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.