Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Waratah]

You've seem more than willing to compound this arguement needlessly so I will simplify it by taking on one subject matter at a time.

Just pointing out your mistakes and lies, that is not needless. Also not my fault yours.

You are being intellectually dishonest. No where in the verses you showed says anything about a neighbour being someone who is close by. If that would be true then the robbers, priest and levite would be classified as neighbours, which is incorrect since only the one who showed mercy is classified as the neighbour. If you cannot admit your error here you are a liar.

The reason I used the word neighbor instead of friend. I was simply trying to simply the story here. There were three friends being mentioned in the parable. The one who came to see his friend for a long ways away. Friend 1 friend two was friends with both men he was the one looking for bread at midnight. Friend 3 was only friends with the guy looking for bread. I called hi. A neighbor because that separates him from friend one and identifies him as the guy with the bread with out further identifying friend 2.

Here the first answer to my quote, which is talking about your reasoning for the use of neighbour with the 'good samaritan parable', with how you want to distinguish between the friends. Come on drich intellectual dishonesty.

You should have read further of my post. here you go

Being dishonest again drich. where you use the term neighbour instead of friend. I say you are lying since you use the term for both the person wanting the bread and the one not want to give it. It is quite clear in this post that the reason you do not use the term friend is because one of my arguments relies on the fact that they are friends.

Well from now on let us agree that when jesus said “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say," that friend here stays as friend and not neighbour. This means that there was no seeking in the context of finding in the parable.

I have conceded the scriptures identify him as a friend.

Please show me where you did this or is this another lie?

That said I kept using the term neighbor as it still applies. Because Christ per the parable of the good sameritain identifies anyone that your in proximity with as your neighbor. Which means technically it is correct to call friend 1,2,3 neighbors.

Book chapter verse, because the verses you have showed me do not say that. Here are those verses.

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Is the above what you call 'good samaritan parable'?

Do you understand this? If yes also understand your use of the word friend in an arguement mean and has never meant anything to me as I use the terms interchangeably

I will not continue till you agree to put this issue to rest.

I do understand your excuses are lies as I have already stated in my last post which you have not addressed. You say my argument which relies on the term friend does not mean anything to you because you interchange the words show you misunderstanding of my argument and the meaning of the words.

So far in this post you have replied with the same bullshit which I dealt with in my last post. This post has been meaningless because you added nothing to the discussion. This is why the discussion stalls, your avoidance of the issues.

I will put this to rest once you have replied to my last post on the issue of your use of neighbour instead of friend. You will also have to admit your mistakes and/or lies in this matter for me to stop pointing out your mistakes and/or lies.

Ball in your court.

[BellaJS]

It isn't really fair to ask how god fits into evolution. He doesn't. Evolution also doesn't fit into creation...

[Drich]

It isn't really fair to ask how god fits into evolution. He doesn't. Evolution also doesn't fit into creation...

did you read my opening statement?

---

You've seem more than willing to compound this arguement needlessly so I will simplify it by taking on one subject matter at a time.

Just pointing out your mistakes and lies, that is not needless. Also not my fault yours.

The reason I used the word neighbor instead of friend. I was simply trying to simply the story here. There were three friends being mentioned in the parable. The one who came to see his friend for a long ways away. Friend 1 friend two was friends with both men he was the one looking for bread at midnight. Friend 3 was only friends with the guy looking for bread. I called hi. A neighbor because that separates him from friend one and identifies him as the guy with the bread with out further identifying friend 2.

Here the first answer to my quote, which is talking about your reasoning for the use of neighbour with the 'good samaritan parable', with how you want to distinguish between the friends. Come on drich intellectual dishonesty.

You should have read further of my post. here you go

Being dishonest again drich. where you use the term neighbour instead of friend. I say you are lying since you use the term for both the person wanting the bread and the one not want to give it. It is quite clear in this post that the reason you do not use the term friend is because one of my arguments relies on the fact that they are friends.

Well from now on let us agree that when jesus said “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say," that friend here stays as friend and not neighbour. This means that there was no seeking in the context of finding in the parable.

I have conceded the scriptures identify him as a friend.

Please show me where you did this or is this another lie?

That said I kept using the term neighbor as it still applies. Because Christ per the parable of the good sameritain identifies anyone that your in proximity with as your neighbor. Which means technically it is correct to call friend 1,2,3 neighbors.

Book chapter verse, because the verses you have showed me do not say that. Here are those verses.

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Is the above what you call 'good samaritan parable'?

Do you understand this? If yes also understand your use of the word friend in an arguement mean and has never meant anything to me as I use the terms interchangeably

I will not continue till you agree to put this issue to rest.

