Most of the Christians that I have ever encountered have always tried to convert me to their faith.

Every time they do this they always seem to use the same terminology and quote the same passages from the bible at me and each time I tell them that the way they are going about this is the least likely approach to win me over.

If they really want to win people like me over (a pretty futile exercise) then they have to come up with a philosophy and interpretation that makes sense, but they never do.

I suppose the point that I am really trying to make is this. Are they really interested in my immortal soul or are they simply fulfilling their duty as a Christian.

Anyone in marketing will tell you that if an approach or campaign doesn't work then you change the campaign, but, from what I can gather, Christian always regurgitate the same nonsense and expect you to suddenly see the light and if you don't, well, that's your problem because they've done their bit.

(November 1, 2008 at 7:18 am)Darwinian Wrote: Most of the Christians that I have ever encountered have always tried to convert me to their faith.

Every time they do this they always seem to use the same terminology and quote the same passages from the bible at me and each time I tell them that the way they are going about this is the least likely approach to win me over.

If they really want to win people like me over (a pretty futile exercise) then they have to come up with a philosophy and interpretation that makes sense, but they never do.

I suppose the point that I am really trying to make is this. Are they really interested in my immortal soul or are they simply fulfilling their duty as a Christian.

Anyone in marketing will tell you that if an approach or campaign doesn't work then you change the campaign, but, from what I can gather, Christian always regurgitate the same nonsense and expect you to suddenly see the light and if you don't, well, that's your problem because they've done their bit.

I agree, same old ways most of the time.
I think ts because even though the bible changes a bit when it is edited and re-edited the book pretty much stays the same. And so the methods for conversion stay pretty much the same.
With science however things do change a lot over time and more importantly, they progress all the time. Sure they take a step back sometimes but that's part of progress, people make mistakes even brilliant scientists of course and if they were afraid to make mistakes all the time then things certainly wouldn't progress as much.

BUZ receives a disability pension while collecting tax free cash in the hand, he would hope no-one will know this.

as the bible is edited and re-edited it get's further and further away from what Jesus would of said to his weak minded followers.

Take this passage for example and compare the 2 versions, they have changed the meaning in the new version to excuse Jesus's lack of knowledge about how the world will change and realise the old testament is primative and evil. The point I'm making is Jesus probably said a whole lot of wrong things that are now hidden and changed to sound like he could say or do no wrong, the religion is constantly being shaped, improved and moulded to what christians want to imagine.

(King James Version)
Matthew 5.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

(Contemporary English Version)
Matthew5.17 Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning.

Fullfill and full meaning in this passage give the text a completely different meaning one suggests he believed the old testament is 100% correct and the latter suggests he has came to change or improve the laws to fit in to todays world

Proof that christians change the meaning.

(November 1, 2008 at 7:18 am)Darwinian Wrote: Most of the Christians that I have ever encountered have always tried to convert me to their faith.

For the most part the JWs and the Mormons are the only ones who follow the example of Christ and his early disciples in going from door to door, so you must be referring to Christians you have encountered at work and online?

It is their desire to convert you much the same as the polititians want to convert you in a sense, but that isn't their prime objective. Instead they want to give you the good news for you to evaluate and accept or reject.

(November 1, 2008 at 7:18 am)Darwinian Wrote: Every time they do this they always seem to use the same terminology and quote the same passages from the bible at me and each time I tell them that the way they are going about this is the least likely approach to win me over.

With the implication that there is a right way about doing it?

(November 1, 2008 at 7:18 am)Darwinian Wrote: If they really want to win people like me over (a pretty futile exercise) then they have to come up with a philosophy and interpretation that makes sense, but they never do.

I am inclined to doubt that if I could provide you with this it would hasten your 'conversion' right along so lets put it to the test. Tell me one thing at a time that they say that doesn't make sense and we can take it from there - not for your conversion because I am not at all interested in that, but for the sake of testing your original supposition.

(November 1, 2008 at 7:18 am)Darwinian Wrote: I suppose the point that I am really trying to make is this. Are they really interested in my immortal soul or are they simply fulfilling their duty as a Christian.

