine" in debating. It is exactly as you say - I absolutely agree. As Tzephanyahu said, this kind of statements hinder them to accept the free gift of the Lord - the very gift that made life worth living! For us. So let's work hard to give an effort to convince everyone that it is wrong to speak about non-believers in a scornful manner. Regards, Thomas

Hi Dr, that's quite a generalizing remark, I think. We can't look into their hearts, in my opinion. If you want to shut the doors of the church, then it seems this is contemptful behaviour. if they really say something against our faith, we still can speak up. If we judge them, then we will be judged, listen please to what brother Tzephanyahu says (my interpretation of the verse): thank you very much for your bold interaction, Tzephanyahu. Free speech, as you say, is too important. Regards, Thomas --- Hi Neighbor, I think this is condescending against atheists. Regards, Thomas

Dear community, non-believers can't post in the main sections. They are assigned a seperate section. I don't know where that section is. To me, assigning them some invisible seperate section comes across as wanting to serve them lunch below the table. At the same time, we sit at the table enjoying our meal conversing with each other, i find this is horrible. Making them invisible is the same as ostracising them. But I do think that George is spirit-led when he dicides that way. I believe him when he says it's better for them to be seperated from the rest. So let's think about why the Holy Spirit might tell him to resort to such a measure. I think this might be because conditions for the non-believing side within the main sections would be so incredibly bad that it appears better to shut them out altogether. Maybe, while sitting at the table to stay in the picture, the others would behave in a manner that's even more rude than having them sit under the table. So please let's have a look at how we treat provocative quetsions in general. For asking provocative questions is exactly what non-believers do all the time. In another thread someone asked a question that somehow managed to combine the notion of God and rape & murder in one sentence! Then I saw one lady answering this by "I feel offended!" (or some similar answer). But it wasn't anything like a statement that frankly stated that God was responsible for that. It simply was a question. Telling the inquirer "I feel offended" (or something similar) in this situation came across as wanting to shut him up, I think. Others gave what I would call a one-size-fits-all-answer, subsequetly declaring that his question has been answered "in full", although the question was complicated in my understanding. Also a means of shutting the inquirer up? Now, this is my point: if we reply to provocative questions in this manner, inviting non-believer to the main sections again would be devastating. Even more than the current situation is (I think it's devastating). We must have freedom of speech, even for the non-believing side, I think. Please let's do something so the Holy Spirit could finally tell George to open the sections up for non-believers. Regards, Thomas