RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
September 13, 2015 at 6:16 am
(This post was last modified: September 13, 2015 at 6:18 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
Umm... so what does that have to do with the Samaritans?
Or the story of the good Samaritan?
I suppose in a vague way, you're saying you see kindness and goodness in people, especially Christian people (to which we, of course, reply that it's hardly unique to Christians), and you think that's what Jesus was talking about. But it's not.
The Samaritans were people who were political transplants. When the Assyrians conquered the 10 northern tribes of Israel, they exported them over the mountains en masse, to the far side of their empire, and spread them out so they would assimilate and not fight over their homeland. Likewise, they took conquered people from the far corners of their empire, and settled them in what used to be Israel. It was a means of keeping people from fighting for their "ancestral homeland", and it effectively erased the northern 10 tribes, which we call the "lost tribes". As a result, the surviving tribes of Benjamin and Judah (from which Judea/Jews get their modern name) became quite obsessed with the notion of resisting assimilation, and many argue that this is the reason for much of the Redaction we see in the Old Testament, as the priests sought to put together a unifying, single message for all, a Hebrew Identity™ around which they could all rally, especially during the Exile a few generations later.
By the time we get to Jesus' era, the Samaritans were an amalgamated people that the Judeans saw as sub-human, immoral, and trespassers on sacred soil. They were, to the Jews, the lowest of the low. So your Jesus-figure picked a Samaritan for a specific purpose. What was it? That's what I wanted you to read the story to see.
If the point was that "a guy Jesus met helped somebody by giving them money and being nice", there would be no reason to invoke the fact that he was a Samaritan.
My point to you was to research the history (which I just typed-up for you) of the Judean-Samaritan relationship, and to understand why Jesus chose that particular ethnicity for his story, instead of "some dude was on a road".
Or the story of the good Samaritan?
I suppose in a vague way, you're saying you see kindness and goodness in people, especially Christian people (to which we, of course, reply that it's hardly unique to Christians), and you think that's what Jesus was talking about. But it's not.
The Samaritans were people who were political transplants. When the Assyrians conquered the 10 northern tribes of Israel, they exported them over the mountains en masse, to the far side of their empire, and spread them out so they would assimilate and not fight over their homeland. Likewise, they took conquered people from the far corners of their empire, and settled them in what used to be Israel. It was a means of keeping people from fighting for their "ancestral homeland", and it effectively erased the northern 10 tribes, which we call the "lost tribes". As a result, the surviving tribes of Benjamin and Judah (from which Judea/Jews get their modern name) became quite obsessed with the notion of resisting assimilation, and many argue that this is the reason for much of the Redaction we see in the Old Testament, as the priests sought to put together a unifying, single message for all, a Hebrew Identity™ around which they could all rally, especially during the Exile a few generations later.
By the time we get to Jesus' era, the Samaritans were an amalgamated people that the Judeans saw as sub-human, immoral, and trespassers on sacred soil. They were, to the Jews, the lowest of the low. So your Jesus-figure picked a Samaritan for a specific purpose. What was it? That's what I wanted you to read the story to see.
(September 13, 2015 at 3:08 am)Ronkonkoma Wrote: Sure I just read the Good Samaritan, I think he was probably a real person that Jesus came in contact with. He pulled out two denari to help the beaten up guy.Felt I needed to quote the part I was addressing, above, so you could see what I mean exactly.
If the point was that "a guy Jesus met helped somebody by giving them money and being nice", there would be no reason to invoke the fact that he was a Samaritan.
My point to you was to research the history (which I just typed-up for you) of the Judean-Samaritan relationship, and to understand why Jesus chose that particular ethnicity for his story, instead of "some dude was on a road".
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
