Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 17, 2013 at 1:37 am (This post was last modified: October 17, 2013 at 1:38 am by max-greece.)
(October 16, 2013 at 7:23 pm)Drich Wrote:
(October 16, 2013 at 9:32 am)max-greece Wrote: Mystified!!
The Good Samaritan Story was used to answer the question: "Who is my neighbour?" This was in the context of "Love your neighbour as yourself."
According to this interpretation you are instructed to love those that will do you a good turn.
That is a hugely disappointing interpretation.
Surely there has to be something in it along the lines of "Be a good neighbour?"
Jesus disappoints, again.
How so?
(October 16, 2013 at 9:39 am)Kayenneh Wrote: I have to disagree to an extent. Though I find it a bit hypocritical too (though Drich can probably shed some light on the Christian point of view, if neighbourly love should be unconditional), I immediately think of Deidre's forgiveness thread. You can only be that forgiving and nice to someone, who constantly drains you of your resources without giving anything back. It's not like you have to keep a tally and the giving/receiving has to add up, but a too one sided relationship is taxing.
Unconditional love? No. The only condition is to love your neighbor as you yourself want to be loved.
(October 16, 2013 at 9:56 am)Waratah Wrote: 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?
(October 16, 2013 at 12:41 pm)max-greece Wrote: "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 still dont see the point here.
How is helping your neighbor a bad thing?
I've had 3 goes at explaining why this is disappointing, one of which you may have missed:
"Am I having a total logic failure here? I must be:
Tonus - that's how I want it to read but I can't quite get there:
Love your neighbour as yourself.
Who is my neighbour?
The Good Samaritan is a good neighbour.
Go and do likewise
That is some fucked up shit right there. The only way it works if is the guy the Samaritan helps is the neighbour and he's the only bloody one who isn't referred to in that way."
I don't think I can explain it any better than the above. If Jesus is saying the neighbour you should love is the one that does you a good turn then he is not saying very much.
If Jesus is saying you should be a good neighbour then he's not answering the question.
If Jesus is saying that the guy the Samaritan saves is the neighbour he's the only one that isn't referred to in that way.
It just doesn't hold together. I know what I think it should say - but I can't get there. On the other hand I am assuming I know what I think it should say - on the basis of who Jesus was supposed to be but maybe you are right and it says what it wanted him to say.
This leaves me either disappointed in the message or the means of illustrating the message.
It's a parable, and thus open to interpretation. The way I see it, the parable was Jesus' way of telling this man that he was focusing on the wrong point. The man seems to be asking "is there a limit to the people I should be nice to?" And perhaps he was thinking of non-Jews as not being his "neighbor." So Jesus tells him a story and his point seems to be "instead of trying to sort out who is or isn't your neighbor, be a neighbor to everyone who needs one." It is, as you alluded earlier, a version of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Jesus, on a couple of occasions, seems to promote the idea of being proactively "good" to others. Even to the extent of helping those who harm you. The story of the good Samaritan seems to be in line with this.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
(October 17, 2013 at 1:37 am)max-greece Wrote: I've had 3 goes at explaining why this is disappointing, one of which you may have missed:
Love your neighbour as yourself.
Who is my neighbour?
The Good Samaritan is a good neighbour.
Go and do likewise That is some fucked up shit right there. The only way it works if is the guy the Samaritan helps is the neighbour and he's the only bloody one who isn't referred to in that way."
Ah! I see the problem now. The G/S was the neighbor who was loving the beaten jew as himself.
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.”[u]
The one who had mercy was the sameritian. So In this story the 'G/S' was the neighbor while the Fellow Jews were not.
Quote:I don't think I can explain it any better than the above. If Jesus is saying the neighbour you should love is the one that does you a good turn then he is not saying very much.
Jesus is saying if you do someone a good turn you are that neighbor, even though you may not have any other connection to this person.
Quote:If Jesus is saying you should be a good neighbour then he's not answering the question.
If Jesus is saying that the guy the Samaritan saves is the neighbour he's the only one that isn't referred to in that way.
It just doesn't hold together. I know what I think it should say - but I can't get there. On the other hand I am assuming I know what I think it should say - on the basis of who Jesus was supposed to be but maybe you are right and it says what it wanted him to say.
The story relays that one must be more than just linked to someone else either by kinsmenship or simple proxcimity (what dummy would ever think that ) One must actually do something that help someone else even if there are no other connections. That is what makes a neighbor a neighbor.
