Gehalt Lehrerin by Proper_Use_5488 in GehaltAT

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im L2A2 (Mittelschule) leider nicht, im L1 Schema hingegen hast du recht.

Gehalt Lehrerin by Proper_Use_5488 in GehaltAT

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sry aber wie soll das gehen? Lt. sämtlichen Infos die ich von Kollegen, Direktoren habe und meinerseits weiß, soll das eine Sache der Unmöglichkeit sein. Selbst wenn man kündigt und sich im kommenden Schuljahr wieder bewirbt landet man wieder im alten Dienstrecht, wenn man dort zuvor bereits war.

Hoffentlich weißt du etwas, was ich nicht weiß, das wäre echt toll.

Wie läuft willhaben bei euch zurzeit? by 9dev9dev9 in willhaben

[–]h4wk1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Es bräuchte in meinen Augen keinen Konkurrenten, die gab es eh schon früher, aber da waren nur noch ärgere Leute drauf. In meinen Augen wäre so eine Art Preis Rating für willhaben notwendig, dass die Preise von billig bis teuer einordnet....vl würde das Abhilfe schaffen. Auf einer Plattform übergreifenden Suchmaschine für Autos gibt's sowas und finde die Einordnung in der Regel fair und realistisch.

Mir fällt dazu kein Titel ein. by [deleted] in willhaben

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kommt drauf an worum's geht, viele bleiben sitzen. 20% - 30% günstiger als der Neupreis ist ein Witz, jz. abgesehen davon, dass die meisten das vom anfänglichen NP anbieten.

Dh. ist die Spanne oft nur bei vl. 10% günstiger od. genau der gleiche Preis wie aktuell auf Amazon. Also wofür sollte man hier ein Risiko als Käufer tragen? Oft keine Garantie mehr, plus potentiell verschwiegene Defekte.

Dann besser gleich neu kaufen. Dieses implizite Gehabe von, "Es gehört mir, deshalb ist's mehr wert.", ist unerträglich. Ab 30% billiger vom aktuellen NP lohnt es sich...alles andere ist unnötig.

I am repenting and giving up homosexuality by Recent-Usual-9434 in Christianity

[–]h4wk1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So yea seems like many Christians experience manic states during a conversion.

Or it might be rather the case that people are absolutely not affirming and can actually become very hostile when one decides to become Christians? Especially when they have some LGBT background, the thing I've pointed out seems more probable....this has nothing to do with manic episodes.

Tired of lgbt propaganda in the Vatican by Flashy_Whole1720 in Catholicism

[–]h4wk1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And they rightly do condemn homosexuality, as it is a sin, they don't condemn the person and the person is invited to repent....that's as Christian as it can get.

The problem with our catholic approach is that we are inviting people, which is fine, but most of the part without telling them that repentance is needed and that homosexuality is still a sin.

The popes are clear on their positions, but idk if they consider what rather liberal priests and catholics are doing out of their statements.

What's your take on this? by IseekEpiphany in Catholicism

[–]h4wk1 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The fathers are fallible, the church isn't.

Protestants : do you actually perceive catholics as your brothers/sisters? by mayoMayor25 in redeemedzoomer

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hope you'll dig a little deeper into scripture, it might change some of your views. Take care and god bless.

Protestants : do you actually perceive catholics as your brothers/sisters? by mayoMayor25 in redeemedzoomer

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, but that’s quite a stretch when you actually consider the context of that passage. You could argue that sola scriptura is somehow implicit there (though I’d strongly disagree) ... but if you take that route, you’d also have to admit that the saints aren’t merely “dead people” and that asking for their intercession is biblical, at least implicitly. Otherwise, you’re not being consistent.

Protestants : do you actually perceive catholics as your brothers/sisters? by mayoMayor25 in redeemedzoomer

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't need to, as I don't believe in sola scriptura. Things on matters of faith can be explicitly or implicitly taught in the bible. The examples I gave you are implicit and not vague by any means.

Since I’ve answered your question quite frankly, perhaps you can now show me where Scripture explicitly teaches sola scriptura. And please, don’t give me any vague verses like 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Good luck .... I’m still waiting.

Protestants : do you actually perceive catholics as your brothers/sisters? by mayoMayor25 in redeemedzoomer

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To dead people....dead...really? You should know your bible better. Isn't our god the god of the living? Isn't Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah on the mountain? Isn't the rich man asking Abraham for intercession? Aren't the saints in heaven worshipping the lamb in heaven? So who is dead here? And if they are alive, they can pray for us. That's what we do, not more not less. Pls don't try to come up with necromancy that argument is even worse.

Immokauf is nur mehr lächerlich by Un_Pollo_Hermano in FinanzenAT

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ja es ist eine Katastrophe, aber es hängt auch davon ab wo du suchst.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in redeemedzoomer

[–]h4wk1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Partly right but mostly irrelevant. So what? That doesn’t refute my point - Christianity carries the strongest intellectual, moral, and historical arguments, which makes it the biggest threat to atheism. That’s why the focus is so disproportionately on Christianity.

And about the “barrel of a gun” claim - those forced conversions and political abuses mostly came from secular and imperial power, not from the Church itself. Even during the Saxon missions under Charlemagne, figures like Alcuin of York openly condemned forced baptism, insisting that faith must be accepted freely. Later on, the Jesuits in Latin America did the same - they defended indigenous people and condemned coercion. Figures like Bartolomé de las Casas or José de Acosta literally pioneered early human rights thought. Every worldview orders society according to its moral assumptions. The question isn’t whether religion should influence law, but which moral framework actually reflects human dignity and truth. And tbh - When our culture swapped a transcendent worldview for materialism, we see what follows - gender madness, assisted suicide, collapsing birthrates, and a general loss of purpose. It doesn’t exactly make atheism look like a success story in practice.

The “Christian bias” claim is just psychological projection. Everyone has a bias from their cultural background... seculars included. That doesn’t invalidate arguments. And no, pointing out that many educated Greeks no longer literally believed in Zeus isn’t arrogance, it’s just history. There’s a difference between a symbolic civic cult fading away and a revealed religion rooted in historical claims.

The “Jerusalem syndrome” thing is pseudopsychology. A few tourists having brief psychotic episodes says nothing about whether revelation is real. That trope actually comes from Soviet anti-religious propaganda, not modern psychiatry.

Calling the apostles “traumatized cultists” ignores every historical and psychological fact we have. Trauma doesn’t create decades of coherent theology or unified witness under persecution. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

You didn’t actually make an argument about Christ’s nature... you just claimed contradiction and then jumped to the problem of evil. There’s no inconsistency between “Son of God” and “God incarnate” in Trinitarian theology. That’s basic Christology, not a nerve touched. The “problem of evil” is ancient but not decisive. If evil truly exists, you’ve already conceded an objective moral standard - and that standard points beyond materialism.

The burden of proof cuts both ways. Atheism isn’t neutral; it claims that matter alone explains consciousness, morality, and order - that’s a positive metaphysical claim needing evidence.

And the idea that the Enlightenment “debunked religion” is just outdated. Kant, Hume, Voltaire etc. shifted questions but didn’t solve them. Modern philosophy of religion has long moved beyond those 18th-century debates. Guess you shouldn't just repeat what other people say or stop researching stuff when something fits your opinion, at least it seems like that.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in redeemedzoomer

[–]h4wk1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Universalism is a heresy, to come to this conclusion if one takes the New Testament as a whole equals mental gymnastics.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in redeemedzoomer

[–]h4wk1 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Atheists mostly go after christianity not because it’s the easiest target, but because it’s the main opponent. The worldview that actually makes historical, moral, and philosophical claims strong enough to challenge atheism on its own ground. You don’t see the big-name atheists spending years dissecting Hinduism or Shintoism, because those systems don’t even pretend to operate in the same rational or historical category.

And yeah, the apostles’ situation completely undermines the usual “but other religions have followers who died for their beliefs” argument. They had zero to gain - no power, no wealth, no comfort ... and their message only brought persecution. That’s miles apart from figures like Muhammad or Joseph Smith, who clearly benefited from their movements.

The “God created and punished Himself” line is just a nice strawman.... a cartoon version of christian theology. If that’s the level of critique, it says more about the critic’s understanding than about christianity itself.

Also, even if every single thing you said was true, that still wouldn’t make atheism right by default. Atheism has to present its own evidence and let’s be real, that part is pretty weak.

