The Good Samaritian

[downbeatplumb]

Just a moment. Jesus didn't like the Samaritans either

Matthew 10: Jesus sends out the disciples to drive out evil spirits and the like and to spread the word but he tells them specifically:

"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel...."

He didn't think the Samaritans were worth it apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU

[Angrboda]

I'm inclined to agree with max's first interpretation. It seems to clearly be saying to love those who will love you back (show mercy), and everybody else can get fucked. But it's not entirely clear, as the Samaritan isn't explicitly named as the neighbor. Perhaps having a Samaritan visited upon you was a fate worse than death. God forbid you should be obligated to him for his providing you rent and a biscuit. I know I'd rather avoid most Samaritans. And especially the modern sect of Samaritans, bunch of sanctimonious gits they are. And perhaps the other two were showing mercy of a 'tough love' sort, discouraging him from walking alone in bad 'hoods in future, whereas the Samaritan was just an enabler. But that's all a part of the warp and woof of being a first century religious con man. Say a bunch of vague, deep sounding shit, and don't worry if it doesn't quite make sense, it doesn't have to make sense. Your marks are too stupid and gullible to care, and you can always claim that they didn't understand the parable or that there's more to the story, for those occasions when you really screw the pooch. People want to be deceived; let them be deceived. God forbid that Jesus should just plainly say that you should be merciful to others, or that if you're persistent, no worries, God will have your back. (And Waratah is correct. There are holes in the logic, even before we get to Drich's ad hoc spin on what it should mean to the unbeliever. Drich is simply too stupid and ignorant to ever grasp the point though, so, roll on Sisyphus.)

For what it's worth, I don't think Drich self-consciously lies. (Though the "I meant to make that mistake" bullshit line that he's developed over the past 6-12 months is bordering on it.) He's just stupid, ignorant, incompetent, and has an ego the size of a fucking Buick. (And which is in constant need of feeding; he has delusions of grandeur that he's destined to be a spiritual leader [documented; search it in the messenger / message thread]. Drich isn't here to save souls. He's here to feed. He's a spiritual vampire, using this forum and its members to feed his egotistical fantasies.)

IMHO.

[Waratah]

---

"Actually the story, (as explained by my Ivy League religion scholar instructors), was not about the *question* "who is my neighbor ?", but knowing the despised status of Samaritans in Galilean society, it was about acceptance of those seen as "other". The closest thing our culture used to have, similar to that, would have been ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities. The Christian cult failed abysmally to actually learn that lesson, and (just exactly like the Bible), the religious norms changed when the cultural norms changed. Religion sanctions culture. Culture does not sanction religion."

I think that just made it worse.....Go and do likewise - become Samaritan? Its not about the neighbourhood - its about the minorities. The answer isn't the answer to the question is an answer to another question that wasn't asked. My head hurts.

---

Does this mean Drich and Waratah are killing each other over the wrong thing?

---

Just a moment. Jesus didn't like the Samaritans either

Matthew 10: Jesus sends out the disciples to drive out evil spirits and the like and to spread the word but he tells them specifically:

"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel...."

He didn't think the Samaritans were worth it apparently.

---

I think can understand the confusion here. I will try summarize why we are here talking about the good samaritan parable.

* Drich offers proof of god via luke 11 to receive the holy spirit as proof.
* I did luke 11 to receive holy spirit and nothing happened so I said it was bullshit to drich.
* Drich says I did not follow properly because I did not ask/seek/knock like the neighbour did.
* This is where I point out to receive the holy spirit you only have to ask to receive. I also highlighted his error of using neighbour instead of friend. He continued to use it anyway, even after I used one of my arguments relies on the term friend. This to me is the true reason for his continued use of friend.
* His first excuse(lie) was to suggest he was trying to distinguish between the one asking for the loaves and the one or refused to get up. Problem was he called them both neighbour instead of friend.
* His second excuse(plain stupid or intellectually dishonest) was to say he used neighbour as christ did in the good samaritan parable.
* His first explanation (2a) was to say it says that anyone in close proximity to you can be classed a neighbour. The first time he has said that this was a mistake, has been here. This is after I had pointed out several times with no concession.
* His second explanation (2b) was to compare the good samaritan to the friend who said he would not get up, as he has done here. I have already shot to pieces his reasoning as I have done here.
* After pointing out his misinterpretation( still not conceded) and uses the excuse that neighbour and friend mean the same to him.
* At this point I had to begrudgingly accept his excuse. We had moved on from the discussion of neighbour/friend and we were now discussing how he thinks repetitive asking is knocking.
* Then out of the blue he starts this thread and then clearly states that neighbour and friend do not mean the same. He says he wants to move the discussion forward. It was him going back to it.