Like helping a friend at midnight with a loaf of bread, that makes a friend a good neighbor.
Quote:This leaves me either disappointed in the message or the means of illustrating the message.
(October 16, 2013 at 10:31 pm)Waratah Wrote: 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".
It makes a big difference, because i know that some cultures have a hard time understanding some of the subbtle neuaunces of english. If you were one of these people it would go a long way in explaining why you have such a hard time distingushing between an inconsistancy and a lie. a lie is different from an inconsistance because it denotes intent.
something you have failed to proove in every single instance you have attempted to identify me as a liar. You simply point to an inconsistancy and assume a lie has been told. Maybe for you or your tribesmen this is a socially acceptiable way to identify someone who has provided you with an inconsistant statement. But, here in the world outside your tribe, one has to be able to not only show an inconsistancy, but intent to be deemed a liar..
Now ask yourself have you done this once? (not have you tried, but have you via 'proof' been able to establish intent.) Now ask yourself why? One viable opion I see is there simply is no evidence, and yet you are still trying to be deceptive in order to dimiss what i have said with out nutting up and addressing actual content, But that would be highly hypocritical.
The other possiable reason I see is that your culture simply does not judge people the same way those who live in western soceity does.
So Option A you are a deceptive hypocrite who's intent is to BS himself out of a conversation, by putting his opponet on the defensive or forcing him to stoop to your level and personally take the other person means and motives into consideration and hijack the conversation away from content you can not possiable defend with your limited knoweledge of the subject matter being discussed.
-or-
Option B you just do not know any better because your indiginious culture does or can not distinguish between someone providing an inconsistant statement and one who's intent is to deceive.
I chose option B simply because if you are one who culture is similiar to my own, and after the 50 or so times you call me a liar, but have failed to prove intent, but still yet know the defination of liar/LIE liedly·ing \ˈlī-iŋ\
Definition of LIE
intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
then that would have made you the liar and a hypocrite now wouldn't?
I like to give people the benfit of the doubt, even one who has been trying to hound dog me. That is why i asked if you were not born into or apart of western culture, by asking if english was your primary language or not .
My mother is korean, and she has a hard time with things like this sometimes. If this is what is wrong with you, then maybe I'll back off and be alittle more understanding. If not, and your just some douche bag who has mistaken patients for weakness, then you better break out your favorite lube and brace yourself, because I will have some fun with you before i get board and place you in the minnie pile.
(October 16, 2013 at 10:31 pm)Waratah Wrote: 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".
It makes a big difference, because i know that some cultures have a hard time understanding some of the subbtle neuaunces of english. If you were one of these people it would go a long way in explaining why you have such a hard time distingushing between an inconsistancy and a lie. a lie is different from an inconsistance because it denotes intent.
something you have failed to proove in every single instance you have attempted to identify me as a liar. You simply point to an inconsistancy and assume a lie has been told. Maybe for you or your tribesmen this is a socially acceptiable way to identify someone who has provided you with an inconsistant statement. But, here in the world outside your tribe, one has to be able to not only show an inconsistancy, but intent to be deemed a liar..
Now ask yourself have you done this once? (not have you tried, but have you via 'proof' been able to establish intent.) Now ask yourself why? One viable opion I see is there simply is no evidence, and yet you are still trying to be deceptive in order to dimiss what i have said with out nutting up and addressing actual content, But that would be highly hypocritical.
The other possiable reason I see is that your culture simply does not judge people the same way those who live in western soceity does.
So Option A you are a deceptive hypocrite who's intent is to BS himself out of a conversation, by putting his opponet on the defensive or forcing him to stoop to your level and personally take the other person means and motives into consideration and hijack the conversation away from content you can not possiable defend with your limited knoweledge of the subject matter being discussed.
-or-
Option B you just do not know any better because your indiginious culture does or can not distinguish between someone providing an inconsistant statement and one who's intent is to deceive.
I chose option B simply because if you are one who culture is similiar to my own, and after the 50 or so times you call me a liar, but have failed to prove intent, but still yet know the defination of liar/LIE liedly·ing \ˈlī-iŋ\
I do not have to prove intent. You left out the second definition of lie.
Definition of LIE
intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
By you leaving out definition number 2 you created a misleading impression that a lie had to have intent.
So by trying to defend yourself, you lie. Well done drich
Quote:
then that would have made you the liar and a hypocrite now wouldn't?
