The Good Samaritian

[Waratah]

---

"Actually the story, (as explained by my Ivy League religion scholar instructors), was not about the *question* "who is my neighbor ?", but knowing the despised status of Samaritans in Galilean society, it was about acceptance of those seen as "other". The closest thing our culture used to have, similar to that, would have been ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities. The Christian cult failed abysmally to actually learn that lesson, and (just exactly like the Bible), the religious norms changed when the cultural norms changed. Religion sanctions culture. Culture does not sanction religion."

I think that just made it worse.....Go and do likewise - become Samaritan? Its not about the neighbourhood - its about the minorities. The answer isn't the answer to the question is an answer to another question that wasn't asked. My head hurts.

---

Does this mean Drich and Waratah are killing each other over the wrong thing?

---

Just a moment. Jesus didn't like the Samaritans either

Matthew 10: Jesus sends out the disciples to drive out evil spirits and the like and to spread the word but he tells them specifically:

"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel...."

He didn't think the Samaritans were worth it apparently.

---

I think can understand the confusion here. I will try summarize why we are here talking about the good samaritan parable.

* Drich offers proof of god via luke 11 to receive the holy spirit as proof.
* I did luke 11 to receive holy spirit and nothing happened so I said it was bullshit to drich.
* Drich says I did not follow properly because I did not ask/seek/knock like the neighbour did.
* This is where I point out to receive the holy spirit you only have to ask to receive. I also highlighted his error of using neighbour instead of friend. He continued to use it anyway, even after I used one of my arguments relies on the term friend. This to me is the true reason for his continued use of friend.
* His first excuse(lie) was to suggest he was trying to distinguish between the one asking for the loaves and the one or refused to get up. Problem was he called them both neighbour instead of friend.
* His second excuse(plain stupid or intellectually dishonest) was to say he used neighbour as christ did in the good samaritan parable.
* His first explanation (2a) was to say it says that anyone in close proximity to you can be classed a neighbour. The first time he has said that this was a mistake, has been here. This is after I had pointed out several times with no concession.
* His second explanation (2b) was to compare the good samaritan to the friend who said he would not get up, as he has done here. I have already shot to pieces his reasoning as I have done here.
* After pointing out his misinterpretation( still not conceded) and uses the excuse that neighbour and friend mean the same to him.
* At this point I had to begrudgingly accept his excuse. We had moved on from the discussion of neighbour/friend and we were now discussing how he thinks repetitive asking is knocking.
* Then out of the blue he starts this thread and then clearly states that neighbour and friend do not mean the same. He says he wants to move the discussion forward. It was him going back to it.

You have to also remember that drich will use many excuses to avoid replying to posts and answering questions. This is the fifth thread that this discussion has spread to.