hmmm...loving thy neighbour has nothing to do with religion but all to do with your humanity.
Christian, who is thy neighbour?
- Thread starter water
- Start date
Fair point.....
I suppose one could say that if not for some of the more wise recommendations that religions offer concepts of love thy neighbour may be less prevalent.
I thiink I was attemping to express the belief that their is a natural love that is humanity, that needs not an ideology but simply a "loving" person.
To feel compassion and love for the human condition is not the sole province of religious persons but belongs to all people atheist's included.
To deny compassion due to some religious belief deems that religion a fraud against humanity. This I think the new testament attempts to convey but this is not, as I have already stated original only to Christianity.
The story of the Samaritan strikes me as a story of human compassion unhindered by theosophy or ideology and is why I find this story so profound.
It's fraud against God as well - and it's not the "New Testament" that conveys this, it was Jesus. It is only in Christ that love is portrayed as a moral law that requires forgiveness and will eventually be judged. Life doesn't generally permit someone to be a "simply loving person" - it pulls out all its guns to test it, and if love is just a lightweight concept with no compelling weight, it will get trampled. Strong personal convictions can lend it that weight, but they must come from somewhere as well.Quantum Quack said:
You should analyze the parable of the Prodigal Son, now that's a whopper.
Last edited:
As always, falling back upon your one and only comeback to any debate. It's worthless.
Why you asking me? You think I'm god?
But I guess that would depend upon what particular passage you choose to read. If you read the passages that state man can inherit eternal life by his works alone - then yes, but if you read the purely contradictory passages that state otherwise, then no.
However at the end of the day, neither of us can say what god will or will not do - and if this is the only angle at which you can try to refute what I said, you'll need to try a lot better next time.
You proposed to understand the parable, I was just checking. You say we can't know what God will or won't do. Is that true even when He tells us what He will or won't do?SnakeLord said:
Do you really believe one should read everything without their context? I bring up the point of isolation everytime in discussion with you, because that's what you do!
"James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20)." - Faith (Romans) or Works (James)?
Without the context of faith, James would have had nothing to say.
Last edited:
Again you're asking the wrong entity. Ask him, not me. He can do whatever he wants to do. At one point he condemned anyone without a chopped penis, but then without warning decided it was now ok to not have a chopped penis. At one stage he condemned anyone who ate unclean meat, then the next told everyone they could munch on pork.
Who are you to say he doesn't have a new novel masterpiece on the way which completely changes and denounces everything he said beforehand? Who knows, maybe he already has in the form of David Koresh's work, but we wont accept that as gods word until someone digs it up 2000 years from now and says "wow, look at this. It must be true because it says it is", and then all these kinds of debates will start up again.
Maybe once the world of the religious has pretty much died its death, god will realise there's little point to living and puff himself out of existence.
Who are you to say? Who am I to answer? He can do whatever he bloody well wants to.
Now you're just being silly. You stated a passage, to which I stated the guy was an atheist- and backed that up with points, to which you then say I need to read an unrelated sentence 500 pages later trying to settle your entire case on the notion that "an atheist can't inherit eternal life", and asking me what god can or cannot do.
It's without worth to what I stated.
At one stage Betty weighed 200 pounds. Today she weighs 80. Contradiction? Once we were guilty, we were taken to court, judged and the verdict was passed. Today we live free. Illogical? Unfair? Contradiction? Without the events that connect them, you're blind to their meaning.
And He did. I can say that, you are answering (denying) that, aren;t you?
The parable is in Luke 10. The premise is in Luke 10. The application is in Luke 10. 500 pages? More like the same pericope.
All due respect Jenyar, but Betty and her weightloss issues are completely irrelevant to the issue. You asked me if you could tell what god was going to do if he'd written what he was going to do. I simply pointed out that the bible is not the be-all and end-all of the matter. It adapts and changes whenever god wants it to, and so no, you're in no place to say what god will or will not do by reading a 2000 year old book. If god is the author, he can do whatever he wants. So while I appreciate your wonderful little stories about Betty and your day in court, they are inherently worthless. If you're after an audience for your short story writing talents, feel free to pm me.
Just before that however, would you be kind enough to answer my question, for it seems you missed it the first time round. Here it is again:
Who are you to say he doesn't have a new novel masterpiece on the way which completely changes and denounces everything he said beforehand?
Are you even in the same thread? You asked me if god will allow atheists to go to heaven - to which I responded you'd be better off asking him. After that you then asked me if we can know what he will or wont do depending on what the bible says- to which I once again told you to ask him instead of me. So this whole time of you asking me what god can and cannot do is technically pointless considering I only said the samaritan was an atheist.