I like to give people the benfit of the doubt, even one who has been trying to hound dog me. That is why i asked if you were not born into or apart of western culture, by asking if english was your primary language or not .
My mother is korean, and she has a hard time with things like this sometimes. If this is what is wrong with you, then maybe I'll back off and be alittle more understanding. If not, and your just some douche bag who has mistaken patients for weakness, then you better break out your favorite lube and brace yourself, because I will have some fun with you before i get board and place you in the minnie pile.
October 17, 2013 at 11:30 pm (This post was last modified: October 17, 2013 at 11:30 pm by Bucky Ball.)
(October 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm)Drich Wrote: As I have said many many times in the past I am not here to save souls, I am here to help you all make a choice. I do my best to answer biblically based questions, and provide clarity concerning the differences between religion and Christianity.
Only Christ can save souls
Got that one wrong, junior.
"No one shall come to me unless the Father draw him".
It is utterly ignorant confabulation that atheist have "a choice".
One does not have an honest "choice" to affirm that which one honestly thinks is the truth. But thanks for exposing how completely bizarre the brains of believers are, or is your god so fucking stupid she wouldn't know if someone *said* they believed, and really didn't ?
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell
(October 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm)Drich Wrote: As I have said many many times in the past I am not here to save souls, I am here to help you all make a choice. I do my best to answer biblically based questions, and provide clarity concerning the differences between religion and Christianity.
Only Christ can save souls
Got that one wrong, junior.
"No one shall come to me unless the Father draw him".
It is utterly ignorant confabulation that atheist have "a choice".
One does not have an honest "choice" to affirm that which one honestly thinks is the truth.
While that is completely true, How do you know that all current atheists are and will always be atheist? I once did not believe in God, but the "Father drew " and I then had a choice to make. Fore just because God called me does not mean I had to answer. Are you familiar with the parable of the prodigal son? The Father in that story wanted his son by his side but allowed him to not only leave but to stay gone and spend all that he was given to live the life the son wanted to live. It wasn't till the son made the choice to return did the Father rush out and welcomed him home.
Quote:But thanks for exposing how completely bizarre the brains of believers are, or is your god so fucking stupid she wouldn't know if someone *said* they believed, and really didn't ?
Professing belief, or even believing that you are 'christian' because of what you do does not make you one. As per what Christ said in mat 7. The choice I was taking about was the choice Christ offered and died to provide.
October 18, 2013 at 12:25 am (This post was last modified: October 18, 2013 at 12:26 am by *Deidre*.)
(October 18, 2013 at 12:14 am)Drich Wrote:
(October 17, 2013 at 11:30 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Got that one wrong, junior.
"No one shall come to me unless the Father draw him".
It is utterly ignorant confabulation that atheist have "a choice".
One does not have an honest "choice" to affirm that which one honestly thinks is the truth.
While that is completely true, How do you know that all current atheists are and will always be atheist? I once did not believe in God, but the "Father drew " and I then had a choice to make. Fore just because God called me does not mean I had to answer. Are you familiar with the parable of the prodigal son? The Father in that story wanted his son by his side but allowed him to not only leave but to stay gone and spend all that he was given to live the life the son wanted to live. It wasn't till the son made the choice to return did the Father rush out and welcomed him home.
Quote:But thanks for exposing how completely bizarre the brains of believers are, or is your god so fucking stupid she wouldn't know if someone *said* they believed, and really didn't ?
Professing belief, or even believing that you are 'christian' because of what you do does not make you one. As per what Christ said in mat 7. The choice I was taking about was the choice Christ offered and died to provide.
I was once a Christian. How do you know the stories you follow in the Bible are true?
October 18, 2013 at 12:38 am (This post was last modified: October 18, 2013 at 12:40 am by Drich.)
(October 17, 2013 at 7:49 pm)Waratah Wrote:
(October 17, 2013 at 3:31 pm)Drich Wrote:
It makes a big difference, because i know that some cultures have a hard time understanding some of the subbtle neuaunces of english. If you were one of these people it would go a long way in explaining why you have such a hard time distingushing between an inconsistancy and a lie. a lie is different from an inconsistance because it denotes intent.
something you have failed to proove in every single instance you have attempted to identify me as a liar. You simply point to an inconsistancy and assume a lie has been told. Maybe for you or your tribesmen this is a socially acceptiable way to identify someone who has provided you with an inconsistant statement. But, here in the world outside your tribe, one has to be able to not only show an inconsistancy, but intent to be deemed a liar..