I can't speak for them and I doubt that that is the point you are trying to make. The point you are trying to make is more likely that you just wish they would all shut up and leave you alone. Nevertheless, to answer your question 'are they really interested in your immortal soul' the answer is no. For two reasons; because 'your' soul isn't immortal (Ezekiel 18:4) and if they were interested enough to concern themselves with 'your' soul they would have bothered to look it up. Had they done so they would have seen that not only is 'your' soul not immortal but it isn't 'yours.' I can't remember what the second reason is ... anyway from there they could have investigated what the soul is - I will be posting information on that today which you can promptly ignore. Hmm, maybe that was the second reason, if you don't care about your soul than why should they?

(November 1, 2008 at 7:18 am)Darwinian Wrote: Anyone in marketing will tell you that if an approach or campaign doesn't work then you change the campaign, but, from what I can gather, Christian always regurgitate the same nonsense and expect you to suddenly see the light and if you don't, well, that's your problem because they've done their bit.

Well, sadly this is absolutely true, but on the other hand it actually has seemed to work, hasn't it. The campaign, I mean. Just not with you.

---

(November 1, 2008 at 7:53 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I agree, same old ways most of the time.
I think ts because even though the bible changes a bit when it is edited and re-edited the book pretty much stays the same. And so the methods for conversion stay pretty much the same.
With science however things do change a lot over time and more importantly, they progress all the time. Sure they take a step back sometimes but that's part of progress, people make mistakes even brilliant scientists of course and if they were afraid to make mistakes all the time then things certainly wouldn't progress as much.

Thousands of years ago science thought that the earth was a giant turtle resting upon the backs of four giant elephants. Later - quite recently in a relative manner of speaking - science said the planet Earth was flat.

Thousands of years ago the Bible said that the earth was spherical (sometimes translated circle, globe etc. from the Hebrew word chug also meaning spherical) and hanging upon nothing. (Job 26:7 / Isaiah 40:22)

Up until about 100 years ago medical science thought nothing of a doctor going directly from the morgue having been cutting open the dead to the birthing room to deliver a baby.

Thousands of years before that, when the surrounding people's idea of healing was to smear shit all over everything, the Bible gave strict sanitary laws that would have prevented not only the primitive fecal cure but the gross practice of medical science 100 years ago.

Perhaps the Bible seems so stationary while science seems in motion because science has a lot of catching up to do. The question is ... why? How did those primitive people get it so right so long before anyone else?

A few things spring to mind after reading your post.

Why is it not my soul?

Who says it's not immortal?

What is a soul and how does it differ from the self?

The whole concept of a soul is an interesting one. Perhaps, if such a thing exists, it is simply a holding place for the complex set of conditions that need to met in order for a person to be, well, a person. While we have a brain there is no need for a soul as our brain does a pretty good job at 'containing' the information that is us. But, when our brains stop working then this 'soul' takes over and continues the job.

How such a thing would come into existence in the first place I cannot tell. Perhaps it is a natural consequence of consciousness itself. Perhaps it is something that the Cosmos 'created' in it's earliest incarnation and the brain has simply evolved to accommodate this strange quantum entity. Then of course, when the brain dies, the soul (us) simply carries on as it has done since the beginning of time.

If this interpretation is close to the mark then the soul is in fact the person and is completely immortal and this life that we lead now is simply a tiny part of the 'life of a soul'

Also, this point of view gives people the concept of immortality without the need for religion, dogma, a creator or any of the other stuff that goes with it.

Hello, Darwinian,

You certainly have some interesting thoughts on what the soul is. The soul is not yours in the sense that according to the Bible which the Xians who you spoke of as trying to 'convert' you are supposed to be inspired by says that the soul is in a literal sense the blood and sacred. God given and returning to the ground when you die. That is why Ezekiel 18:4 says the soul dies and belongs to God.

In a more figurative sense the soul is yours in that the Bible also uses the application as being the life of an animal or person. But either way the soul isn't something that is a mystical part of you that is immortal and lives on after you die. That concept isn't according to Bible teachings but comes from pagan teachings and were introduced into Jewish thinking probably about the time of Alexander the Great and then later through the teachings of Plato and Socrates; Greek philosophy influenced the Xian thinking.

The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe both mean a person or animal or the life which the person or animal enjoys. In a basic literal sense the soul is the blood of any living creature and in a more figurative sense it is the life of or the person or animal itself.

The soul dies, it is mortal. It is not the same as the spirit, they (the spirit and the soul) are sometimes used in the same verse of the Bible with obvious use of the words indicating they are different.

Recently, when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, the editor-in-chief, H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word "soul" had been virtually eliminated from this translation because, "the Hebrew word in question here is 'Nefesh.'" He added: "Other translators have interpreted it to mean 'soul,' which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. 'Nefesh' is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being." - The New York Times, October 12, 1962.