Basically what we've learned today is that you should stop asking me what god will or will not do, put your hands together, crouch by your bedside, and just ask him instead.
If you have something with which to refute my statement that the samaritan was an atheist, (other than asking me a million questions about what god eats for breakfast), then feel free.
That's groovy to know, except for then I question why, instead of offering simple refute, you keep asking me about gods daily activity sheet.
Really, SnakeLord. You should take less time ridiculing my answers and for once actually try to understand them. You think that God adds and removes things without rhyme or reason, and I think I understand why. Change does not imply overthrow. When something progresses it does not nullify everything before it, and when something grows it doesn't lose its roots. You know Jesus said you can know the tree by its fruit? Well, that fruit doesn't hang in mid-air. There are stems, branches, a trunk, roots. Perspective, context, colour, purpose.SnakeLord said:
No, the next masterpiece will be a new heaven and a new earth. It seems that for you they will come out of nowhere.
Maybe a bit of contextual history will suffice. Who were the Samaritans at the time Jesus taught the parable?
It was, however, during this period of Hellenization carried out by Alexander the Great and his successors, that a group of religious purists emerged in the Samaritan community, who decided to make a fresh start, and who erected the Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerezim. They developed their own distinctive religious system, including: the worship of the God of Israel, obedience to the Law of Moses, expectation of a coming Day of Judgment, belief in Mount Gerezim as the appointed place of sacrifice and in the return of Moses as the Taheb or the Restorer/Returning One.
From this point onward, there is a rapid deterioration in relations with those of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, who had returned to Palestine from exile in Babylon. They regarded the Samaritans as racially inferior interlopers, and their religion as a spurious counterfeit. At the time of the Maccabean Revolt the Samaritans sided with the Seleucid oppressors, and to placate Antiochus Epiphanes, they even allowed their temple to be dedicated to Zeus Xenious!
Subsequently, in 128 B.C., they were conquered by the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus (the conqueror and incorporator of Edom/ldumea), who destroyed their Temple on Mount Gerezim. At one particular Passover, between A.D. 6 and 9, the Samaritans defiled the Jerusalem Temple by scattering bones in it. Pilgrims travelling south from Galilee to Jerusalem for the religious festivals were afraid to go through Samaritan territory, a fear which was to be justified by the subsequent massacre of Galilean pilgrims by Samaritans at En-gannim in A.D. 52. The Samaritans rebelled against the Romans in A.D. 36. When a fanatic assembled them at Mount Gerezim, promising to reveal the sacred vessels which they had been taught were buried there by Moses, the rebels were ruthlessly massacred by order of Pontius Pilate. During the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66-70, a group of Samaritans joined in the rebellion and were slaughtered by the Roman Commander Vettulenus Cerealis, once again at Mount Gerezim. - Who were the Samaritans?
From this point onward, there is a rapid deterioration in relations with those of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, who had returned to Palestine from exile in Babylon. They regarded the Samaritans as racially inferior interlopers, and their religion as a spurious counterfeit. At the time of the Maccabean Revolt the Samaritans sided with the Seleucid oppressors, and to placate Antiochus Epiphanes, they even allowed their temple to be dedicated to Zeus Xenious!
Subsequently, in 128 B.C., they were conquered by the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus (the conqueror and incorporator of Edom/ldumea), who destroyed their Temple on Mount Gerezim. At one particular Passover, between A.D. 6 and 9, the Samaritans defiled the Jerusalem Temple by scattering bones in it. Pilgrims travelling south from Galilee to Jerusalem for the religious festivals were afraid to go through Samaritan territory, a fear which was to be justified by the subsequent massacre of Galilean pilgrims by Samaritans at En-gannim in A.D. 52. The Samaritans rebelled against the Romans in A.D. 36. When a fanatic assembled them at Mount Gerezim, promising to reveal the sacred vessels which they had been taught were buried there by Moses, the rebels were ruthlessly massacred by order of Pontius Pilate. During the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66-70, a group of Samaritans joined in the rebellion and were slaughtered by the Roman Commander Vettulenus Cerealis, once again at Mount Gerezim. - Who were the Samaritans?
Now, compare the information above, with what we find in Luke 9 (the chapter immediately before the parable):
As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-53).
And if you are still in doubt after this, read Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4. They did believe in God, but were not considered "true" Israelites because they weren't originally Hebrew. But in John 4 Jesus again bridges the gap - and this time decisively.
So we've gone from you thinking I know what god's future plans will be, to you thinking you know what I think? It's kind of bizarre because not once did I say he removes things without reason, I merely said he can do whatever he wants to do, and unlike you, I have no intent on limiting his choices.