You have to also remember that drich will use many excuses to avoid replying to posts and answering questions. This is the fifth thread that this discussion has spread to.

[Drich]

Mystified!!

The Good Samaritan Story was used to answer the question: "Who is my neighbour?" This was in the context of "Love your neighbour as yourself."

According to this interpretation you are instructed to love those that will do you a good turn.

That is a hugely disappointing interpretation.

Surely there has to be something in it along the lines of "Be a good neighbour?"

Jesus disappoints, again.

How so?

---

According to this interpretation you are instructed to love those that will do you a good turn.

That is a hugely disappointing interpretation.

I have to disagree to an extent. Though I find it a bit hypocritical too (though Drich can probably shed some light on the Christian point of view, if neighbourly love should be unconditional), I immediately think of Deidre's forgiveness thread. You can only be that forgiving and nice to someone, who constantly drains you of your resources without giving anything back. It's not like you have to keep a tally and the giving/receiving has to add up, but a too one sided relationship is taxing.

Unconditional love? No. The only condition is to love your neighbor as you yourself want to be loved.

---

There was a discussion I had about the Good samaritian with one of you and I miss spoke when I said a neighbor is anyone in close proxcimity to you.

How come you will not concede in the actually thread that we are discussing? I thought you did not want to talk anymore about your use of neighbour instead of friend.

Upon closer review of the message Jesus taught found in Luke 10, A neighbor is anyone willing to do you a kindness, no matter who it is if he knows you or not whether you are friends or not.

The more you post the more lies come out. Your stated in this post that neighbour and friend means the same thing. Now you are saying that a neighbour does not have to be a friend. Please explain how you can say that these two words are he same. You are a liar.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV

Say for instance if you go to your friends house in the middle of the night and you ask him for a loaf of bread and he says no, but you keep asking and keep seeking, and keep knocking on his door till he gives you bread, your 'bad friend' can still be considered a neighbor according to the parable Jesus taught.

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.

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

You even agreed with me here

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.

But for the sake of progressing any arguement I am willing to conceed the use of the word neighbor when the bible states the word friend.

Don't do it for sake of progressing an argument, concede because you are wrong.

Get you ass back to the other thread and you can try again in answering this question.

Why did you insist saying it was a neighbour?

So far I have caught you in 3 lies on just this one issue.

Don't answer it here keep our discussion in "Evolution Trumps Creationism" thread. Do not spread this discussion into 5 threads.

English is your primary language is it not? Or is your primary some sort of aboriginal tribal thing?

---

"Actually the story, (as explained by my Ivy League religion scholar instructors), was not about the *question* "who is my neighbor ?", but knowing the despised status of Samaritans in Galilean society, it was about acceptance of those seen as "other". The closest thing our culture used to have, similar to that, would have been ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities. The Christian cult failed abysmally to actually learn that lesson, and (just exactly like the Bible), the religious norms changed when the cultural norms changed. Religion sanctions culture. Culture does not sanction religion."

I think that just made it worse.....Go and do likewise - become Samaritan? Its not about the neighbourhood - its about the minorities. The answer isn't the answer to the question is an answer to another question that wasn't asked. My head hurts.

Does this mean Drich and Waratah are killing each other over the wrong thing?

Just a moment. Jesus didn't like the Samaritans either

Matthew 10: Jesus sends out the disciples to drive out evil spirits and the like and to spread the word but he tells them specifically:

"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel...."

He didn't think the Samaritans were worth it apparently.

I still dont see the point here.

How is helping your neighbor a bad thing?

