Evolution Trumps Creationism

[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.