Now ask yourself have you done this once? (not have you tried, but have you via 'proof' been able to establish intent.) Now ask yourself why? One viable opion I see is there simply is no evidence, and yet you are still trying to be deceptive in order to dimiss what i have said with out nutting up and addressing actual content, But that would be highly hypocritical.
The other possiable reason I see is that your culture simply does not judge people the same way those who live in western soceity does.
So Option A you are a deceptive hypocrite who's intent is to BS himself out of a conversation, by putting his opponet on the defensive or forcing him to stoop to your level and personally take the other person means and motives into consideration and hijack the conversation away from content you can not possiable defend with your limited knoweledge of the subject matter being discussed.
-or-
Option B you just do not know any better because your indiginious culture does or can not distinguish between someone providing an inconsistant statement and one who's intent is to deceive.
I chose option B simply because if you are one who culture is similiar to my own, and after the 50 or so times you call me a liar, but have failed to prove intent, but still yet know the defination of liar/LIE liedly·ing \ˈlī-iŋ\
I do not have to prove intent. You left out the second definition of lie.
Definition of LIE
intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
By you leaving out definition number 2 you created a misleading impression that a lie had to have intent.
So by trying to defend yourself, you lie. Well done drich
Quote:
then that would have made you the liar and a hypocrite now wouldn't?
I like to give people the benfit of the doubt, even one who has been trying to hound dog me. That is why i asked if you were not born into or apart of western culture, by asking if english was your primary language or not .
My mother is korean, and she has a hard time with things like this sometimes. If this is what is wrong with you, then maybe I'll back off and be alittle more understanding. If not, and your just some douche bag who has mistaken patients for weakness, then you better break out your favorite lube and brace yourself, because I will have some fun with you before i get board and place you in the minnie pile.
Again I ask are you ignorant of basic English and general comprehension of western soceity? Or are you pushing for more intentional deception? Or do you have a third option? If you feel you have an understand English and western soceity I ask, What does it mean to create? As in to "create a false understanding?"
Wouldn't creation of this deception indicate intent? If your belief is that creation does not include or reflect any intention then please give an example where creation spontaneously occours and does not include intent. Otherwise know intent is critical to BOTH understandings of this word.
Now if I had your understanding of a liar I would be calling you one now, and get to hound dog you. Because by what you have said, and what you posted you omitted 3/4 of the definition lie to only provide the two you thought were revelant and yet represented those two definitions as the only definitions of the word lie.
Which by your own standard makes you a liar. So I ask you using your own logic and own definitions explain to me why in this situation you are not a liar.
(October 18, 2013 at 12:25 am)Deidre32 Wrote:
(October 18, 2013 at 12:14 am)Drich Wrote: While that is completely true, How do you know that all current atheists are and will always be atheist? I once did not believe in God, but the "Father drew " and I then had a choice to make. Fore just because God called me does not mean I had to answer. Are you familiar with the parable of the prodigal son? The Father in that story wanted his son by his side but allowed him to not only leave but to stay gone and spend all that he was given to live the life the son wanted to live. It wasn't till the son made the choice to return did the Father rush out and welcomed him home.
Professing belief, or even believing that you are 'christian' because of what you do does not make you one. As per what Christ said in mat 7. The choice I was taking about was the choice Christ offered and died to provide.
I was once a Christian. How do you know the stories you follow in the Bible are true?
God offers proof for those who Ask, Seek and Knock for it as outlined in Luke 11.
The Bible isn't ''proof.'' If you consider it to be proof, then what would you say to all those who are perhaps ''religious'' but, don't follow Christianity? The reason I started denouncing my faith, is because I started looking at the Bible as a collective group of stories, and to be honest? Those stories were strewn together by a very corrupt early church that sought power and control over the present society of the timeframe. If you wish to believe in what you believe, it's not for me to pass critcism on you, but don't believe lies and stories that for all you know, are no more truer than Dr Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham. That's the caution I would offer to you. When you also look at Genesis, how can you reconcile that part of the Bible, against the theory of evolution? The closer one looks at the bible, the more ugly it all gets. Truth shouldn't be ugly, though, so that's how I know it's not truth.
) One must actually do something that help someone else even if there are no other connections. That is what makes a neighbor a neighbor.