[Minimalist]

The real question concerns why humans in 2013 have the idiotic notion they need to reference texts by ancient cult followers concerning their possibly imaginary, one of many, dying-rising god figures, and failed apocalyptic wandering preacher-miracle workers, (like all the others), in formulating their ethical systems in 2013. This sort of "nit-picking" concerning their non-unanimously voted canon's contents, is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Who gives a shit ?

Precisely. It doesn't matter if there is a kernel of corn in a bag of shit. You wouldn't want to eat it anyway.

[Drich]

I'm inclined to agree with max's first interpretation. It seems to clearly be saying to love those who will love you back (show mercy), and everybody else can get fucked.

How so I. The story of the G/S was not in a position to be paid back.

But it's not entirely clear, as the Samaritan isn't explicitly named as the neighbor.

36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”

Which was the Good Samaritan. how is this not being named specifically?

Perhaps having a Samaritan visited upon you was a fate worse than death. God forbid you should be obligated to him for his providing you rent and a biscuit. I know I'd rather avoid most Samaritans. And especially the modern sect of Samaritans, bunch of sanctimonious gits they are. And perhaps the other two were showing mercy of a 'tough love' sort, discouraging him from walking alone in bad 'hoods in future, whereas the Samaritan was just an enabler.

if you read the story, the intentions of the three travelers are completely spelled out, no need to speculate.

.

God forbid that Jesus should just plainly say that you should be...

There is a reason for that. Biblical Christianity is not about a prescribed set of rules or path, it is about getting one to earnestly want and then earnestly follow God with all that, that person can be.

(And Waratah is correct. There are holes in the logic, even before we get to Drich's ad hoc spin on what it should mean to the unbeliever. Drich is simply too stupid and ignorant to ever grasp the point though, so, roll on Sisyphus.)

using what standard? If you judge warpath to be right, and there are holes in this logic, Then by what standard can you make this judgement?

For what it's worth, I don't think Drich self-consciously lies.

Oh, I do lie, I am no saint. However I try not to here. If there is an inconsistency in what I have said, then I have made a mistake. (Intentional or not )

Though the "I meant to make that mistake" bullshit line that he's developed over the past 6-12 months is bordering on it.)

it goes back further than this. I had a teacher who would let a troubled kid (kinda like warpath) go and just let him kinda take the reigns for a while, let the smarty pants just have fun with giving say a book report that was obviously written from a movie pov rather than calling him out on it right way. He'd ask questions, interact, and let the kid think he was going to get a good grade, and then he'd do a columbo "just one more thing," then bam the teacher would ask or say something that was in the book that wasn't in the movie and the student was busted.

I always like that, because it inspired a lot of thought in me. It had me examine things that I would not normally think about, because we generally got to hear one whole pov, and then the explaination as to why that was completely wrong, the contrast between popular thought and truth was oftentimes ground shattering. Which left the little dbag who did not or could not read with very little to say, unless he was just lashing out, which was easily identifiable.

He's just stupid, ignorant, incompetent, and has an ego the size of a fucking Buick. (

I read this list to my wife and she said: "is that it? You must be holding back." Then she suggested you replace Buick with city bus. Not the regular ones, but the big one held together with and accordion.
She started with other things to add, but I stopped her, (huge ego and all would not allow me to let her continue.)

And which is in constant need of feeding; he has delusions of grandeur that he's destined to be a spiritual leader [documented; search it in the messenger / message thread].

indeed, as we are all called to be. My goals are my family first, those in my church, any one at work, then any of you who look for help, then I have known to help one or two people randomly who I believe really need help. Now imagine if everyone took the role of 'great spiritual leader' seriously as I have.

Drich isn't here to save souls.

As I have said many many times in the past I am not here to save souls, I am here to help you all make a choice. I do my best to answer biblically based questions, and provide clarity concerning the differences between religion and Christianity.

Only Christ can save souls, which would make all my efforts pointless. God has seen fit to deposit us here on this world, and made it so we have a real choice to make. Who am I to tell you, what choice is best for you? My only job is to help present the options as I see them.

He's here to feed. He's a spiritual vampire, using this forum and its members to feed his egotistical fantasies.)