I do understand your excuses are lies as I have already stated in my last post which you have not addressed. You say my argument which relies on the term friend does not mean anything to you because you interchange the words show you misunderstanding of my argument and the meaning of the words.

So far in this post you have replied with the same bullshit which I dealt with in my last post. This post has been meaningless because you added nothing to the discussion. This is why the discussion stalls, your avoidance of the issues.

I will put this to rest once you have replied to my last post on the issue of your use of neighbour instead of friend. You will also have to admit your mistakes and/or lies in this matter for me to stop pointing out your mistakes and/or lies.

Ball in your court.

I've read this 3 times now, and I still do not see a viable argument on your part. I see attacks on my character, and intellectual dishonest paired with liar a dozen or so times, but nothing cohearent. Can you please calm down and maybe rephrase in such a way as to have some sort of point. All I get out of this is you think I am a liar but really can not see why or how you come to that conclusion.

The best I can figure is you do not understand that the term friend and neighbor can be used interchangeably...

For this you have called me intellectually dishonest and a liar many many times. You just seem very angry for no reason.

[Waratah]

Just pointing out your mistakes and lies, that is not needless. Also not my fault yours.
Here the first answer to my quote, which is talking about your reasoning for the use of neighbour with the 'good samaritan parable', with how you want to distinguish between the friends. Come on drich intellectual dishonesty.

You should have read further of my post. here you go

Being dishonest again drich. where you use the term neighbour instead of friend. I say you are lying since you use the term for both the person wanting the bread and the one not want to give it. It is quite clear in this post that the reason you do not use the term friend is because one of my arguments relies on the fact that they are friends.

Well from now on let us agree that when jesus said “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say," that friend here stays as friend and not neighbour. This means that there was no seeking in the context of finding in the parable.

Please show me where you did this or is this another lie?
Book chapter verse, because the verses you have showed me do not say that. Here are those verses.

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Is the above what you call 'good samaritan parable'?

I do understand your excuses are lies as I have already stated in my last post which you have not addressed. You say my argument which relies on the term friend does not mean anything to you because you interchange the words show you misunderstanding of my argument and the meaning of the words.

So far in this post you have replied with the same bullshit which I dealt with in my last post. This post has been meaningless because you added nothing to the discussion. This is why the discussion stalls, your avoidance of the issues.

I will put this to rest once you have replied to my last post on the issue of your use of neighbour instead of friend. You will also have to admit your mistakes and/or lies in this matter for me to stop pointing out your mistakes and/or lies.

Ball in your court.

I've read this 3 times now, and I still do not see a viable argument on your part.

Another stalling tactic and way to avoid questions.

I see attacks on my character, and intellectual dishonest paired with liar a dozen or so times, but nothing cohearent.

You have finally acknowledged that I have called you a liar. Too bad you are not man/woman enough to admit that you have been lying.

Can you please calm down and maybe rephrase in such a way as to have some sort of point.

Asserting again drich. Please point out where I am not calm or is this another lie?

All I get out of this is you think I am a liar but really can not see why or how you come to that conclusion.

You do not see how I come to this conclusion

I will come back to this one in another post because I would not want you to be distracted from answering questions. I know how much you hate avoiding questions

Before we move on, could you please answer this question which you ignored. It might help you understand.

I have conceded the scriptures identify him as a friend.

Please show me where you did this or is this another lie?

The best I can figure is you do not understand that the term friend and neighbor can be used interchangeably...

Your best is not good enough. Here are some questions that you avoided.
Is the following what you would call ''good samaritan parable'?

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

That said I kept using the term neighbor as it still applies. Because Christ per the parable of the good sameritain identifies anyone that your in proximity with as your neighbor. Which means technically it is correct to call friend 1,2,3 neighbors.

This is your scriptural reasoning for using neighbour instead friend. Please tell me exactly where it says that the robbers, priest and levite are neighbours or is this another lie?

For this you have called me intellectually dishonest and a liar many many times. You just seem very angry for no reason.

Everyone can see the lies in the posts that you have put forth in this discussion. Me calling you out on your lies does not make me angry. Why would you think I am angry? Actually I love it when you post back to me with lies because it makes you look like a fool. This last post your tactic this time was not to lie but to plead ignorance. Either way you still look like a fool.

So we do not get sidetracked, here is the post that we are going to go step by step through. So far we are still on the neighbour/friend issue since none of your post have actually added to the discussion. If you are not going to add to the discussion of the neighbour/friend issue I will accept that you have no valid reason for using the word neighbour instead of friend when describing the friend with the loaves as as neighbour. Then we can move onto the next issues.

