Consider the Good Samaritan

- - - Updated - - -
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

You are wrong about the Samaritans. Pagan didn't mean atheist. It didn't, and doesn't, mean non-believer.
But if we pretend it does, that makes Jesus' parable even more dramatic, doesn't it?
"In the New Testament, Jesus used the "parable of the good Samaritan" as an example of how lost Samaritans can be more moral, than those who consider themselves saved."
That quote is from the article you posted. The article also clearly shows the growth of the Samaritans from its roots in Moses.
Thank you once again for your help.

 

Is 'righteousness' also seen as DOING the will of God?

 

When you address, rather than avoid, my questions, I'll talk to you.

 

Totally agree. I hope this wasn't directed at me. That has never been my point in any way.

 

As looking back at the past couple of days of posting on this thread, I have a question:

"How can the story of the "Good" Samaritan" cause so many "Bad" feelings?!"

I'm gone---(just came on to respond to a PM)>>>>>>>>>>

 

You already agreed that it is a part of becoming justified.
The problem is you aren't addressing the issue of the thread, which is why Jesus to make a pagan the hero of the story. This is a thread about the greater ramifications of the parable, although we would disagree that this detail is fundamental to the story's meaning.
Why did He choose the enemy as hero?
Perhaps you agree with Incorporeal's citation.

 

More hallucinations on your part. Where did I say anything about Atheists? I didn't. I mentioned 'godless people' and that terminology was inferred in scripture.

And if you want to pretend that it does not mean 'godless people' then that pretending will lessen the effect of the parable.

No argument on that. However take note that you are now reducing the parameters previously stipulated. Previously you stated that it showed how people could be more 'righteous'.... now it is just "more moral"? Why the abandonment of the subject of 'righteous'?

It also showed where pagan temples were established. So what?

Thanking me for pointing out how you are changing the parameters involved in the OP or is it thanking me for showing you that you are pretending that the Samaritans were not a 'godless people'.

 

Your article clearly points out that the Samaritans did worship god. They weren't a godless people at all. You showed us all that. I can do many, many more citations that will confirm this, but what is the point.
You have already showed it very clearly.
Righteousness was not the subject of the OP. The nature of Jesus' hero was the point, and you have been very helpful in making it.
Thanks again.

 

I agree. It's challenging, and makes Christianity challenging, but rather than accept the challenge of loving the "other", we find people wanting to find any reason to maintain their anger and judgment.
Ah well.
That's people.

 

Cool.

If that was not your point I have no beef with you.

Peace

- - - Updated - - -

Cool.

If that was not your point I have no beef with you.

Peace

 

Clearly you need to do more study. Try this, it might help you a little bit more if you provide the adequate spin:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lZ...onepage&q="samaritans""godless people&f=false

 

LOL!!!!
This also doesn't show them as un-believers in god.
The fact is, this whole issue is irrelevant.
Whether un-believers or merely pagans in the estimation of the established faith, the Samaritan was the hero of the parable, and the enemy of the pharisees. You can start a thread about the origins of the Samaritans if you like. But how does this impact Jesus' parable?

 

The parable had nothing to do with a persons desire to be more righteous as you first claimed.

 

I've answered everyone of your questions.

 

"What is so interesting to me about this parable is that Jesus uses a sworn enemy of the establishment as the hero of the story."
After quoting the parable itself, this was my first statement, the premise of my OP. I discuss righteous behavior, but the point of the thread is to discuss why Jesus chose the enemy as hero.
The parable has to do with what we must do to be justified for salvation. Jesus replies with a parable exhibiting righteous behavior and suggests we do the same. The hero is a known theological enemy. I find that last point extremely interesting.
Any questions?

 

Thats not the subject of thread

- - - Updated - - -

[/QUOTE]

You are wrong about the Samaritans. Pagan didn't mean atheist. It didn't, and doesn't, mean non-believer.
But if we pretend it does, that makes Jesus' parable even more dramatic, doesn't it?
"In the New Testament, Jesus used the "parable of the good Samaritan" as an example of how lost Samaritans can be more moral, than those who consider themselves saved."
That quote is from the article you posted. The article also clearly shows the growth of the Samaritans from its roots in Moses.
Thank you once again for your help.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure why I'm addressed in this post.

 

wrong. I nevers said "its a part of BECOMING justified.

 

More of his delusions and or misinterpretations or spinning of what has been said.

 

What do you think it is?

 

If I answer, do you answer my questions?

 

Humans are by definition selfish beings. I have read multiple posts where you offer nothing of value and sling the same mud at valid points.

Do you agree or disagree that humans can know the right thing to do in a situation and choose the opposite? The answer is obvious.

I can know righteousness and what acts would fall in line with it, and still choose the wrong ones. Humans are imperfect creatures who constantly fail to act righteously even if they know exactly which actions are righteous.

I had to say it twice in the previous paragraph because you seem to be so obtuse. Good day.

Oh, I would love to hear your thoughts on human nature and see how it stacks up against the emerging dominant science of evolutionary psychology.

 

I don't doubt they are, according to the devil's dictionary.

I can be very obtuse indeed, when someone presents me with the intellectual equivalent of a road apple and tries to convince me it's chocolate pudding because it has whipped cream on it.

Maybe I will, if you tell me which "Jeferson" you consider an admirable historical figure.

 

Your arrogant dodge is noted.