YouKick - Portal für Fussball
Büro Format - Visuelle Kommunikation

Alko-Saft von Think-Tank

Getränk kreieren, das selbständig Alkohol entwickelt, wenn man es ein paar Tage stehen lässt. Je länger es herumsteht, desto mehr Volumenprozent hat es. Wäre der Renner, vor allem bei Teenagern. Ups, das darf man ja nicht, aber seien wir mal ehrlich. Sonst holen die sich das Zeugs einfach im Coop.

Bewertung: 5.2
5 Stimmen
In der Datenbank seit:
4. September 2007


Ihr Name (10. Januar 2008)
Ist das überhaupt machbar? Zudem käme dann die Frage auf, ob so etwas legal ist. Schliesslich muss man den Alkoholgehalt deklarieren.

Gago (28. Januar 2008)
Was sollte das bringen? Ich kann mir Getränke mit dem gewünschten Alkohol auch gleich so einkaufen.

Ihr Name (28. Januar 2008)
@Gago, ja klar, aber man könnte es so machen, dass je länger man es stehen lässt, desto mehr Alk ist drin. Das würde sicher laufen. Zudem kann es massiv günstiger als normalen Alk verkaufen, da man die Alk-Steuer einfach umgehen könnte.

Missi ( 8. Januar 2012)
I cannot tell a lie, that really hleepd.

rugipr ( 8. Januar 2012)
1EiKdo <a href="">wqvhyjhgutqz</a>

scwdlbkvlhs (10. Januar 2012)
QcMqNT <a href="">kxmcxnvzzxih</a>

Ben (11. Oktober 2015)
Very good point pastor. I also think that verse 22 is pertty awesome. Paul's confidence in Philemon's testimony is pertty solid when Paul knows that Philemon is praying for him while he is in prison. It almost seems strange for Paul to say that he hopes to be delivered from prison by the prayers of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but we know that Paul understood the power of prayer. But it is really cool to see that Paul knew that Philemon was praying for him. Along with having a good testimony, I hope we can all strive to have an awesome prayer life. I know that I get so busy some days that I fail miserably at praying and sometimes miss out on God's Word some days and ultimately opportunities to minister.

Claudio (12. Oktober 2015)
How awesome is that! What an<a href=""> amzniag</a> point pastor. I think it is equally awesome that Paul is regarding Onesimus, a runaway slave, punishable to death, as of the same fold as he himself is. When he tells Philemon to accept Onesimus as he would accept Paul (who most likely shared the Gospel to Philemon on one of his missionary journeys). What humility Paul had. To go from one of the top dogs in the Jewish community to exalting a runaway slave as acceptable as himself in the Christian community. Praise God for the mindset that He changed with the conversion of Paul! I pray we all humble ourselves like Paul, and more importantly, like Jesus did. Every soul counts. Every soul is worth the price. Lord help us!

Zanzan (12. Oktober 2015)
previously on this thread that I think slearvy is incompatible with the teachings of Christ in the new testament, and I stand by that, but just based on what Paul says to Philemon, I'm not sure that it creates any obligation to do anything. Paul makes a request that Philemon receive Onesimus back forever, not as a servant but as a brother. If Philemon were to do that, you could imagine him extrapolating from that and freeing all slaves that became Christians, or all slaves in general, but I don't think Paul is requiring or even asking him to do that.I think Paul is making this special request concerning Onesimus because he has come to feel about Onesimus as if he were his own son:8 Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, 9 Yet for loveâs sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. 10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:These verses show that Paul could, by authority of his office in the priesthood (I suppose), order Philemon to do as he asks, but instead, because of his love for Philemon, he's only asking on behalf of Onesimus, whom he has come to regard as a son.My guess is that, at the time this letter was written, most Christians (possibly even including Paul) did not feel that slearvy was incompatible with Christianity. But because Paul came to regard Onesimus so highly, and love him as a son, he sent him back to Philemon to ask that he be forgiven for whatever wrong he did previously and freed from servitude to become a brother in the gospel (meaning that he could be a missionary and help in the work of the Church).Paul makes no request regarding other slaves, either because he knows there are none in Philemon's house, or because he doesn't know the circumstances and doesn't want to presume to make requests concerning them, or because slearvy in general is a fact of life which Paul does not, at the time of this letter, see as incompatible with the gospel. Or perhaps for all these reasons. annegb: The way I understand it, basic phonics rarely applies to foreign languages or proper names and especially proper names in foreign languages. But in this case I think you do have the majority on your side so you may be right. [url=]nmfngmuxa[/url] [link=]jjpgdtkazz[/link]

Barbaraellen (13. Oktober 2015)
KKK. And you have to consider that the <a href="">marjioty</a> of Americans had no interaction with black people at all. I didn't until I was in seventh grade and that was in uh, 1964. Churches in the south practiced segregation (and, as I've pointed out before, probably had a lot of members in the clan .if they didn't openly lobby for them) and to some extent, still do! You never hear about that when people are slamming on Mormon policy pre June 1978. I so long for the day when I can ask a black Baptist who is knocking my religion, how many Mormons do you think were in the Ku Klux Klan? So, back to my answer, Joseph died, Brigham opted for practicality, and subsequent prophets took it for granted that black people were inferior. Until Boyd K. Packer and Spencer W. Kimball came along and blew that out of the water.When I say that in Sunday School, people go ballistic and talk about revelation and how it was God's will to wait till 1978. That's just rubbish.Still, arj, Philemon (which I've never paid attention to before, but am now in Romans -Paul rocks! and will certainly read it closer this time) is totally irrelevant to the discussion of slavery and Mormon attitudes towards it. It's apples and oranges. I have a made-up story that Paul took Philemon, converted him, and used him as a servant until Philemon wanted to go back to his master and so Paul wrote the letter, as a Roman, so Philemon wasn't punished for leaving. Romans had clout. We know that.And I've said this before, too -NOW, our church is the LEAST racist church on the planet. Although bigotry isn't dead, at least in southern Utah. But it's not about race or color, it's about who conforms most to the norms of Mormonism.Well. That was a rant.

