The Good Samaritian

[Waratah]

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.

I think you've skipped a few attempts by me to concede the arguement, which would allow you to argue the friend angle, which you still haven't.

You conceded that it says friend instead of neighbour in luke 11. When you did that I accused you of lying because you used concede in the past tense via the use of conceded. I asked you to show me where you had conceded before that statement and you refused. Then we worked out that you did not understand that the using conceded is the past tense. Your problem is you are still trying to defend the use of neighbour instead of friend. All your excuses have been discredited.
We are still going through that post that you wanted to go through step by step. You know the one, "I am more than happy to continue one subject at a time flaming Poe or not.". Then we will go to my friend argument that you have said that you could discount. Your problem here is you don't seem to know what that angle is, so how can discount my argument. Go back the the thread or is your faith that weak.

And I started this thread because it seems you are confused to the reason I conceded the neighbor arguement to you.

Bullshit. You repeat the same argument that I have already discredited. Just more stalling tactics.

You trying to progress the discussion

---

How come you will not concede in the actually thread that we are discussing? I thought you did not want to talk anymore about your use of neighbour instead of friend.
The more you post the more lies come out. Your stated in this post that neighbour and friend means the same thing. Now you are saying that a neighbour does not have to be a friend. Please explain how you can say that these two words are he same. You are a liar.
Did the friend show pity on his friend who wanted loaves? No he did not give the loaves out of pity. Not a neighbour.

Did the friend show mercy on his friend who wanted loaves? No he did not give the loaves through mercy. Not a neighbour.

Do you now see how your 'good samaritan parable' does not support your use of neighbour instead of friend?

You even agreed with me here


Don't do it for sake of progressing an argument, concede because you are wrong.

Get you ass back to the other thread and you can try again in answering this question.

Why did you insist saying it was a neighbour?

So far I have caught you in 3 lies on just this one issue.

Don't answer it here keep our discussion in "Evolution Trumps Creationism" thread. Do not spread this discussion into 5 threads.

English is your primary language is it not? Or is your primary some sort of aboriginal tribal thing?

Whether english or an aboriginal dialect is my primary language is irrelevant to my post. Just another stalling tactic by drich. "You can't handle the truth".