Let's see what we're looking at, dear Theophil:

Rights and Responsibilities:

I'm copying down the 2 paragraphs you noticed from this Heavenletter one at a time:

This is your inalienable right. Your inalienable right is to change your outlook. You don’t have to wait for your outlook to change of its own accord. Your outlook may be a sheep or an old cowhand. You can find other outlooks at no cost to yourself and a blessing to yourself and the whole wide world.

Theophil, I think the sentence before is off. I think it better reads as:

Your outlook may be like a sheep's or an old cowhand's.

[The expression, old cowhand, is famous from a Bing Crosby song. "I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande."]

The following sentence which you picked up on could also be clearer like this:

You can find other outlooks at no cost to yourself that will be a blessing to you and the whole wide world.

Now the other paragraph you had in mind:

Time for renovation, beloveds. You may well have been resting on your laurels for too long. How do you know it’s too long? When you don’t love your present outlook, that’s how you know it’s been too long, and now is the time to trade it in. Swap your usual take on life for a new take on life. Many years you turn in your car for a new one when you could keep it for transportation. Why would you keep an old broken-down outlook when you can only gain by turning it in? I ask you, beloveds, do the math. What do you have to lose? And what do you have to gain?

Again, there is something not quite right. Let's change it to this:

For many years you have traded in your car for a new one when you could have kept it for good transportation.

Do these work better now?

I'm a better Godwriter than proofreader!

This is a duplicate post trying to get rid of italics.

Gloria, I'm still seeing a problem with that second sentence/paragraph. The original read "Many years you turn in your car for a new one when you could keep it for transportation." I think Theophil partly was reacting to the extravagance of this sentence which is a peculiarly American extravagance, maybe not so much anymore.

I agree with the thought that it is extravagant to often buy a new car and turn in your old one when it is running well and can be used to drive to work or whatever, which is what "transportation" means. My car is 16 years old and I'm trying to make it last, no way I could buy a brand new one if my old one gave out. I have only bought one new car in my life.If I had to buy another one it would be a very well used car, what we in America call an old beater. New to me, but defintiely not brand new. I know that you, Gloria, don't even have a car.

So the drift of that sentence is a good, practical one and seems to agree with Theophil and me that it is better to make do with what you have as long as it works and not waste your money unnecessarily. But this doesn't fit with the rest of the paragraph.

The rest of the paragraph is talking about getting rid of old, worn out ways of thinking and seeing things, trading them in for new and better ways. In this context our sentence changes meaning completely and is saying that it is a good thing to often trade in your old car on a new one and you should do the same with your outlook.

This is really a problem and I think your revision of the sentence makes the problem even worse. I understand what God is getting at but the problem revolves around the word "transportation" and also the word "new". In America "transportation" means an old car that still runs well and is dependable, will get you to work or is good for the kids to drive. "New" means brand new with payments that a large number of people just can't afford.

But God is talking about old worn out outlooks that need to go to the junkpile and be replaced with brand new outlooks. This is not in any way an extravagance because it doesn't cost anything, as previously stated.

To support the rest of the paragraph, this sentence might well read "When your old car costs more to keep running than it is worth, you get rid of it and find a better one." This avoids the problems associated with both words but it doesn't keep any of the language of the original one. It is an extreme revision that I would not be comfortable with.

I don't think I have ever recommended this before, but it seems to me that the best way out of this would be to delete the sentence in question completely. I don't say that lightly. The problem isn't with God's thinking but how it got translated with way too many unforeseen problems in context.

Theophil, Charles, I see now I didn't quite listen to your question.

Many years you turn in your car for a new one when you could keep it for transportation.

I'm trying to get at the heart of it.

Would it be correct for me to say that if we changed many years to many times, this is not helpful? Of if we say: Many years in the past you turned in your old car for a new one when you could have kept the old car for transportation

I'm just missing something.. As I am seeing it, God is meaning: If you can trade in an old car for a new one, then why can't you change your views on life?

If we leave out Many years or Many times and in the past, then we could have: You have traded in an old car for a new one when you could have kept the old car...

How would you do it, Theophil? Please say.

God bless you for your caring. Your caring is very clear. Your caring, too, Charles!

Gloria and Theophil~ I still have my problem with the sentence. Gloria's paraphrase comes closest so far to what I see as the meaning:

"If you can trade in an old car for a new one, then why can't you change your views on life?"

The problem for me is that I CANT afford to trade in my old car for a new one, so the argument not only doesn't work for me, it makes me mad. It is elitist and peculiarly American from another era. I'm guessing many of our readers don't even have a car.

Part of the problem is that "new" in context of cars means brand new, not new to me. People around me here don't buy new cars, they buy the best used cars they can afford. Even if I could afford a new car, I wouldn't buy one because I would be regarded as wasteful and extravagant like summer people from out of state.

If Gloria's sentence was changed to read "If you can trade in an old car for a BETTER one, then why can't you change your views on life?" this would fix most of the problem for me and i could live with the rest. However it is a radical change in wording from the original which is why I thought it might be better just to delete the sentence.