[Drich]

I've read this 3 times now, and I still do not see a viable argument on your part.

Another stalling tactic and way to avoid questions.

I see attacks on my character, and intellectual dishonest paired with liar a dozen or so times, but nothing cohearent.

You have finally acknowledged that I have called you a liar. Too bad you are not man/woman enough to admit that you have been lying.

Can you please calm down and maybe rephrase in such a way as to have some sort of point.

Asserting again drich. Please point out where I am not calm or is this another lie?

All I get out of this is you think I am a liar but really can not see why or how you come to that conclusion.

You do not see how I come to this conclusion

I will come back to this one in another post because I would not want you to be distracted from answering questions. I know how much you hate avoiding questions

Before we move on, could you please answer this question which you ignored. It might help you understand.

I have conceded the scriptures identify him as a friend.

Please show me where you did this or is this another lie?

The best I can figure is you do not understand that the term friend and neighbor can be used interchangeably...

Your best is not good enough. Here are some questions that you avoided.
Is the following what you would call ''good samaritan parable'?

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

That said I kept using the term neighbor as it still applies. Because Christ per the parable of the good sameritain identifies anyone that your in proximity with as your neighbor. Which means technically it is correct to call friend 1,2,3 neighbors.

This is your scriptural reasoning for using neighbour instead friend. Please tell me exactly where it says that the robbers, priest and levite are neighbours or is this another lie?

For this you have called me intellectually dishonest and a liar many many times. You just seem very angry for no reason.

Everyone can see the lies in the posts that you have put forth in this discussion. Me calling you out on your lies does not make me angry. Why would you think I am angry? Actually I love it when you post back to me with lies because it makes you look like a fool. This last post your tactic this time was not to lie but to plead ignorance. Either way you still look like a fool.

So we do not get sidetracked, here is the post that we are going to go step by step through. So far we are still on the neighbour/friend issue since none of your post have actually added to the discussion. If you are not going to add to the discussion of the neighbour/friend issue I will accept that you have no valid reason for using the word neighbour instead of friend when describing the friend with the loaves as as neighbour. Then we can move onto the next issues.

Why are we still on the neighbor friend issue? I concede the use of the term friend to describe the man I described as the neighbor. The fact that a friend was in need and the friend help him made the friend a neighbor as per your own synopsis of the parable of the good sameritain. And you are right the robbers or the two other Jews were not neighbors to the man in need so they could not be considered neighbors. Unlike the man who gave his friend in need the bread he was looking for. Because he did this it made him a neighbor by Christ definition, but not by yours which again is ok. For if you can not comprehend how the two parables relate then again I am more than willing to concede the point.

I say that you are angry because you simply repeat accusations that don't make sense. Like the neighbor friend thing we just did. Just because you do not understand something or because I misspoke doesn't mean I am trying to deceive you. You just have a very limited biblical world view and a limited understanding of the bible that has you hold to literal word for word accountability to your specific understanding. Which again is no big deal for the Jewish leaders of Christ's day held the same view of the scriptures, and held the same contempt for anyone who spread the Gospel. I am more than happy to continue one subject at a time flaming Poe or not.

[Waratah]

Another stalling tactic and way to avoid questions.


You have finally acknowledged that I have called you a liar. Too bad you are not man/woman enough to admit that you have been lying.


Asserting again drich. Please point out where I am not calm or is this another lie?


You do not see how I come to this conclusion

I will come back to this one in another post because I would not want you to be distracted from answering questions. I know how much you hate avoiding questions

Before we move on, could you please answer this question which you ignored. It might help you understand.

Please show me where you did this or is this another lie?


Your best is not good enough. Here are some questions that you avoided.
Is the following what you would call ''good samaritan parable'?

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”


This is your scriptural reasoning for using neighbour instead friend. Please tell me exactly where it says that the robbers, priest and levite are neighbours or is this another lie?


Everyone can see the lies in the posts that you have put forth in this discussion. Me calling you out on your lies does not make me angry. Why would you think I am angry? Actually I love it when you post back to me with lies because it makes you look like a fool. This last post your tactic this time was not to lie but to plead ignorance. Either way you still look like a fool.

So we do not get sidetracked, here is the post that we are going to go step by step through. So far we are still on the neighbour/friend issue since none of your post have actually added to the discussion. If you are not going to add to the discussion of the neighbour/friend issue I will accept that you have no valid reason for using the word neighbour instead of friend when describing the friend with the loaves as as neighbour. Then we can move onto the next issues.

Why are we still on the neighbor friend issue?

