Arguments – Obstacles on the way leading to eternal life

[PetriFB]

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/arguments.html

The purpose of the following lines is to contemplate those obstacles, which one may encounter on the way leading to eternal life and why some people don't turn to God so easily. The purpose is to deliberate especially over those outlooks and thoughts, which lie in the minds of many people and make them negative toward spiritual matters and God's call; in other words reasons, why they turn their backs on God's salvation and grace.

So, when we start searching for reasons and obstacles, why these people don't turn to God and on what grounds, especially the following points are relevant. They appear again and again in the lives of many people and are a reason for why spiritual matters and God's call are neglected by them.

[Tricky]

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/arguments.html

The purpose of the following lines is to contemplate those obstacles, which one may encounter on the way leading to eternal life and why some people don't turn to God so easily. The purpose is to deliberate especially over those outlooks and thoughts, which lie in the minds of many people and make them negative toward spiritual matters and God's call; in other words reasons, why they turn their backs on God's salvation and grace.

So, when we start searching for reasons and obstacles, why these people don't turn to God and on what grounds, especially the following points are relevant. They appear again and again in the lives of many people and are a reason for why spiritual matters and God's call are neglected by them.
What an example of smug, self-satisfied ego-stroking that link is. The very first "obstacle" to eternal life is what? Did I get that right? "Lack of thinking???!!" When so few Christians can give coherent answers to basic questions about their religion, it is the nonbelievers who aren't thinking?

If anything, nonbelievers, at least those raised in a country steeped in religion like the US, have thought more about religion than those who simply absorb the culture into which they were raised.

And they close this initial argument by a thoughtful and penetrating look at their own religion, of course. Get real. They quote half a dozen Bible verses, the hallmark of someone who is letting someone else do their thinking for them.

The next obstacle? Scientific thinking. Apparently scientists don't realize that science is based on faith, just like Christianity. And they cry that science is "calling Jesus a liar", which of course is totally hogwash. Then follows a bunch of other verses, some comparing scientists to those nasty old Ephesians, a group of Jews who had the audacity to ask if what the scriptures said was true. Of course, at no point do they make anything other than straw men as to what science actually does.

Then they complain that an obstacle is that people find things wrong with the church. Well duh. Yet this part never seems to address any of the actual things wrong with the church other than to say "yeah, yeah, we made some mistakes." Instead, it cites a lot of bible verses. This part has almost no independent input. I guess one of the obstacles to heaven is that there are not enough biblical passages cited these days.

The next problem? Evil in the world. Now the so-called theodicy problem has been discussed at great length here, but this lazy piece of evangelism produces nothing significant on the subject. Where did evil come from? Read your Bibles you sluggards, its ADAM'S FAULT! The point that Adam (according to the Bible) didn't create evil but merely let it in while God was so busy that He wasn't paying attention to the only two human beings on earth, seems to escape these geniuses. Oh, and some more Bible verses.

The next problem is Damnation. Why does God do it? The short answer is, "because they deserve it". All those murderers, rapists etc. deserve it, right? Wrong. Nobody gets damned except non-Christians, no matter how bad they've been. Sheesh. And Christians wonder why people find this an "obstacle".

The last section is "A call to new life", which isn't actually about obstacles. It's just a bit more preaching with not a single thing original, interesting, thoughtful or challenging. Oh, and some Bible verses. Go figure.

[Lothian]

I think death is the major obstacle.

[PetriFB]

What an example of smug, self-satisfied ego-stroking that link is. The very first "obstacle" to eternal life is what? Did I get that right? "Lack of thinking???!!" When so few Christians can give coherent answers to basic questions about their religion, it is the nonbelievers who aren't thinking?

If anything, nonbelievers, at least those raised in a country steeped in religion like the US, have thought more about religion than those who simply absorb the culture into which they were raised.

And they close this initial argument by a thoughtful and penetrating look at their own religion, of course. Get real. They quote half a dozen Bible verses, the hallmark of someone who is letting someone else do their thinking for them.

The next obstacle? Scientific thinking. Apparently scientists don't realize that science is based on faith, just like Christianity. And they cry that science is "calling Jesus a liar", which of course is totally hogwash. Then follows a bunch of other verses, some comparing scientists to those nasty old Ephesians, a group of Jews who had the audacity to ask if what the scriptures said was true. Of course, at no point do they make anything other than straw men as to what science actually does.