IMHO.

Actually I prefer to feed on a good dry aged rare steak, but until then you guys will do just fine!!! Moohahaha

If it were up to any of you to feed me spiritually I think I would starve to death. The best most of you can do is parrot back I. Your own words the same old standard atheist fare. I will freely admit you and a couple of others do make me think, but those opportunities are too few and far between, hence my starvation spiritually.

[Minimalist]

You think fairy tales are real, Drippy. Sorry, but there are only so many ways we can say it.

[Drich]

---

"Actually the story, (as explained by my Ivy League religion scholar instructors), was not about the *question* "who is my neighbor ?", but knowing the despised status of Samaritans in Galilean society, it was about acceptance of those seen as "other". The closest thing our culture used to have, similar to that, would have been ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities. The Christian cult failed abysmally to actually learn that lesson, and (just exactly like the Bible), the religious norms changed when the cultural norms changed. Religion sanctions culture. Culture does not sanction religion."

I think that just made it worse.....Go and do likewise - become Samaritan? Its not about the neighbourhood - its about the minorities. The answer isn't the answer to the question is an answer to another question that wasn't asked. My head hurts.

---

Does this mean Drich and Waratah are killing each other over the wrong thing?

---

Just a moment. Jesus didn't like the Samaritans either

Matthew 10: Jesus sends out the disciples to drive out evil spirits and the like and to spread the word but he tells them specifically:

"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel...."

He didn't think the Samaritans were worth it apparently.

---

I think can understand the confusion here. I will try summarize why we are here talking about the good samaritan parable.

* Drich offers proof of god via luke 11 to receive the holy spirit as proof.
* I did luke 11 to receive holy spirit and nothing happened so I said it was bullshit to drich.
* Drich says I did not follow properly because I did not ask/seek/knock like the neighbour did.
* This is where I point out to receive the holy spirit you only have to ask to receive. I also highlighted his error of using neighbour instead of friend. He continued to use it anyway, even after I used one of my arguments relies on the term friend. This to me is the true reason for his continued use of friend.
* His first excuse(lie) was to suggest he was trying to distinguish between the one asking for the loaves and the one or refused to get up. Problem was he called them both neighbour instead of friend.
* His second excuse(plain stupid or intellectually dishonest) was to say he used neighbour as christ did in the good samaritan parable.
* His first explanation (2a) was to say it says that anyone in close proximity to you can be classed a neighbour. The first time he has said that this was a mistake, has been here. This is after I had pointed out several times with no concession.
* His second explanation (2b) was to compare the good samaritan to the friend who said he would not get up, as he has done here. I have already shot to pieces his reasoning as I have done here.
* After pointing out his misinterpretation( still not conceded) and uses the excuse that neighbour and friend mean the same to him.
* At this point I had to begrudgingly accept his excuse. We had moved on from the discussion of neighbour/friend and we were now discussing how he thinks repetitive asking is knocking.
* Then out of the blue he starts this thread and then clearly states that neighbour and friend do not mean the same. He says he wants to move the discussion forward. It was him going back to it.

You have to also remember that drich will use many excuses to avoid replying to posts and answering questions. This is the fifth thread that this discussion has spread to.

I think you've skipped a few attempts by me to concede the arguement, which would allow you to argue the friend angle, which you still haven't.

And I started this thread because it seems you are confused to the reason I conceded the neighbor arguement to you.

[Cinjin]

As I have said many many times in the past I am not here to save souls, I am here to help you all make a choice.

You arrogant ass. As if there's anything that an uneducated wannabe preacher could tell us that we haven't already heard a thousand fucking times from the other million christards. You are a fucking liar. By now even you know that you're not doing a god damn bit of "the lords work" here anymore. You've been around long enough to realize that all you create is wrath here and subsequently get your own sense of false validation as you convince yourself that what you're doing is helpful to your dickless impotent god.

I do my best to answer biblically based questions, and provide clarity concerning the differences between religion and Christianity.

