What The Good Samaritan did

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Yes. When you refute an argument of your own making instead of addressing the argument put forth by me - I have no dog in that fight.

Now if you were to address the argument actually made by me, then I would have a dog in that fight.

What's "convenient" is that you create a straw man argument and then get in a huff because I point out that there's no point in trying to address your refutation of YOUR own argument.

I huff and I puff and I blow the house down.

Now, to salvage something from this fiasco, for some possibly interested -

When I came to Christ, I knew nothing about Original Sin, or Fall of Man, and had no belief in a first man Adam.

So I didn't pass the buck on of my guiltiness to Adam, because I didn't know anything much about that.

The circle was drawn around me. And was between me and God - PERIOD.
It took years to get me to that point.

Anyway, abject failures were MINE and not Adam's in whom I had no knowledge or belief in other than long discarded Sunday school stories.

Originally posted by @sonship
I huff and I puff and I blow the house down.

Now, to salvage something from this fiasco, for some possibly interested -

When I came to Christ, I knew nothing about Original Sin, or Fall of Man, and had no belief in a first man Adam.

So I didn't pass the buck on of my guiltiness to Adam, because I didn't know anything much about that.

The ci ...[text shortened]... Adam's in whom I had no knowledge or belief in other than long discarded Sunday school stories.

I huff and I puff and I blow the house down.

Interesting that you've opted for the persona of a "ravenous wolf".

Originally posted by @thinkofone
sonship: I huff and I puff and I blow the house down.

Interesting that you've opted for the persona of a "ravenous wolf".

I would rather characterize it as him casting himself in one of his own fairy stories. 😛

-Removed-

Definitions have their use. They ensure discussion participants are really talking about the same thing when they use the same words.

Much of your issues with the concept of altruism spring from a fundamental misunderstanding of what that word means, IMO.

-Removed-

"Altruism" is not off topic in a thread about the Good Samaritan. You are wishing it was, because you have made a controversial claim that you cannot be bothered to defend. 😴

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]I huff and I puff and I blow the house down.

Interesting that you've opted for the persona of a "ravenous wolf".[/b]

Well, ToO, I suspect that knowing you really cannot counter my Christian belief on biblical terms you opt for red herrings around style, process, and such peripheral minutia.

Oh, I know what a strawman argument is.
I trust you know what a red herring argument is as well - a smelly fishy distraction dragged across the trail meant to throw off the hunt for the fox.

-Removed-

I think I aready spoke something to interpreting the parable as an example of the need to be compassionate.

I said basically that it was a safe interpretation even if it wasn't so good.
I implied that as long as an interpretation warmed our hearts of love and belief towards Christ and God, it was at least a safe interpretation.

Therefore I can sympathize with the altruistic interpretation.
I prefer a treatment of it as Jesus meaning He Himself was the Good Samaritan.

Now the stuff about nit picking is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm a mediocre chess player at best.
I am told that I should spend more time on CHARTS and OPENINGS and really learn some stradegy. But you see, I really don't care about it THAT much. Because of this attitude pouring over charts and positions in well written books I might consider "nit-picking". As a result I take the slow way and am probably going to remain mediocre at chess for a good long while.

It is similar in diving into the revelation of the Bible.
Many times (not always) complaints of "Oh that is counting angels on the head of a pen" or "Oh that is doctrinal nit picking" is just an apathetic attitude to remain kind of mediocre and superficial in getting into the revelation of the Bible.

I refer you to Paul telling his audience that though by now they should be eating "meat" of teaching, they were still only able to take "milk".

I don't make a MAJOR debate over someone only seeing the Parable of the Good Samaritan as advice to go off and be boyscout.

Originally posted by @sonship
I think I aready spoke something to interpreting the parable as an example of the need to be compassionate.

I said basically that it was a safe interpretation even if it wasn't so good.
I implied that as long as an interpretation warmed our hearts of love and belief towards Christ and God, it was at least a safe interpretation.

Therefore I can sympa ...[text shortened]... over someone only seeing the Parable of the Good Samaritan as advice to go off and be boyscout.

Not everyone understands or follows Christ. Only his sheep. They hear him, they understand him and they obey him, and he gives them eternal life.

-Removed-

Thanks.
Lucky me 🙂

Originally posted by @sonship
Well, ToO, I suspect that knowing you really cannot counter my Christian belief on biblical terms you opt for red herrings around style, process, and such peripheral minutia.

Oh, I know what a [b]strawman argument is.
I trust you know what a red herring argument is as well - a smelly fishy distraction dragged across the trail meant to throw off the hunt for the fox.[/b]

lol. Actually I don't know if your response is more funny or sad.

If you actually understood the straw man fallacy, then you'd also understand that calling someone on it does not constitute a red herring. Evidently you don't really understand what a red herring is either.

For someone who is so prideful, you don't seem to have reservations about embarrassing yourself.

Be that as it may, I'm still willing to address any refutation you have for my assertion if you can manage to actually address it.