Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Waratah]

Did the friend show pity on his friend who wanted loaves?

because the guy outside would not stop A/S/King

Is that a yes or no? I would find it hard that you could insist that the friend showed pity because the guy kept asking. No seeking or knocking.

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.

So we are in agreeance then that the good samaritan parable has nothing to do with your use of the term neighbour?
luke 10: 36 and 37
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Did the friend give the loaves straight away just as the samaritan cared for the naked beaten man as soon as he saw him? No.

this is an intellectually dishonest statement. Fore there is no time frame given between the time the sameritian saw the man and he began to help him. Look at the Aid that was given to the Jew. olive oil and wine. It is possiable that he had these things, but it is also possiable he would have to get them. verse 33 says between the sameritian see the jew and helping the jew, he felt very sorry for the jew. Again no time frame was given you are forcing a time frame onto this story to support your own argument.

I accept that there is no time frame. This is also irrelevant as even you have suggested the samaritan has acted in such a way as to helping the man straight away. I say this because even the act of getting oil and wine would be the beginning of helping by getting the right tools to care for the wounds.

Please drich just admit that the good samaritan parable has nothing to do with your using neighbour instead of friend.

Can you please also admit that your assertion that the good samaritan parable is saying that anyone in close proximity to someone is a neighbour.

If you really were keen in a smooth discussion, then it would be helpful if you did not just assert without any proof and/or explanation. This means as an example that you can't just say 'the good samaritan says so'. You would have to explain why you believe it does. I think you would then find out you errors and we can actually get to the real reason.

So this brings us to the original question.

Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour? Now my original question is saying insist because I kept pointing out to you your use of neighbour and you just kept on using neighbour. So it was not just a case of "misspoken", you were being intellectually dishonest.

So far you have given me 2 reasons which I have shown to be false.

Again I have already concede this argument 5 times just so you can make your argument. Either get on with it or I will be forced to shake the dust from my feet and move past you.

I see the problem here. I have cut and pasted my question from when you had not conceded the use of the term neighbour instead of friend scripturally. Now I still have to get you to admit that you reasons given so far for the use of neighbour are false. Here is how the question should be written

Why did you insist saying it was a neighbour?

Above I have special sentences up there with question marks(?). They call them questions. You know the ones that you do not avoid unless "the question is an attempt to derail the topic or is just beligerantly disrespectful or blasphmous.".

This is another intelectually dishonest statement as well. For you are well aware Not all questions are meant to be answered, these are called rhetorical questions. Since you have the answers to your questions then there is no need for me to answer or correct you.

So you are saying that I am being dishonest because I have asked rhetorical questions and then you actually answered the "rhetorical questions".

Are we in agreeance that your first excuse for using the term neighbour instead of friend is bullshit. It is the one where you said you used it to distinguished between the friends by using the term neighbour for both. I have shown this many times but you have not conceded yet.

Here are some questions (or me asking to back up your assertions) that you did not answer from my last post. Again avoiding questions.

Links please with actual quotations as to what does not make sense. I may have made some grammatical errors which I will clear up.

Could you please make it clear of what I do not understand and why you think I do not understand?

Could you please highlight what you have misspoken?

Is this what they would call a fallacy of authority?



So we don't lose focus. It is this post that we are going one step at a time.

We are still on the first one which I have changed a bit with the use of did instead of do.

Why did you insist saying it was a neighbour?