Clarity?!? What a god damn joke. Your whole schtick is verbal gymnastics and double talk. I doubt you've EVER read the bible to a non-believer without twisting it all into the context you need it to fit into. You're a filthy fucking apologist - CLARITY is your sworn enemy you lying piece of @#!@!*!

Only Christ can save souls, which would make all my efforts pointless. God has seen fit to deposit us here on this world, and made it so we have a real choice to make. Who am I to tell you, what choice is best for you? My only job is to help present the options as I see them.

FUCK YOU! You're lucky Jesus isn't real, he'd beat the shit outta you for that self-righteous pack of lies.

Your own words the same old standard atheist fare.

Irony. Look it up.

[Waratah]

I think can understand the confusion here. I will try summarize why we are here talking about the good samaritan parable.

* Drich offers proof of god via luke 11 to receive the holy spirit as proof.
* I did luke 11 to receive holy spirit and nothing happened so I said it was bullshit to drich.
* Drich says I did not follow properly because I did not ask/seek/knock like the neighbour did.
* This is where I point out to receive the holy spirit you only have to ask to receive. I also highlighted his error of using neighbour instead of friend. He continued to use it anyway, even after I used one of my arguments relies on the term friend. This to me is the true reason for his continued use of friend.
* His first excuse(lie) was to suggest he was trying to distinguish between the one asking for the loaves and the one or refused to get up. Problem was he called them both neighbour instead of friend.
* His second excuse(plain stupid or intellectually dishonest) was to say he used neighbour as christ did in the good samaritan parable.
* His first explanation (2a) was to say it says that anyone in close proximity to you can be classed a neighbour. The first time he has said that this was a mistake, has been here. This is after I had pointed out several times with no concession.
* His second explanation (2b) was to compare the good samaritan to the friend who said he would not get up, as he has done here. I have already shot to pieces his reasoning as I have done here.
* After pointing out his misinterpretation( still not conceded) and uses the excuse that neighbour and friend mean the same to him.
* At this point I had to begrudgingly accept his excuse. We had moved on from the discussion of neighbour/friend and we were now discussing how he thinks repetitive asking is knocking.
* Then out of the blue he starts this thread and then clearly states that neighbour and friend do not mean the same. He says he wants to move the discussion forward. It was him going back to it.

You have to also remember that drich will use many excuses to avoid replying to posts and answering questions. This is the fifth thread that this discussion has spread to.

I think you've skipped a few attempts by me to concede the arguement, which would allow you to argue the friend angle, which you still haven't.

You conceded that it says friend instead of neighbour in luke 11. When you did that I accused you of lying because you used concede in the past tense via the use of conceded. I asked you to show me where you had conceded before that statement and you refused. Then we worked out that you did not understand that the using conceded is the past tense. Your problem is you are still trying to defend the use of neighbour instead of friend. All your excuses have been discredited.
We are still going through that post that you wanted to go through step by step. You know the one, "I am more than happy to continue one subject at a time flaming Poe or not.". Then we will go to my friend argument that you have said that you could discount. Your problem here is you don't seem to know what that angle is, so how can discount my argument. Go back the the thread or is your faith that weak.

And I started this thread because it seems you are confused to the reason I conceded the neighbor arguement to you.

Bullshit. You repeat the same argument that I have already discredited. Just more stalling tactics.

You trying to progress the discussion

---

How come you will not concede in the actually thread that we are discussing? I thought you did not want to talk anymore about your use of neighbour instead of friend.
The more you post the more lies come out. Your stated in this post that neighbour and friend means the same thing. Now you are saying that a neighbour does not have to be a friend. Please explain how you can say that these two words are he same. You are a liar.
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.

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

You even agreed with me here


Don't do it for sake of progressing an argument, concede because you are wrong.

Get you ass back to the other thread and you can try again in answering this question.

Why did you insist saying it was a neighbour?

So far I have caught you in 3 lies on just this one issue.

Don't answer it here keep our discussion in "Evolution Trumps Creationism" thread. Do not spread this discussion into 5 threads.

English is your primary language is it not? Or is your primary some sort of aboriginal tribal thing?

Whether english or an aboriginal dialect is my primary language is irrelevant to my post. Just another stalling tactic by drich. "You can't handle the truth".