Then they complain that an obstacle is that people find things wrong with the church. Well duh. Yet this part never seems to address any of the actual things wrong with the church other than to say "yeah, yeah, we made some mistakes." Instead, it cites a lot of bible verses. This part has almost no independent input. I guess one of the obstacles to heaven is that there are not enough biblical passages cited these days.

The next problem? Evil in the world. Now the so-called theodicy problem has been discussed at great length here, but this lazy piece of evangelism produces nothing significant on the subject. Where did evil come from? Read your Bibles you sluggards, its ADAM'S FAULT! The point that Adam (according to the Bible) didn't create evil but merely let it in while God was so busy that He wasn't paying attention to the only two human beings on earth, seems to escape these geniuses. Oh, and some more Bible verses.

The next problem is Damnation. Why does God do it? The short answer is, "because they deserve it". All those murderers, rapists etc. deserve it, right? Wrong. Nobody gets damned except non-Christians, no matter how bad they've been. Sheesh. And Christians wonder why people find this an "obstacle".

The last section is "A call to new life", which isn't actually about obstacles. It's just a bit more preaching with not a single thing original, interesting, thoughtful or challenging. Oh, and some Bible verses. Go figure.


Jari Iivanainen has wrote that article and it is very good and shows things, which prevents people from seeing the truth .......

[Mojo]

The point that Adam (according to the Bible) didn't create evil but merely let it in while God was so busy that He wasn't paying attention to the only two human beings on earth, seems to escape these geniuses. I other words, according to the Bible, an omnipresent and omniscient being didn't know what was going on.

Er...

[Mojo]

Jari Iivanainen has wrote that article and it is very good and shows things, which prevents people from seeing the truth .......Well, it certainly seems to be the intention of the article to prevent people seeing the truth, but I'm suprised that you have chosen to say so.

[Tricky]

Jari Iivanainen has wrote that article and it is very good and shows things, which prevents people from seeing the truth .......
No, it doesn't. It is someone quoting a bunch of Bible verses and ignoring the questions it purports to answer, just as you have done with this post. Do you want to actually address some of the points I made?

[PetriFB]

Well, it certainly seems to be the intention of the article to prevent people seeing the truth, but I'm suprised that you have chosen to say so.

Ok... lol ...........:) I see that things which are written in article shows what are hindrances in the life of the people that they can't see the truth ......

[Tricky]

Ok... lol ...........:) I see that things which are written in article shows what are hindrances in the life of the people that they can't see the truth ......
You mean like blind adherance to a religion that they've been taught since birth? Yep. That's a big obstacle. And people don't seek it out either. It is often the first thing they see when they open their eyes. Only a very few ever get around that obstacle. Most of them just decide they like the view.

[Meffy]

Re: The view: It's true that Episcopalians do get really nice trappings. Most of the goodies of Catholicism without the really heavy work.

[PetriFB]

You mean like blind adherance to a religion that they've been taught since birth? Yep. That's a big obstacle. And people don't seek it out either. It is often the first thing they see when they open their eyes. Only a very few ever get around that obstacle. Most of them just decide they like the view.

Born of the real faith don't come by inheritance of family, but it comes through personal repentace..and by that way it is something, which you experience self ..and it last ...........

[JamesDillon]

Born of the real faith don't come by inheritance of family, but it comes through personal repentace..and by that way it is something, which you experience self ..and it last ...........
You do realize that "adherence" and "inheritance" are different words with entirely unrelated meanings, don't you?

[Jimbo07]

You do realize that "adherence" and "inheritance" are different words with entirely unrelated meanings, don't you?

I'll give you a dollar to a donut that there's a language barrier here...

[PetriFB]

You do realize that "adherence" and "inheritance" are different words with entirely unrelated meanings, don't you?

Yes I understood, but still my reply is valid ...

[slingblade]

Yes I understood, but still my reply is valid ...

Is it? What is its form? Validity relates to form, not to content. Soundness relates to content.

An argument can be based fully on lies, and yet still be valid.

[Tricky]

Re: The view: It's true that Episcopalians do get really nice trappings. Most of the goodies of Catholicism without the really heavy work.
Yep. Catholic Light: All the ceremony with half the guilt.

[CapelDodger]

I think death is the major obstacle.
In the bigger picture, heat-death of the universe.

[PetriFB]

Is it? What is its form? Validity relates to form, not to content. Soundness relates to content.

An argument can be based fully on lies, and yet still be valid.

I agree what Jari has written in his article .....and so my reply is valid ......

[Tricky]

I agree what Jari has written in his article .....and so my reply is valid ......
Do you have any opinions of your own?

[PetriFB]

Do you have any opinions of your own?

Yes I have, but if somebody like Jari writes things, which are truthful and accordance with word of God... so I must agree with Him ...

You don't have to, but if you wanna check that can I think by myself .. (lol), you can check it from here:

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/BibleiswordofGod

It is my article ...........

[Tricky]

Born of the real faith don't come by inheritance of family, but it comes through personal repentace..and by that way it is something, which you experience self ..and it last ...........
And yet, most people choose the religion of their parents. Very few bother to search for truth among the various religions of the world, Mrs. Marmaduke Moore notwithstanding.*

Why do you suppose that is? Is it perhaps because the church starts indoctrinating you from even before you can speak? After all, many are baptized and assigned godparents and such when they are just infants. Then while their parents are off in church, they are placed in Sunday School where they are fed a steady stream of religious propaganda. It is so easy to mold the minds of children.

Yes, many people either reject or, more frequently, neglect their first religion at some point, but more often than not, if they come back, they come back home where things are comfortable.

So it really takes a lot of thought to overcome this obstacle or bias that is installed at an early age. Many, maybe most, never do. They see something that fits in with their already-formed beliefs (like the musings of Jari Iivanainen) and they are primed to receive them without even so much as adding their own take on them, just as you have done, Petri.

For former Christians like me, there was no obstacle to belief. There were obstacles to escaping the propaganda. And I am still accosted by people who wish to innundate me with that religion. It is everywhere in my society, from bumper stickers to billboards to television. Religion is everywhere. There are no obstacles to accepting it. There are obstacles to avoiding it.

*
The Seven Spiritual Ages of Mrs. Marmaduke Moore
by Ogden Nash

Mrs. Marmaduke Moore, at the age of ten(Her name was Jemima Jevons then),
Was the quaintest of little country maids.
Her pigtails slapped on her shoulderblades ;
She fed the chickens, and told the truth
And could spit like a boy through a broken tooth.
She could climb a tree to the topmost perch,
And she used to pray in the Methodist church.

At the age of twenty her heart was pure,
And she caught the fancy of Mr. Moore.
He broke his troth (to a girl named Alice),
And carried her off to his city palace,
Where she soon forgot her childhood piety
And joined the orgies of high society.
Her voice grew English, or , say, Australian,
And she studied to be an Episcopalian.

At thirty our lives are still before us,
But Mr. Moore had a friend in the chorus.
Connubial bliss was overthrown
And Mrs. Moore now slumbered alone.
Hers was a nature that craved affection;
She gave herself up to introspection;
Then finding theosophy rather dry,
Found peace in the sweet Bahai and Bahai.

Forty! and still an abandoned wife,
She felt old urges stirring to life,
She dipped her locks in a bowl of henna
And booked a passage through to Vienna.
She paid a professor a huge emolument
To demonstrate what his ponderous volumes meant.
Returning she preached to the unemployed
The gospel according to St. Freud.

Fifty! she haunted museums and galleries,
And pleased young men by augmenting their salaries .
Oh, it shouldn't occur, but it does occur,
That poets are made by fools like her.
Her salon was full of frangipani,
Roumanian, Russian and Hindustani,
And she conquered par as well as bogey
By reading a book and going Yogi.
Sixty! and time was on her hands----

Maybe remorse and maybe glands.
She felt a need for free confession
To publish each youthful indiscretion,
And before she was gathered to her mothers,
To compare her sinlets with those of others,
Mrs. Moore gave a joyous whoop,
And immersed herself in the Oxford group.

That is the story of Mrs. Moore,
As far as it goes. But of this I'm sure ---
When seventy stares her in the face
She'll have found some other state of grace.
Mohammed may be her lord and master,
Or Zeus, or Mithros, or Zoroaster,
For when a lady is badly sexed
God knows what God is coming next.

[slingblade]

I agree what Jari has written in his article .....and so my reply is valid ......

What is its form?

If P, then Q; P, therefore Q. Valid form, valid argument. Can still be false, however, due to content of P or Q or both, and so not sound.

If P, then Q; Q, therefore P. Invalid. Can still be true, depending on content, and so sound, but not valid.

Is it one of these you're arguing, or some other?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The purpose of the following lines is to contemplate those obstacles, which one may encounter on the way leading to eternal life and why some people don't turn to God so easily. The purpose is to deliberate especially over those outlooks and thoughts, which lie in the minds of many people and make them negative toward spiritual matters and God's call; in other words reasons, why they turn their backs on God's salvation and grace.
Tell God he needs to call out a little louder. Or perhaps it was a telephone call and He has the wrong number.

~~ Paul

[Almo]

:Banane01: Go Tricky! We're all cheering for you! :Banane01:

[Meffy]

"... and there will be wailing and nashing of ogden..."

[Foster Zygote]

Well, I've finally done it. I've made a genuine, open minded examination of the religion issue and I must tell you all that I have found the ~TRUTH~. God is real and we must acknowledge him. His name is Hanuman the Monkey God and he will fling poop in the eyes of those who deny him. All other gods (even Rama) are false as only Hanuman provides ~TRUTH~. You cannot deny the logic of this statement. Stop worshiping the false prophets like Abraham, Jesus and Mohamed and give your lives to the Monkey God. Give up science and start thinking. You will see it is the only logical thing. You know that all the other gods are ridiculous shams, mere superstition, but Hanuman is undeniably real.

Steven

[Meffy]

@FZ: Hammy will be overjoyed.

Well.

Underjoyed maybe. But joyed in some degree.

[kurious_kathy]

Do you have any opinions of your own?
Gee where have I heard that line before? Anyways I always have an opinion. Some people wish I would just keep it to myself, but I just can't so don't ask.

I definitely believe what God's Word says about it. The obsticle is ignorance. Even God tells us His people perish for lack of wisdom so when are we going to turn to Him for the answers. Faith again comes by hearing the truth. Spiritual maters and matters of the heart are a reality.

[Tricky]

"... and there will be wailing and nashing of ogden..."
http://cache.tias.com/stores/whimzytreasures/pictures/850blpca.jpg
http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/AmericanMotors/1951Nash-Rambler-Conv-1.jpg

[Tricky]

Gee where have I heard that line before? Anyways I always have an opinion. Some people wish I would just keep it to myself, but I just can't so don't ask.
It doesn't appear that way to me. It appears that you simply repeat what you have been told. Nobody here has asked you to keep your opinion to yourself. Indeed you have experessed it often. Yet it is so obviously a memorized thing, that it is hard to say whether or not it is an opinion or a recording. You haven't read the Bible, yet you pretend to know it. You cannot discuss the meaning of the most simple of scripture.

Why do you think you have heard that line so often before?

I definitely believe what God's Word says about it. The obsticle is ignorance. Even God tells us His people perish for lack of wisdom so when are we going to turn to Him for the answers. Faith again comes by hearing the truth. Spiritual maters and matters of the heart are a reality.
And yet you are among the most ignorant. Most people here know more about the Bible than you. You don't even know what God's Word is, because when we give you examples of it, you deny them. Remove the plank from your own eye, Kathy. (Do you know what Bible verse that is from?)

[Meffy]

Pssst: Careful, I think Tricky's trying to trick you with a trick question. The quotation's really from a science fiction novel by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. (On the other hand, maybe he's sincere. [But on the gripping hand, maybe he's both sincere and tricky. *three-armed shrug*])

P.S.: I might be tricky too, but not Tricky. And I might be both sincere and small-t tricky. Go figure.

[Wowbagger]

You insensitive clods!
I can't believe you guys are talking about "obstacles" to an eternal life!

What about me, huh?!!

What about my obstacles leading to a permanent death!!

If you really want to live forever, just go get some stupid rubber bands, and a liquid lunch, and throw yourself into hyperactive accelerator!!!

...of course, you could end up looking very silly in the process, but still...

[Foster Zygote]

You insensitive clods!
I can't believe you guys are talking about "obstacles" to an eternal life!

What about me, huh?!!

What about my obstacles leading to a permanent death!!

If you really want to live forever, just go get some stupid rubber bands, and a liquid lunch, and throw yourself into hyperactive accelerator!!!

...of course, you could end up looking very silly in the process, but still...

Or dead. Or both.

Steven

[Tricky]

You insensitive clods!
I can't believe you guys are talking about "obstacles" to an eternal life!

What about me, huh?!!

What about my obstacles leading to a permanent death!!

If you really want to live forever, just go get some stupid rubber bands, and a liquid lunch, and throw yourself into hyperactive accelerator!!!

...of course, you could end up looking very silly in the process, but still...
Wowbagger, stop all this talk about death. What you need is love. No, I'm not talking about God's love, I'm talking about hot, lotion-rubbing, tonsil-tickeling, groin-grabbing love. Perhaps you just haven't found the right woman, but I have good news for you. Her name is Elpheba, AKA, the Wicked Witch of the West. But if you go to see the musical Wicked (http://www.wickedthemusical.com/index.htm), you will find that she has a heart of gold. Not her skin though. That's green. She's perfect for you. (She sings real good too.)
http://www.wickedthemusical.com/gallery/stage/images/01.jpg

[Mojo]

Or dead. Or both.Usually both.

[Beerina]

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/arguments.html

The purpose of the following lines is to contemplate those obstacles, which one may encounter on the way leading to eternal life and why some people don't turn to God so easily.

I'm confused why someone would turn to a creature who put you into a horrific situation, who wants you to jump through illogical hoops in order to get out of it?

Is such a creature deserving of worship?


in other words reasons, why they turn their backs on God's salvation and grace.

Why would you jump through the hoop of this buffoon? Is a creature who would do what you are saying deserving of worhsip?

[Beerina]

Re: The view: It's true that Episcopalians do get really nice trappings. Most of the goodies of Catholicism without the really heavy work.

Yes, except you forget they're going to Hell because they don't dot the i's and cross the t's properly. Yahweh will resurrect them with indestructible bodies, then heave them into molton rock and sulfur, where they will lie in indescribable agony for all eternity, praise His kind and good Soul.

[Meffy]

Golly! Glad I have no religion at all. That stuff's seriously rocky.

[Wowbagger]

Or dead. Or both.

Steven
I was hoping no one would find out about the "dead" possability.

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger, stop all this talk about death. What you need is love. No, I'm not talking about God's love, I'm talking about hot, lotion-rubbing, tonsil-tickeling, groin-grabbing love. I get plenty of that, already, thank you very much. They don't call me "Wow! Bagger" for nothing, you know!

Perhaps you just haven't found the right woman, but I have good news for you. Her name is Elpheba, AKA, the Wicked Witch of the West. But if you go to see the musical Wicked (http://www.wickedthemusical.com/index.htm), you will find that she has a heart of gold. Not her skin though. That's green. She's perfect for you. (She sings real good too.)
I've already seen Wicked, and you're right: Elphie is awesome, at least in that play! (I was lucky enough to catch it with Idina Menzel in the role, too, which helps a bit.)

I also read the original novel. She's not so cool in the book. It does not happen often that a play is better than the novel it is based on, but in this case, it is.

[Tricky]

I get plenty of that, already, thank you very much. They don't call me "Wow! Bagger" for nothing, you know!
Doesn't mean anything to me. It could just be that you have an abnormally large scrotum.
I've already seen Wicked, and you're right: Elphie is awesome, at least in that play! (I was lucky enough to catch it with Idina Menzel in the role, too, which helps a bit.)
I'm jealous. I've only heard it, but I'm feeling wicked about Idina. Those are some serious pipes. 'Course she played Maureen in "Rent" too, so I wasn't completely unaware of her. Can you tell I'm a B'way fan?
I also read the original novel. She's not so cool in the book. It does not happen often that a play is better than the novel it is based on, but in this case, it is.Haven't read the book (yet) but in most cases, character development is the first thing that goes out the window when you cut it down to two hours. You really think the musical is better? That really is unusual.

But I'm guessing this should be in the "entertainment" forum. I'm afraid I'm providing an obstacle to the discussion here. Now where were we. Oh yeah.

I say faith is an obstacle to truth because it orders you not to try and find out if your faith is justified.

[Wowbagger]

Doesn't mean anything to me. It could just be that you have an abnormally large scrotum. It's not the size of the ship, it's the float of the boat, buddy.

One obstacle to an eternal life, is that you guys are too obsessed with a filthy mind, to put any real work into the science of immortality. (Of course, I'm just saying that to be relevant to the thread.)

I'm jealous. I've only heard it, but I'm feeling wicked about Idina. Those are some serious pipes. Seriously, when she's in the air, singing out "and no one's ever going to bring me down!", the whole audience just gets blown backward!

Haven't read the book (yet) but in most cases, character development is the first thing that goes out the window when you cut it down to two hours. You really think the musical is better? That really is unusual. Her character is more developed in the book, but quite different: she actually becomes really "spooky wicked", not as "half-sarcastic wicked" as the play. Her sister, Nessarose is really much more developed in the novel, also: it explains concretely how she obtained her own wicked reputation (hint: it has to do with religious zealously). Nessa is one of the principal reasons I read the book. The play really didn't explain why she was "denying the munchkins their rights", at all.

But, the key reason I didn't like the book is that it is just plain too nasty, in more adult-oriented ways. (Don't let children read it!) And the ending was crapier than the play's too.

Perhaps one way ya'll can get immortality, would be to become really, really famous: Your physical body may not live on forever, but your reputation might. At least it worked for Plato.
(I'm just keeping it relevant again. I'm too lazy to get into the Entertainment section, right now.)

[Scott Haley]

The New Testament makes it sound like "eternal life" is something that not everyone gets. Modern Christian theology says that EVERYONE gets eternal life, eternal bliss in heaven, or eternal torment in hell. At least one Protestant sect teaches Destruction, the idea that sinners are burned up in hell and live no more, but more mainstream churches say that's heresy. So, PetriFB, tell me, what do you mean exactly this "eternal life" that there are obstacles to?

[Tricky]

It's not the size of the ship, it's the float of the boat, buddy. I'm still unclear on the concept. Are you saying that when you take a bath, your yarblets float to the surface? I thought that was just an aspect of growing older.

Good wicked stuff, but I'll avoid further derail. Maybe start a thread in Entertainment.
(***ETA. I've started the thread.)


One obstacle to an eternal life, is that you guys are too obsessed with a filthy mind, to put any real work into the science of immortality. (Of course, I'm just saying that to be relevant to the thread.)Perhaps one way ya'll can get immortality, would be to become really, really famous: Your physical body may not live on forever, but your reputation might. At least it worked for Plato.
It worked for Edgar Lee Masters (http://www.bartleby.com/84/226.html)too.
Listen to me, ye who live in the senses
And think through the senses only:
Immortality is not a gift,
Immortality is an achievement;
And only those who strive mightily
Shall possess it.
And here we diverge into the concept of memes (I seem determined to derail this thread), which are to ideas what genes are to physical traits. If you got strong memes, they will be "naturally selected." Shakespeare had great memes.

So that would make it seem that the biggest obstacles to immortality are stupidity and failure to communicate.

[kurious_kathy]

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/arguments.html

The purpose of the following lines is to contemplate those obstacles, which one may encounter on the way leading to eternal life and why some people don't turn to God so easily. The purpose is to deliberate especially over those outlooks and thoughts, which lie in the minds of many people and make them negative toward spiritual matters and God's call; in other words reasons, why they turn their backs on God's salvation and grace.

So, when we start searching for reasons and obstacles, why these people don't turn to God and on what grounds, especially the following points are relevant. They appear again and again in the lives of many people and are a reason for why spiritual matters and God's call are neglected by them.
Perhaps it's because most people either deny God or want God on their own terms. I learned it the hard way that there is only one road to heaven but most people are still questioning that if they question eternity at all.

Here's another e-tract that I found on the ATS website called,
"Do All Roads Lead To God?"
https://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/atsdirect.storefront/44bfb1f1011b518b271e45579e7c06c1/Product/View/30495

[Wowbagger]

I'm still unclear on the concept. Are you saying that when you take a bath, your yarblets float to the surface? I thought that was just an aspect of growing older.
Please. I'm not even going to respond to such amateurish comments anymore. Get a life!

But, I will take a gander at your Wicked thread, though.

[PetriFB]

And yet, most people choose the religion of their parents. Very few bother to search for truth among the various religions of the world, Mrs. Marmaduke Moore notwithstanding.*

Why do you suppose that is? Is it perhaps because the church starts indoctrinating you from even before you can speak? After all, many are baptized and assigned godparents and such when they are just infants. Then while their parents are off in church, they are placed in Sunday School where they are fed a steady stream of religious propaganda. It is so easy to mold the minds of children.

Yes, many people either reject or, more frequently, neglect their first religion at some point, but more often than not, if they come back, they come back home where things are comfortable.

So it really takes a lot of thought to overcome this obstacle or bias that is installed at an early age. Many, maybe most, never do. They see something that fits in with their already-formed beliefs (like the musings of Jari Iivanainen) and they are primed to receive them without even so much as adding their own take on them, just as you have done, Petri.

For former Christians like me, there was no obstacle to belief. There were obstacles to escaping the propaganda. And I am still accosted by people who wish to innundate me with that religion. It is everywhere in my society, from bumper stickers to billboards to television. Religion is everywhere. There are no obstacles to accepting it. There are obstacles to avoiding it.

*[/LEFT]


Man who hasn't born again from the Spirit of God, can't separate difference between religion and personal faith to God. Those two things are totally two different things!

[Tricky]

Man who hasn't born again from the Spirit of God, can't separate difference between religion and personal faith to God. Those two things are totally two different things!
We speak of "religion" in many ways. Of course, a person's personal religion differs either slightly or a great deal from the teachings of whatever religion(s) he was taught, but not so much as to make it indistinguishable. Though I'm not sure of the exact nature of your personal faith, I feel relatively certain that you (Petri) would call yourself a Christian. Am I correct in that?

So when I say a person "chooses the religion of their parents", I mean the major designations, not that their way of thinking is identical to that of their parents. Were you raised in Christian surroundings?

[PetriFB]

We speak of "religion" in many ways. Of course, a person's personal religion differs either slightly or a great deal from the teachings of whatever religion(s) he was taught, but not so much as to make it indistinguishable. Though I'm not sure of the exact nature of your personal faith, I feel relatively certain that you (Petri) would call yourself a Christian. Am I correct in that?

So when I say a person "chooses the religion of their parents", I mean the major designations, not that their way of thinking is identical to that of their parents. Were you raised in Christian surroundings?

I call myself for disciple of Jesus Christ .... My mother and father were not believers, when I was a child.......so I haven't grow up in Christian atmosphere ......

[sphenisc]

Then follows a bunch of other verses, some comparing scientists to those nasty old Ephesians, a group of Jews who had the audacity to ask if what the scriptures said was true. Of course, at no point do they make anything other than straw men as to what science actually does.

As Ephesus is in modern-day Turkey, and they worshipped the goddess Artemis, I suspect that the Ephesians weren't Jews.

[Kopji]

Yes I have, but if somebody like Jari writes things, which are truthful and accordance with word of God... so I must agree with Him ...

You don't have to, but if you wanna check that can I think by myself .. (lol), you can check it from here:

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/BibleiswordofGod

It is my article ...........

Hi PetriFB,
One of our obstacles is your reasoning. Your article is perhaps a good example of why we are not quite as convinced as you are, yet is a 'top 1000' Christian site. If I may quote you:

...Translation of the Bible is not a problem, because all texts can always be translated into some other language. Most translations of the Bible are extremely accurate. The message of the word of God is intended to be preached to the whole world. That's why it is translated extremely accurately into every language. But there exist also so called liberal translations, which are not as accurate in many places.