Masanori (13. Oktober 2015)
Sorry, just one more thing: To say that the New testament doesn't foirbd slavery is just intentionally dishonest. One cannot read the teachings of Christ and square them with slavery in any way. That was the driving force behind the abolitionist movement from the very beginning: How can you love thy neighbor as thyself if you condone owning another human being? The only way is by creating some sort of tortured logic whereby slaves are not actually considered people, as slavery apologists very often did.Philemon should not be read as condoning slavery either:10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: 11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: 12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: 13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: 14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. 15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; 16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?Does that sound to you like Paul wants Philemon to take Onesimus back as a slave? It sure doesn't sound that way to me. [url=]cqwclgza[/url] [link=]rgnsbehx[/link]

Mangalath (27. November 2015)
he was previously. He also may have stloen from his master upon leaving in order to provide for his journey. At the very least, his leaving without permission would have been considered illegal and doing a wrong to his master according to the laws at the time, so Paul asking him to return and ask forgiveness seems appropriate, but he is clearly not advocating a return to slavery.Slavery apologists used all kinds of scripture to justify slavery, as did Mormon apologists for the priesthood ban. That doesn't mean that we should give credence to their interpretation now. The clear meaning is that Paul wanted Onesimus welcomed home as a brother, not a servant.Also, I believe Utah territory was a slave territory only because of the order in which it came up. At the time, the all-consuming goal was avoiding war, so the territories and states were allowed to be part of the country only if they could keep the equal balance between slave territory and free territory. The Utah territory had to be a slave territory in order to balance the previous territory that was admitted as free.

Balaji (29. November 2015)
arJ, you can say that Paul was talking to Philemon about <a href="">weolimcng</a> Onesimus home as a brother in Christ, which is correct in my opinion, but that doesn't mean he wasn't also advocating that he be freed. Otherwise how do you explain the language of verse 16, that Onesimus be received forever: Not now as a servant ? If he is to be received not as a servant then how can he remain a slave? (BTW, my understanding is that the word that is translated in Philemon as servant is more correctly understood to be slave. Please let me know if your understanding is different.Now for the really tough issue: How do you pronounce Philemon ? I have heard both (2)FILL-a-mon and (2)fie-LEE-mon, as well as the slightly less common (3)FIE-le-mon. How do you say it? And which is correct? I personally favor #2, but that's only because it just soumds more pleasing to my ear.

Anup (30. November 2015)
MCQ,Our reading of the text is that Paul wants Onesimus to be freed. But this same espitle was used by the South during the civil war to justify slavery and specifically the return of escaped slaves. It is hardly cut and dried. At the very least it looks like God thinks escaped slaves new forgiveness from their masters and should obtain it in person. And you can argue that the topic isn't addressed but the whole point of the espitle is that Onesimus is going to return to his master to deliver this letter. No slavery, no letter.I should also add that the question was asked at the end of the lesson. There were perhaps 6 minutes left. So the chance to devote an entire lesson to this topic had already passed. I don't see why a short discussion of the topic the is the basis for the book is inappropriate. [url=]jyokbare[/url] [link=]yjmyglqxu[/link]

Brigitte ( 2. Dezember 2015)
Correction:Utah territory, along with New Mexico Territory, was<a href=""> cateerd</a> in the compromise of 1850. The new territories were neither slave nor free but could become either a slave or free state by local option, which was called popular sovereignty. The reason that the South liked this idea is that it had previously been proposed, under the Wilmot Proviso, than slavery would be banned in all the territory acquired from Mexico.From Wikipedia:The South avoided adoption of the symbolically significant Wilmot Proviso and the new New Mexico Territory and Utah Territory could in principle decide in the future to become slave states (popular sovereignty), though these lands were generally unsuited to plantation agriculture and their existing settlers were non-Southerners uninterested in slavery, and even though Utah and a northern fringe of New Mexico were north of the Missouri Compromise Line where slavery was previously banned in territories.

Baishakhi ( 2. Dezember 2015)
Slavery exists today. People aunrod the world enslave one another and depending on the country, probably buy and sell one another. You can't take everything in the Bible as God's opinion. I think this bit of scripture reflects Paul's life as a Roman. I also think, further, that it's possible the slave's life was in danger because he ran away. Paul, as a Roman, was advocating mercy, perhaps?You simply cannot equate this situation to America's history of slavery. I'd have a problem with a teacher introducing Philemon and trying to make the class discussion about Mormon doctrine regarding slavery in the US. Ridiculous. And honestly, any thinking person would take it for granted that God hates slavery. Hello. Totally agree with you about Skousen. Something about him has always bothered me. [url=]udhjvg[/url] [link=]submahvk[/link]

Kommentar schreiben

Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart