The Good Samaritian

[Drich]

The Bible isn't ''proof.''

That is not what I said. I said in the bible God offers proof. The bible records if you do A, B, C, God will give you D. Meaning God provides the proof of not only Himself but this proof also verifies the bible this formula is found in.

If you consider it to be proof, then what would you say to all those who are perhaps ''religious'' but, don't follow Christianity?

religion has nothing to do with God. Religion is mans attempt to worship or reach out to God. biblical Christianity is God reaching out to us. Religion, even Various versions of christianity is a barrier between man and God.

The reason I started denouncing my faith, is because I started looking at the Bible as a collective group of stories, and to be honest? Those stories were strewn together by a very corrupt early church that sought power and control over the present society of the timeframe.

if this is what you understand of the bible then you have a very limited understanding of it. For the bible in its complete form is freedom from mans religions and control. True biblically based Christianity separates the believer from and rules or works designed to earn or maintain faith. In fact the only way to excersize control through religion is to abandon the bible and push religious doctrine.

If you wish to believe in what you believe, it's not for me to pass critcism on you, but don't believe lies and stories that for all you know, are no more truer than Dr Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham. That's the caution I would offer to you. When you also look at Genesis, how can you reconcile that part of the Bible, against the theory of evolution?

my answer is in the op.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

The closer one looks at the bible, the more ugly it all gets. Truth shouldn't be ugly, though, so that's how I know it's not truth.

this is a pretty person's or a sheltered persons philosophy. Truth is truth it's acceptability has nothing to do with how one views it.

[max-greece]

---

I've had 3 goes at explaining why this is disappointing, one of which you may have missed:
Love your neighbour as yourself.
Who is my neighbour?
The Good Samaritan is a good neighbour.
Go and do likewise That is some fucked up shit right there. The only way it works if is the guy the Samaritan helps is the neighbour and he's the only bloody one who isn't referred to in that way."

Ah! I see the problem now. The G/S was the neighbor who was loving the beaten jew as himself.

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.”[u]

The one who had mercy was the sameritian. So In this story the 'G/S' was the neighbor while the Fellow Jews were not.

I don't think I can explain it any better than the above. If Jesus is saying the neighbour you should love is the one that does you a good turn then he is not saying very much.

Jesus is saying if you do someone a good turn you are that neighbor, even though you may not have any other connection to this person.

If Jesus is saying you should be a good neighbour then he's not answering the question.

If Jesus is saying that the guy the Samaritan saves is the neighbour he's the only one that isn't referred to in that way.

It just doesn't hold together. I know what I think it should say - but I can't get there. On the other hand I am assuming I know what I think it should say - on the basis of who Jesus was supposed to be but maybe you are right and it says what it wanted him to say.

The story relays that one must be more than just linked to someone else either by kinsmenship or simple proxcimity (what dummy would ever think that ) One must actually do something that help someone else even if there are no other connections. That is what makes a neighbor a neighbor.

Like helping a friend at midnight with a loaf of bread, that makes a friend a good neighbor.

This leaves me either disappointed in the message or the means of illustrating the message.

Do you understand the problem now?

simple miss communication.

---

[Drich]

---

Ah! I see the problem now. The G/S was the neighbor who was loving the beaten jew as himself.

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.”[u]

The one who had mercy was the sameritian. So In this story the 'G/S' was the neighbor while the Fellow Jews were not.


Jesus is saying if you do someone a good turn you are that neighbor, even though you may not have any other connection to this person.

The story relays that one must be more than just linked to someone else either by kinsmenship or simple proxcimity (what dummy would ever think that ) One must actually do something that help someone else even if there are no other connections. That is what makes a neighbor a neighbor.

Like helping a friend at midnight with a loaf of bread, that makes a friend a good neighbor.

simple miss communication.

---

[Drich]

So warpath, it been a couple of days, are we done with your limited understand of the word neighbors and how it can be used scripturaly? What of your you misuse of the word liar? Shall we proceed to the next topic in the A S K discussion we were having? Or are you done?

Typically I do not chase after people when they stop responding to a given topic, but since you were compassionate and understanding (I will admit to lying here because you were not either of these things) when I made a mistake, I feel the need to ensure that not only do you see yours but acknowledge it publicly as well, not to gloat, but to make sure the next time you feel intimaditated or inadequate because you are not equip to discuss the subject topically, that you do not feel you have the option to march this red herring/liar bit back out.

Know I will not beat you with the deceptions I have caught you in up to this point, unless you want to default to this tatic in the future. I will make a note of this thread and will march it back out if you attempt to do the same.

Now it is upto you on how we proceed. Do you wish to address the next line of the A S K arguement we were having or are you done?

[Waratah]

I do not have to prove intent. You left out the second definition of lie.

Definition of LIE

intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

By you leaving out definition number 2 you created a misleading impression that a lie had to have intent.

So by trying to defend yourself, you lie. Well done drich

Again I ask are you ignorant of basic English and general comprehension of western soceity?

I do not believe so. Especially since I have pointed out to you the meaning of conceded. I also know that no amount of asking will turn into a knock. I also know that in luke 11 it clearly states to receive the holy spirit you only have to ask, not a/s/k.

Or are you pushing for more intentional deception?

Loaded. What deception?

Or do you have a third option?

If you feel you have an understand English and western soceity I ask, What does it mean to create?

Create: to make or produce (something) : to cause (something new) to exist

: to cause (a particular situation) to exist

: to produce (something new, such as a work of art) by using your talents and imagination

As in to "create a false understanding?"
Wouldn't creation of this deception indicate intent?

Don't know.

If your belief is that creation does not include or reflect any intention then please give an example where creation spontaneously occours and does not include intent.

Look at your posts for lies. Whether you have intent or not only you can answer that if you have insight into your conscious and subconscious. I point out many times you false statements. I have asked you before whether you have misspoken and you chose to ignore my question. Then you start this thread to say you have misspoken. I would say that you were trying to be deceptive. but hey I could be wrong and you may answer my question on the same thread that I asked , where have you misspoken? After that the next time that you misspeak and I point it out to you, you can acknowledge your mistake. Then I would not be thinking that you are lying on purpose.

Otherwise know intent is critical to BOTH understandings of this word.

Now if I had your understanding of a liar I would be calling you one now, and get to hound dog you.

I do not "hound dog" you because you are a liar. I confront your assertions. You either fail to provide proof or ignore my posts.

Because by what you have said, and what you posted you omitted 3/4 of the definition lie to only provide the two you thought were revelant and yet represented those two definitions as the only definitions of the word lie. Which by your own standard makes you a liar. So I ask you using your own logic and own definitions explain to me why in this situation you are not a liar.

All I had to show was that you do not have to have intent for a lie. The very next line(the one you omitted) did just that. I believe that you had intent to create a misleading impression but I can't prove intent. The thing is I do not need to.

Now stop derailing your own thread that you created to avoid my questions in our discussion and get back to the other thread and reply to my posts.

---

So warpath, it been a couple of days, are we done with your limited understand of the word neighbors and how it can be used scripturaly?

Loaded question. You have added nothing new to your argument that I have already shown to be false in the other thread. You have refused to post a reply. Now that we know that you have lied about you reason for using neighbour instead of friend we are actually back onto the neighbour issue once again because of this thread.

What of your you misuse of the word liar?

Lie.

Shall we proceed to the next topic in the A S K discussion we were having?

We can't because you keep stalling. Go back to the thread.

Or are you done?

No

Typically I do not chase after people when they stop responding to a given topic, but since you were compassionate and understanding (I will admit to lying here because you were not either of these things) when I made a mistake, I feel the need to ensure that not only do you see yours but acknowledge it publicly as well, not to gloat, but to make sure the next time you feel intimaditated or inadequate because you are not equip to discuss the subject topically, that you do not feel you have the option to march this red herring/liar bit back out.

Whatever

Know I will not beat you with the deceptions I have caught you in up to this point, unless you want to default to this tatic in the future. I will make a note of this thread and will march it back out if you attempt to do the same.

Whatever

Now it is upto you on how we proceed. Do you wish to address the next line of the A S K arguement we were having or are you done?

I asked you why you insisted in using neighbour instead of friend on the 28/9/13. I have asked many times and all you have done is make assertions which have been shown to be false.

[Drich]

Again you keep dancing, but you use of the word lie all hinges on intent. To call someone a liar you must show an intent to mis lead or to intentionally deceive. Can you do this? Yes or no.

[Waratah]

Again you keep dancing, but you use of the word lie all hinges on intent. To call someone a liar you must show an intent to mis lead or to intentionally deceive. Can you do this? Yes or no.

Drich stamping his feet, chucking a tantrum and blocking his ears. This is from my last post, " Whether you have intent or not only you can answer that if you have insight into your conscious and subconscious."

You have stated again that lie must have intent by saying "lie all hinges on intent". I have already shown you that it does not.

Definition of LIE

intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

person A says 1 + 1 = 3.1234567890353535352243244
Can we say person A has lied? We can not know intent especially from a liar, so number 1 definition cannot be established. Lets look at number 2 definition. Did person A create something and is it false. Yes therefore person a has lied without intent being shown.

Notice how you avoided my question after I tried to answer yours in my last post.

[Drich]

Again you keep dancing, but you use of the word lie all hinges on intent. To call someone a liar you must show an intent to mis lead or to intentionally deceive. Can you do this? Yes or no.

Drich stamping his feet, chucking a tantrum and blocking his ears. This is from my last post, " Whether you have intent or not only you can answer that if you have insight into your conscious and subconscious."

You have stated again that lie must have intent by saying "lie all hinges on intent". I have already shown you that it does not.

Definition of LIE

intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

Since you can not dispute definition 1 we must be talking about definition 2. I pointed out that creation is not possible again without intent. Your arguement you 'showing me it does not' amounts to little more than you saying "I don't know if creation denotes intent." What a cop out. Since you don't know allow me to educate you a little further.

Let's look at a few other definitions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lying

In EVERY Single instance a lie is primarily defined as an intent to mislead.

This means in order to Honestly classify someone as a liar you must show an intent in that person to mislead or hold back information.

person A says 1 + 1 = 3.1234567890353535352243244
Can we say person A has lied? We can not know intent especially from a liar, so number 1 definition cannot be established. Lets look at number 2 definition. Did person A create something and is it false. Yes therefore person a has lied without intent being shown.

wow what is wrong with you ? it simply means the person is wrong. One can not classify this person as a liar in this instance till you have established he understands basic math and has decided to push this answer anyway.
Wow, your dad must have really screwed you up when helping you with your math home work if you think the person who does not know basic math is a liar simply because he got a wrong answer. Either that or your so desperate to win an arguement your willing to say anything no matter how foolish you look.

That is unless you are indeed the poor aboriginal clansmen who simply does not understand the difference between being deem wrong in the English and being rightfully classified as a liar.

Notice how you avoided my question after I tried to answer yours in my last post.

Look sport you will be ignored and rightfully so because your base arguements are based in logical fallacy. You don't seem to understand the basics of lying so we must go back and learn the definition, so that in your next post when you ignore all 5 material references (that more than well establishes the primary definition of a liar as someone who intentionally misleads) in favor of your personal interpretation of a definition. With the intention to mislead me from the stated definition of all 5 references it will be I who gets to call you a liar. Over and over and over again.

Because In The light of 5 references who's primary definitions define or describe a liar as someone who intentionally deceives, your obstinance to push your spin on the definition provided, makes a hypocrite and the liar.

And everything you say and then subsequently do, can be rightfully dismissed. Everything you said and done for the last month then becomes meaningless. Why? Because you will have been proven a liar several times over. What's more you will have been proven a hypocrite as well. Especially if you choose to argue all five definitions provided and hold fast to your piecemealed definition or choose to piecemeal another one together. Your done old sport, the only thing left is to see if your pride will allow what integrity you have left to admit to being wrong.

If you can admit to lying we can move on. If not then know I can not hold any further discussions with a hypocritical liar. I know I said I'd go line by line with you, but that was before you were proven to be a hypocritical liar. See when one can rightfully deem another a hypocritical liar, everything the hypocritical liar (In this case the hypocritical liar will have been well established as you) is now suspect. As such every principle and precept discussed with the hypocritical liar can not be established because the hypocritical liar is more than willing and capable of saying or changing anything and everything he says to 'win' a discussion. Because of this it is like me throwing pearls of wisdom before a swine. That being the case we have a direct command not to do this.

So again if you try and push your deception past the five listed references you will be deemed a hypocrite and a liar, and I have been given a command to shake the dust from my feet and move away from people like you. In which case the only discussion we can have is the occasional attempt to determine if you have put away your hypocrisy and/or lying. If and when you can turn from these deal breaking sins, we can and will continue, Lord willing. If not, then I reserve the right to randomly point out that your a hypocrite and a liar when the occasion comes up.

[Waratah]

If you can admit to lying we can move on.

Yes I can admit to lying so now we can move forward. THIS LINK WILL TAKE YOU TO THE POST THAT YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED TO.

I am sure drich will probably find another excuse to not to reply to the post in "Evolution Trumps Creationism" thread.

[Drich]

If you can admit to lying we can move on.

Yes I can admit to lying so now we can move forward. THIS LINK WILL TAKE YOU TO THE POST THAT YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED TO.

I am sure drich will probably find another excuse to not to reply to the post in "Evolution Trumps Creationism" thread.

:get back in chair..

I don't normally do this but because you are a self admitted liar i need to know specifically what you have lied about, otherwise how do I know your not lying now?