A translation of the Bible is not a replacement for the original text, because a copy is always a copy. But the translation doesn’t prevent the Bible from being the word of God. For example, translations of the old King James Bible and James (Jay) P. Green’s literal translation are really close translations to the original text.
You assert that early translations accurately reflect what God expressed, and then go on to make judgments about other translations. But what is your basis for establishing the truth of the earlier translation? So you are using a lot of words to say something like:
The Bible is the word of God. Since the Bible is the word of God it must be true.

I do hope you can see why many of us are not convinced by your reasoning, and use this polite criticism to improve your message to unbelievers.

You can assert that a copy is always a copy, and yet still assert that the Bible might have earlier versions yet to be discovered. So we have at best a translation of an earlier translation. Nowhere is there any evidence that ANY translation you have is based on what God originally expressed, even if we granted that a God did exist, and this God desired to express something to us.

[PetriFB]

Hi PetriFB,
One of our obstacles is your reasoning. Your article is perhaps a good example of why we are not quite as convinced as you are, yet is a 'top 1000' Christian site. If I may quote you:

You assert that early translations accurately reflect what God expressed, and then go on to make judgments about other translations. But what is your basis for establishing the truth of the earlier translation? So you are using a lot of words to say something like:
The Bible is the word of God. Since the Bible is the word of God it must be true.

I do hope you can see why many of us are not convinced by your reasoning, and use this polite criticism to improve your message to unbelievers.

You can assert that a copy is always a copy, and yet still assert that the Bible might have earlier versions yet to be discovered. So we have at best a translation of an earlier translation. Nowhere is there any evidence that ANY translation you have is based on what God originally expressed, even if we granted that a God did exist, and this God desired to express something to us.

Thanks about your feedback .......

[Dave1001]

I think death is the major obstacle.

Amen. Religions may get in the way of solving it with technology. An opiate for the masses so to speak.

[Silly Green Monkey]

No language translates exactly into another language word for word, concept for concept. Translators have to find the words they think most closely matches the meaning of the concept they are trying to translate.

When languages have many shades of meaning, the translated result will have the fingerprints of the translator all over it.

[Foster Zygote]

No language translates exactly into another language word for word, concept for concept. Translators have to find the words they think most closely matches the meaning of the concept they are trying to translate.

When languages have many shades of meaning, the translated result will have the fingerprints of the translator all over it.

As Bart Ehrman said "Reading the New Testament in Greek is like color TV as opposed to English which is like black and white".

Steven

[stamenflicker]

Jeez where have I been?

I've been missing all the great entertainment in this thread. RANDI should be charging admission here.

[Tricky]

No language translates exactly into another language word for word, concept for concept. Translators have to find the words they think most closely matches the meaning of the concept they are trying to translate.

When languages have many shades of meaning, the translated result will have the fingerprints of the translator all over it.
Yep. Though, as usual, Ambrose Bierce (http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/i.html)said it best.
INTERPRETER, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.

[CapelDodger]

No language translates exactly into another language word for word, concept for concept. Translators have to find the words they think most closely matches the meaning of the concept they are trying to translate.

When languages have many shades of meaning, the translated result will have the fingerprints of the translator all over it.
Another problem is that culture and language evolve, so the same word or phrase can mean different things (or evoke different concepts) in different periods. Even if we could exactly translate the language of Bronze Age goatherds we don't have the same world-view. "This goat's bigger than that goat", OK, no problem there, but "This goat's cute, but that goat's really hot" will leave us floundering.

[sphenisc]

Another problem is that culture and language evolve, so the same word or phrase can mean different things (or evoke different concepts) in different periods. Even if we could exactly translate the language of Bronze Age goatherds we don't have the same world-view. "This goat's bigger than that goat", OK, no problem there, but "This goat's cute, but that goat's really hot" will leave us floundering.

The correct response is "You're lucky, if you'd chosen the third door you'd have only won a car." ;)

[Tricky]

Another problem is that culture and language evolve, so the same word or phrase can mean different things (or evoke different concepts) in different periods. Even if we could exactly translate the language of Bronze Age goatherds we don't have the same world-view. "This goat's bigger than that goat", OK, no problem there, but "This goat's cute, but that goat's really hot" will leave us floundering.
Yeah. If you want to see Christians get into a big argument with each other, ask a diverse group of them what they think it means when you say "Thou shalt not kill".