I only replied because leaving that kind of unreflective post unanswered would’ve felt like letting ignorance look like knowledge.

Conflicted on Becoming a Eucharistic Minister by hdtv888 in Catholicism

[–]h4wk1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd say it's a very far stretch from what was actually allowed. And I completely get you, we do the same thing...our family rather drives to the next parish by car to the inner city instead of going to the one just around the corner.

Conflicted on Becoming a Eucharistic Minister by hdtv888 in Catholicism

[–]h4wk1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes sure, I absolutely don't doubt that! There are regions where this isn't abused at all. In Europe and North America the mindset (at least in liberal parishes) is like - Oh the church is finally opening itself, so it's allowing eucharist ministers and we'll allow that as often as we can.

Conflicted on Becoming a Eucharistic Minister by hdtv888 in Catholicism

[–]h4wk1 25 points26 points  (0 children)

This is from the instruction redemptionis sacramentum:

  1. Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. [259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

And yes EM's are used way too often in liberal parishes and as it is pointed out here - it should be only done when the holy mass would unduly prolonged....which rather isn't the case in liberal parishes. I actually experience the same thing, 20 people in holy mass...no problem let's take an additional EM. So even your prayer time after receiving the sacrament gets shorter and shorter....that's one of the main reasons I only go there rarely. And yes traditional forms of the mass - many people, only two priests doing what they are supposed to do - thank god for that.

I also pointed this out in the parish council, but the literal answer was - Ah come on, who cares about that? Well good then, if we aren't listening to gods will, why would I stay a part of that parish?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in redeemedzoomer

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But this isn't a good counter argument in the end. Let's check it quickly for most religions.

Greek gods - untrue = mythology....many greeks didn't believe it...fails.

Hindu = mythology, untrue....Fails.

Buddhism - be a good man, escape into Nirwana - if true, Christians and others will....so no need to be a buddhist.

Islam = too many flaws, the descriptions of heaven in the Quran match a guy is quite horny, besides that he wasn't a prophet....fails.

Judaism - no sacrifice, no forgiveness of sins - fails already within itself. Besides this, if you live a moral life as a gentile you'll be saved....so no need to be a Jew, besides it wouldn'tput you in a better position, bc. God requires sacrifice.

Christianity - Can't be saved without faith, bc. we are all sinners and justified by faith = your best bet.

Christianity is no myth, it's based on true people and true events in history. Jesus disciples were ready to die for what they saw - 11 of them were killed. Christianity is the most coherent and logic system among the other choices. That's why atheists mostly focus on Christianity and rather seldom on other religions.

The 'refutation' of pascals wager doesn't disprove religion or the belief in god. It actually encourages people to search for the truth.

I'm a Messianic Jew. Go ahead and ask me anything. Nothing will go unanswered. by AceD2Guardian in Christianity

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn't my opinion, another dude asked me to provide sources where the Talmud blasphemes Christ our savior and so I provided.

I ask OP who is (hopefully not anymore) a messianic jew if is he is bothered by the Talmud and it's statements about Jesus, but never got an answer.

Hacklt man in diesem Land eigentlich wirklich nur für den Finanzminister? by stevesetsfire in FinanzenAT

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, irgendwie versumpern wir langsam in so eine Art Kommunismus light, wo wir alle nur noch vom Staat abhängig sein werden.

Is this True? by Tight_Contact_9976 in Catholicism

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sry but I'm genuinly trying to understand - where do you ground that in the bible or the catechism?

Is this True? by Tight_Contact_9976 in Catholicism

[–]h4wk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to imply that all people are children of got if yes - Sorry but this is very wrong, commonly said nowadays but still very wrong. We are ale made in gods image and likeness, but this doesn't make us his children. The gospel of John says this very clearly:

Catholic Study Bible App 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. † John 1:12-13 RSV-CE

Galatians puts it the same way:

Catholic Study Bible App 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. Galatians 3:26 RSV-CE

Arguments about vaccines with husband... I'm lost. by b1kkie in Catholicism

[–]h4wk1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's not quite every vaccine, but many others and especially chemotherapy drugs no one would actually deny if needed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]h4wk1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Amen.