Because you have failed to answer my questions honestly or avoided them altogether.

I concede the use of the term friend to describe the man I described as the neighbor.

Again you have not described one man as neighbour. You described 2 men as neighbours. This is why your statement, "I simply used the term to distinguish between the 'friend' in the house who had the bread, verses the friend/neighbor outside, and the 'friend' who the bread was for." , is wrong. This is what I call misleading. Even when you are conceding your are misleading. This is what I call being intellectually dishonest. A form of lying.

I know you have conceded this now but you suggested that you had done this previously which i believe is incorrect, hence my following question for the third time. Either your are 'misspoken' or trying to mislead people (intellectually dishonest).

I have conceded the scriptures identify him as a friend.

Please show me where you did this or is this another lie? Just in case you do not understand, this means to show me where you conceded before this quote.

The fact that a friend was in need and the friend help him made the friend a neighbor as per your own synopsis of the parable of the good sameritain.

You still have not clearly defined the 'good samaritan parable'. Could you please tell me book chapter verse what you call 'good samaritan parable'?

Did the friend show pity on his friend who wanted loaves? No he did not give the loaves out of pity. Not a neighbour.

Did the friend show mercy on his friend who wanted loaves? No he did not give the loaves through mercy. Not a neighbour.

Did the friend give the loaves straight away just as the samaritan cared for the naked beaten man as soon as he saw him? No. Not a neighbour.

Do you now see how your 'good samaritan parable' does not support your use of neighbour instead of friend?

And you are right the robbers or the two other Jews were not neighbors to the man in need so they could not be considered neighbors.

So am I to understand that your following statement is incorrect?

That said I kept using the term neighbor as it still applies. Because Christ per the parable of the good sameritain identifies anyone that your in proximity with as your neighbor.

Unlike the man who gave his friend in need the bread he was looking for. Because he did this it made him a neighbor by Christ definition, but not by yours which again is ok. For if you can not comprehend how the two parables relate then again I am more than willing to concede the point.

I have shown above where the 'good samaritan parable' does not support your use of neighbour.

So this brings us to the original question.

Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour? Now my original question is saying insist because I kept pointing out to you your use of neighbour and you just kept on using neighbour. So it was not just a case of "misspoken", you were being intellectually dishonest.

So far you have given me 2 reasons which I have shown to be false.

I say that you are angry because you simply repeat accusations that don't make sense.

Links please with actual quotations as to what does not make sense. I may have made some grammatical errors which I will clear up.

Like the neighbor friend thing we just did. Just because you do not understand something or because I misspoke doesn't mean I am trying to deceive you.

Could you please make it clear of what I do not understand and why you think I do not understand?

Could you please highlight what you have misspoken?

You just have a very limited biblical world view and a limited understanding of the bible that has you hold to literal word for word accountability to your specific understanding.

Is this what they would call a fallacy of authority?

Which again is no big deal for the Jewish leaders of Christ's day held the same view of the scriptures, and held the same contempt for anyone who spread the Gospel.

Poor me syndrome, much.

I am more than happy to continue one subject at a time flaming Poe or not.

Fuck you or not.

Above I have special sentences up there with question marks(?). They call them questions. You know the ones that you do not avoid unless "the question is an attempt to derail the topic or is just beligerantly disrespectful or blasphmous.".

[Drich]

You still have not clearly defined the 'good samaritan parable'. Could you please tell me book chapter verse what you call 'good samaritan parable'?

luke 10;25-37

Did the friend show pity on his friend who wanted loaves?

because the guy outside would not stop A/S/King

Did the friend show mercy on his friend who wanted loaves? again what was done was not out of mercy. it was out of self intrest.

Did the friend give the loaves straight away just as the samaritan cared for the naked beaten man as soon as he saw him? No.

this is an intellectually dishonest statement. Fore there is no time frame given between the time the sameritian saw the man and he began to help him. Look at the Aid that was given to the Jew. olive oil and wine. It is possiable that he had these things, but it is also possiable he would have to get them. verse 33 says between the sameritian see the jew and helping the jew, he felt very sorry for the jew. Again no time frame was given you are forcing a time frame onto this story to support your own argument.

Do you now see how your 'good samaritan parable' does not support your use of neighbour instead of friend?

No, you have absolutely fail in trying too establish this. try again. This time don't alter the story if you don't want to appear foolish.

I have shown above where the 'good samaritan parable' does not support your use of neighbour.

The only thing you have shown is that you more than willing to change the bible to support your arguments.

So this brings us to the original question.

Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour? Now my original question is saying insist because I kept pointing out to you your use of neighbour and you just kept on using neighbour. So it was not just a case of "misspoken", you were being intellectually dishonest.

So far you have given me 2 reasons which I have shown to be false.

Again I have already concede this argument 5 times just so you can make your argument. Either get on with it or I will be forced to shake the dust from my feet and move past you.

Above I have special sentences up there with question marks(?). They call them questions. You know the ones that you do not avoid unless "the question is an attempt to derail the topic or is just beligerantly disrespectful or blasphmous.".

[/quote]This is another intelectually dishonest statement as well. For you are well aware Not all questions are meant to be answered, these are called rhetorical questions. Since you have the answers to your questions then there is no need for me to answer or correct you.

[Whateverist]

You still have not clearly defined the 'good samaritan parable'. Could you please tell me book chapter verse what you call 'good samaritan parable'?

luke 10;25-37

Did the friend show pity on his friend who wanted loaves?

because the guy outside would not stop A/S/King

Why are people talking in code? Oh shit, am I in the Christian forum again? Common people use your words. - whateveist 1.0

[Waratah]

Did the friend show pity on his friend who wanted loaves?

because the guy outside would not stop A/S/King

Is that a yes or no? I would find it hard that you could insist that the friend showed pity because the guy kept asking. No seeking or knocking.

Did the friend show mercy on his friend who wanted loaves? again what was done was not out of mercy. it was out of self intrest.

So we are in agreeance then that the good samaritan parable has nothing to do with your use of the term neighbour?
luke 10: 36 and 37
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Did the friend give the loaves straight away just as the samaritan cared for the naked beaten man as soon as he saw him? No.

this is an intellectually dishonest statement. Fore there is no time frame given between the time the sameritian saw the man and he began to help him. Look at the Aid that was given to the Jew. olive oil and wine. It is possiable that he had these things, but it is also possiable he would have to get them. verse 33 says between the sameritian see the jew and helping the jew, he felt very sorry for the jew. Again no time frame was given you are forcing a time frame onto this story to support your own argument.

I accept that there is no time frame. This is also irrelevant as even you have suggested the samaritan has acted in such a way as to helping the man straight away. I say this because even the act of getting oil and wine would be the beginning of helping by getting the right tools to care for the wounds.

Please drich just admit that the good samaritan parable has nothing to do with your using neighbour instead of friend.

Can you please also admit that your assertion that the good samaritan parable is saying that anyone in close proximity to someone is a neighbour.

If you really were keen in a smooth discussion, then it would be helpful if you did not just assert without any proof and/or explanation. This means as an example that you can't just say 'the good samaritan says so'. You would have to explain why you believe it does. I think you would then find out you errors and we can actually get to the real reason.

So this brings us to the original question.

Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour? Now my original question is saying insist because I kept pointing out to you your use of neighbour and you just kept on using neighbour. So it was not just a case of "misspoken", you were being intellectually dishonest.

So far you have given me 2 reasons which I have shown to be false.

Again I have already concede this argument 5 times just so you can make your argument. Either get on with it or I will be forced to shake the dust from my feet and move past you.

I see the problem here. I have cut and pasted my question from when you had not conceded the use of the term neighbour instead of friend scripturally. Now I still have to get you to admit that you reasons given so far for the use of neighbour are false. Here is how the question should be written

Why did you insist saying it was a neighbour?

Above I have special sentences up there with question marks(?). They call them questions. You know the ones that you do not avoid unless "the question is an attempt to derail the topic or is just beligerantly disrespectful or blasphmous.".

This is another intelectually dishonest statement as well. For you are well aware Not all questions are meant to be answered, these are called rhetorical questions. Since you have the answers to your questions then there is no need for me to answer or correct you.

So you are saying that I am being dishonest because I have asked rhetorical questions and then you actually answered the "rhetorical questions".

Are we in agreeance that your first excuse for using the term neighbour instead of friend is bullshit. It is the one where you said you used it to distinguished between the friends by using the term neighbour for both. I have shown this many times but you have not conceded yet.

Here are some questions (or me asking to back up your assertions) that you did not answer from my last post. Again avoiding questions.

Links please with actual quotations as to what does not make sense. I may have made some grammatical errors which I will clear up.

Could you please make it clear of what I do not understand and why you think I do not understand?

Could you please highlight what you have misspoken?

Is this what they would call a fallacy of authority?



So we don't lose focus. It is this post that we are going one step at a time.

We are still on the first one which I have changed a bit with the use of did instead of do.

Why did you insist saying it was a neighbour?

[Drich]

Why did you insist saying it was a neighbour?

Because for me the word means the same thing.