Consider the Good Samaritan

I guess it should be no surprise that, having lied about what you said, you do not hesitate to lie about what I said.

My brain is no bigger than anyone else's. I just understand a very few very simple things about human nature that some people don't dare to look at.

 

What I said can be found in post #102, which was:

YOU-"You don't think selfish people lack understanding?"
ME-"Sometimes they do,sometimes they don't.(like everyone)"

However you most certainly did deny the pure fear of pain and I can indeed find that post, Sigmund Fraud. You said it isn't the fear of pain that people actually fear but rather what it is related to.(I'm paraphrasing) I agreed that was true but I furthered it by saying that sometimes people simply fear pain because it hurts and for no more reason and you denied it.

Like you and your own pride,unless that is one of those things that you understand is wrong and yet continue to be defeated by. Why else are you back in here, you made it very clear that I - "haven't got a clue about human nature, and to all appearances [I am] happy being clueless, so the conversation is over." - and yet here we are, you are sticking around for reasons that I said .

Tell me something, have you ever made the same mistake twice even knowing it was wrong the first time ?

 

No you can't, but it won't hurt my feelings if you ressurect the thread.

First, that isn't how you represented my words in your previous post. Second, that was way too long ago for me to remember exactly what I said, but obviously I can count on you to get it wrong.

And properly so, because it's pure drivel.

To bear witness to your misrepresentation of my words, obviously.

 

Oh right, because you can never be wrong.

These were your exact words - "Fear of pain is founded on fear of the consequences of the cause thereof; so if the latter is absent, the former will be also."

Look familiar ?

You can't even count on your own memory so don't jump ahead,pops. It was in the "Was Jesus God " thread.

Kids get shots and fear the prick of the needle because they hurt. I did. I never feared a shot until I broke my finger and had to get a numbing shot and it hurt like mad, which is why after that I feared getting one again till I HAD to because of the pain and the pain alone.

But you won't admit you are wrong because,

= PRIDE .. No misrepresentation here Sigmund Fraud.

 

everything you say I'm wrong about, I'm right about.

Now get lost.

 

Was He not also showing what was appropriate behavior for someone who whished to live a righteous life?

 

NO...................................

 

Let me include this for you Brucebeat:
"Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

 

Read my post again. It doesn't suggest anyone is. It says it shows behavior appropriate for someone who wishes to be.
Now go yell at elijah, as he agreed with me.

 

Wishes is a very poor choice of words on your part. At any rate, I don't believe it does... as I posted before, I believe it was simply a matter of being politically correct.

 

Why was it a poor choice of words? Because it showed you don't read posts very carefully?

 

According to Strong's exhaustive concordance and dictionary, a wish is a prayer to God. If that good Samaritan was not a worshiper of God, then why would that Samaritan be praying to God? That would be like trying to get one of the non-theists on this forum to pray to God.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2172&t=KJV

 

Well, that would just prove a complete ignorance of the theology of the Samaritans.

 

Well, that would prove a complete ignorance of the history of the Bible on your part.
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-samaritans.htm

The Samaritans were pagans in the eyes of the Jews. Pagans would not be praying to God.

 

I can see where you'd get that. But, because it was set up on the back of the question of "eternal life", and then followed up by the lawyer seeking to "justify" himself, it shifts it from meaning that.

 

Uh oh.... it seems that elijah does not totally agree with you. Now who do you want me to yell at?

 

Interesting post. Helps to support exactly what I've been saying about this parable.
A pagan was simply someone that believed something other than the accepted version of theology. It wasn't a non-believer, it was just a description of "other". Pagans prayed to their gods, and Samaritans to the God of Abraham.
The whole point of the story is those you may consider pagans may be the very ones that God loves.
Thanks for your help.

 

Is righteousness related to justification? You are simply making an argument to argue. The behavior of the Samaritan is obviously fundamental to the story, and the fact that he is a Samaritan is not an irrelevant accident. Why do you think Christ chose the known "enemy" as the hero?

 

See my response to him and the elijah quotes.

- - - Updated - - -

See my response to him and the elijah quotes.

 

Those are both presumptions that you have stated above and even contradicts your notion of "believed something". The article I cited also stated "The Samaritans were a pagan sect..." You attempt to pass off the distinction by saying that "It wasn't a non-believer, it was just a description of 'other' " when "other" had not even been discussed in the article. The article was about pagan Samaritans; note the Samaritans were noted in their time as being a 'godless people'. Try again... I have not assisted you in any way. You now saying that the Samaritans worshiped the God of Abraham is not totally true... that did not come about for quite some time. Even in the time of Jesus, they were still considered a 'godless people' . You need to keep your facts straight.
The whole point of the story is those you may consider pagans may be the very ones that God loves.
Thanks for your help.[/QUOTE]

- - - Updated - - -

Those are both presumptions that you have stated above and even contradicts your notion of "believed something". The article I cited also stated "The Samaritans were a pagan sect..." You attempt to pass off the distinction by saying that "It wasn't a non-believer, it was just a description of 'other' " when "other" had not even been discussed in the article. The article was about pagan Samaritans; note the Samaritans were noted in their time as being a 'godless people'. Try again... I have not assisted you in any way. You now saying that the Samaritans worshiped the God of Abraham is not totally true... that did not come about for quite some time. Even in the time of Jesus, they were still considered a 'godless people' . You need to keep your facts straight.
The whole point of the story is those you may consider pagans may be the very ones that God loves.
Thanks for your help.[/QUOTE]

 

How do you become justified?

- - - Updated - - -

How do you become justified?
And Who's righteousness?

 

The unrighteous Samaritan, as seen as being an unbeliever, did the righteous thing that the religious followers would not. And so, who did the will of God? Again the outwardly religious were hypocrites who outwardly followed the Law but missed the weightier part of mercy, the obedience of the inward man.

As per scripture, "Man looks on the outside but God looks on the inside."

And speaking of judgment, "Lord, Lord, we did all these things in Your Name..and He answered, "I never knew you." (King OD xlation)

 

Samaritans = Pagan half jews (is that an unintended anti semitic slur?). Is what the link says.

I think they were hated by the jewish community more because of their similarities than their differences. Jewish wannabes so to speak. I do not think this was a general term like gentile, it was a specific people. Furthermore what made this specific people stand out for the parable was the widespread revulsion that the jewish community felt for them.

I think construing this parable as somehow placing non-jewish people as more favored by God is completely stupid.

 

I did, and it seems that you are merely reiterating the same argument that you said he agreed upon with you.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why we're talking about rightousness, when its nevr mentioned or implied by the text.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still trying to figure out why we're talking about rightousness, when its nevr mentioned or implied by the text.