This all started because you asked me if god will let atheists go to heaven. I told you you'd be better off asking god - and instead of saying "oh yeah", you've spent the remainder of the time telling me about Betty who has weightloss issues, your visit to court, and now a supernatural story about fruits floating in the sky.
I never said change implied overthrow, but merely that change implies change, and god can do whatever he wants, and change whatever he wants - whenever he wants. You're not in a position to be telling me otherwise.
After we've all dropped dead, god might rise us up and then sit down with the atheists and say "Well, I know you've never believed in me and I appreciate the fact that you've used your brains instead of just behaving like mindless drones. You're welcome in heaven if you so choose", and so to answer your question for hopefully the final time without you boring me needlessly with mediocre fiction tales: Ask him, not me. You can't say 'no', I can't say 'yes'... god can do whatever he wants to do.
Yeah I read about that - that's just after the stars fall out of the sky. One even lands on the earth. The amusing thing is, people are still happily alive while there's a star sticking out of the planet.
However, for a bit of fun, let's take a look at the god's "no-no" list in Revelations:
But the legacy for cowards
For those who break their word
or worship obscenities
for murderers
and sexually immoral
and for sorcerers
worshippers of false gods
or any other sorts of liars.
I'm not cowardly at all, I don't break my word, I don't worship anything let alone obscenities, I have never murdered anyone, missionary position is good enough for me and I don't bonk blokes or goats, I can't say I've ever practiced sorcery - but I did play dungeons and dragons for a while and cast lvl8 spell thunderbolt so I hope that doesn't count, I don't worship false gods, and I'm an honest man - not only to others, but to myself aswell.
Not once in gods 'no-no' list do we see atheists. It doesn't even say "those who don't believe in me" so I fail to see why you'd try and count us out so early in the game. I suppose we could feel sorry for queers and warlocks who are quite clearly going to burn, (as they should), but you can't count atheists out just yet.
Oh and just later on he also mentions dogs, (*weep* I'll never see my pet Orion again), and fortune tellers. I guess Mystic Meg is doomed to hellfire. Don't panic, that's a good thing.. I never liked the bitch anyway.
Of course, this all relies on the hope that revelations isn't a drug induced hallucination.
K...
What this says is that there was a Samaritan community and some religious people, ("a group") emerged from it. It doesn't say Samaritans were religious people - but merely at one stage some religious people emerged from it. It's like our small community here in Totteridge. There were no religious people, then one day a family up the road turned religious.
Oh, they decided to make a "fresh start", now that they were religious. Obviously an atheist life as a Samaritan wasn't good enough for them, so they turned religious so they could start anew.
Still in doubt after what? The woman might not have been atheist - but I never claimed she was. Furthermore, I didn't say every single samaritan was an atheist, I merely said that man was. In every community you'll have religious people and non-religious people. The religious Samaritans who worshipped god and obeyed the laws of moses wouldn't have touched the man because they too would become unclean etc. The only person who would touch the man was quite clearly an atheist.
Spidergoat quote
I have posed this question before and received no adequate response:
Why is it believed that God is in some how limited to what humans have written on his behalf.
Jenya,
Why do you think God is limited by a book?
As Spidergoat has suggested " He can do what ever he likes " and if you think otherwise are you not limiting Gods devine perogative?
I have posed this question before and received no adequate response:
Why is it believed that God is in some how limited to what humans have written on his behalf.
Jenya,
Why do you think God is limited by a book?
As Spidergoat has suggested " He can do what ever he likes " and if you think otherwise are you not limiting Gods devine perogative?
HA ha ,,,and my name aint Quantum Quack either........
Spidergoat.......my apologies......Uhmmmm and you too SnakeLord.
I am not sure what feudian slip is involved...but again my apologies SnakeLord.
Oh spider Lord, I am sorry I got your Goat, but it was the serpent within that betrayed me.......hmmmm.....do I get to eat the trout afterwards?
And by the way I just looooove those slippers!!!!
And by the way I just looooove those slippers!!!!
*************RosaMagika said:Everybody:
I have made my statement in the other thread, "Believer's rhetoric: coating love with slime".
I will not further actively participate in discussions here.
Thank you for your attention and care.
M*W: Sorry to see ya go, RM, but I know how you feel. Sometimes I have to leave for a while, because the religionists on this forum don't understand anything you try to discuss with them. This forum has become an online Sunday school, and it's very disheartening. I find there is more positive discussion on the other Philosophy forums. Of course, you won't see Christians there because they don't have the foggiest about anything but Christianity, then most of the time that bastardize Christianity.
Go in peace, RM. Maybe we'll meet up again in another forum.