"There is no dichotomy of body and soul in the O T. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepes [nephesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person . . . . The term psykhe is the N T word corresponding with nepes. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

"The Hebrew term for 'soul' (nefesh) was used by Moses . . . . signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psyche ('soul') was comparable to nefesh." - The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152.

"The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture." - The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

Aha, this comes then from me not understanding the proper definition of the word soul. Perhaps I should have used the term immortal spirit or self.

If, as you say, soul really means that physical life that our bodies possess then I agree that it is not immortal, although given enough time I'm sure I could come up with a theory which says it is

Anyway, thanks for that. I have certainly learned something today and will in future avoid using the word soul as there seem to be so many others that are just as accurate.

(November 1, 2008 at 5:39 pm)Darwinian Wrote: Aha, this comes then from me not understanding the proper definition of the word soul. Perhaps I should have used the term immortal spirit or self.

Well, the spirit isn't immortal either because it was never alive. The self obviously dies as well and didn't exist before birth. The spirit creatures (angels, seraphs, cherubs, and demons the later of which will be destroyed) in heaven as told by the Bible were all created except for the creator Jehovah God. So he would be the only real immortal spirit.

(November 1, 2008 at 5:39 pm)Darwinian Wrote: If, as you say, soul really means that physical life that our bodies possess then I agree that it is not immortal, although given enough time I'm sure I could come up with a theory which says it is

Sure. You wouldn't be the first.

(November 1, 2008 at 5:39 pm)Darwinian Wrote: Anyway, thanks for that. I have certainly learned something today and will in future avoid using the word soul as there seem to be so many others that are just as accurate.

Uh-huh.

(November 1, 2008 at 12:45 pm)Daystar Wrote: Thousands of years ago science thought that the earth was a giant turtle resting upon the backs of four giant elephants. Later - quite recently in a relative manner of speaking - science said the planet Earth was flat.

Yes but science progresses scientifically. Science is science. Religion isn't science and it doesn't progress scientifically. Intelligent design is pseudoscience. Its the whole 'God of the gaps' thing. Its rather silly really, just doesn't seem that way to some people. Doesn't even seem that way to some atheists. Atheists who still would like a belief in God and think the idea isn't silly but a good thing, they just don't believe it, they may think in truth its silly, but in goodness, not.. Atheists who believe in belief, for example. But obviously I am not one of those atheists
And this is the ignorance of religion I'm afraid.
Well thats what I think anyway.

(November 2, 2008 at 10:08 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Yes but science progresses scientifically. Science is science. Religion isn't science and it doesn't progress scientifically.

Well, saying that science is science means no more to me than saying religion is religion. I happen to think that they are both man made and subject to interpretation. Let me give you and example of Evidence from the Bible and faith in science.

No one can say for sure what color any dinosour's skin color is, but I can tell you with a great deal more confidence that Jesus Christ looked nothing like what he is generally thought to look like. (1 Corinthians 11:14-15)

(November 2, 2008 at 10:08 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: And this is the ignorance of religion I'm afraid.
Well thats what I think anyway.

The ignorance of religion, in my opinion, is when it is assumed that something is fact and becomes an exclusive pardigm. Religion is repeating the mistakes of history.

If you look at where religion was in the 'dark ages' (literal and figurative) you will see where science is headed. I see Science as science and yet 'science' has the potential to make the same mistakes. Personally, the thought of some underpaid teacher being prescribed some Biblical agenda makes me want to puke, that is old school and it didn't work. They tried to shove religion down the throats of children like they do with 'science' now and I have no doubt - with joy at the results history tells repeating itself.

Evolutionists are really surprisingly shortsighted. Watch Expelled and even a somewhat lame attempt is not surprisingly obvious. Look at the history of ALL religion and you see the same pattern. Look at Taoism. It started out as an attempt to escape the period of China's history known as the "Warring States Period." A simple approach to leave worldly politics and get back to nature. Then immortality - alchemists poisoning themselves with lead to acheive everlasting life - magic, Christianity and now they are a bunch of superstitious priests for hire to bless supermarkets!

Why? The same as Xianity with the emporer Constantine. It became the state religion. Science wants to be the next state religion and true science - just like true Taoism and Christianity will suffer greatly for it.

I'm so excited! Just as I am at the prospect of any and all religion falling into its own smug selfrighteous little grave.