The Good Samaritan and how it influences your political beliefs.

Its quite striking that apart from maybe 2 or3 people nobody on this board has stepped up and embraced the parable. And certainly nobody, bar one, has admitted that it helps guide their political beliefs.

And yet, I suspect that if we were looking to affirm the commandments we would get universal support.

Why do Christians find the Good Samaritan to be so problematic ?


Because they know that you are doing this not out of goof faith, but as a weapon to get them to support policies that are harmful to them.
By being a good neighbour ?
He is talking about you specifically which I tried to do earlier. We don’t believe that you are sincere and honest about the parable.

The Good Samaritan point out that we are all neighbors and even if you are an enemy you treat others with respect. On this board you don’t respect those with differing beliefs, you call them names and accuse them of things that they may not be saying or you not knowing what they mean.

In this thread, based on past posts, you come off as not credible. That I think is his point, so we want to know what is your real motivation.
I must intimidate you guys an awful lot. Could we not agree that the message of the parable is a good thing ?
The message of the parable is a good thing. I don't believe that is in dispute.

If my memory serves me Jesus told that parable in response to a smart alecky question asked by a Pharisee who was trying to play the gotcha game. The question he asked was who is my neighbor. What is lost in the parable by many is that the two people who passed by the injured Jew were fellow Jews. One was a priest and the other a Levite. Both were religious representatives of Judaism who would have been expected to be models of “neighbor” to the victim but pass him by. The other thing that isn't widely recognized is the parallel to Cain and Abel. When God asked Cain where Abel was his response was am I my brothers keeper. Yes, we are our brother's keepers.

So it is pretty clear that we are called to be good stewards. But being a good steward does not mean fobbing off our responsibilities on government. Government solutions do not solve problems. They make the problems worse. Subsidiarity is the only way to lift people up. Government handouts are like a subtle narcotic which destroys the spirit of man. Subsidiarity ennobles men.

So I agree that the message of the parable is a good thing. I disagree with your solution to the problem.


I dont see it as fobbing off. We delegate these responsibilities to our governments and they fulfil them in a better or worse fashion. As I have noted before individual acts of charity or by small organisations are welcome but do not get the job done.
 
They will be one day. People grow up, people get jobs.
But they're not good Samaritans now. That's a shame.
One of the most famous footballers in the UK is a young man called Marcus Rashford. He was brought up on benefits by a single mother.

He has donated millions to childrens charities and brought about a change in government policy through his work. Bought his Mam a house as well. He is a Good Samaritan.
Good thing he didn't die while on welfare, or he would not have been a good Samaritan.
Or a mass murderer or a brain surgeon.
Yea, I hear ya, Mate.

Whatever would we have done without government deciding for us who the good Samaritans are.
We know the answer to that. People starved or were sent to the workhouse or died from all sorts of diseases that we dont see anymore. Is rickets still a thing ?

All of this in the UK which was the richest country on earth at the time and controlled most of the world.

Oliver Twist was social comment not entertainment.
You know the Parable of the Good Samaritan says nothing about taxes, right?
 
Its quite striking that apart from maybe 2 or3 people nobody on this board has stepped up and embraced the parable. And certainly nobody, bar one, has admitted that it helps guide their political beliefs.

And yet, I suspect that if we were looking to affirm the commandments we would get universal support.

Why do Christians find the Good Samaritan to be so problematic ?


Because they know that you are doing this not out of goof faith, but as a weapon to get them to support policies that are harmful to them.
By being a good neighbour ?
He is talking about you specifically which I tried to do earlier. We don’t believe that you are sincere and honest about the parable.

The Good Samaritan point out that we are all neighbors and even if you are an enemy you treat others with respect. On this board you don’t respect those with differing beliefs, you call them names and accuse them of things that they may not be saying or you not knowing what they mean.

In this thread, based on past posts, you come off as not credible. That I think is his point, so we want to know what is your real motivation.
I must intimidate you guys an awful lot. Could we not agree that the message of the parable is a good thing ?
The message of the parable is a good thing. I don't believe that is in dispute.

If my memory serves me Jesus told that parable in response to a smart alecky question asked by a Pharisee who was trying to play the gotcha game. The question he asked was who is my neighbor. What is lost in the parable by many is that the two people who passed by the injured Jew were fellow Jews. One was a priest and the other a Levite. Both were religious representatives of Judaism who would have been expected to be models of “neighbor” to the victim but pass him by. The other thing that isn't widely recognized is the parallel to Cain and Abel. When God asked Cain where Abel was his response was am I my brothers keeper. Yes, we are our brother's keepers.

So it is pretty clear that we are called to be good stewards. But being a good steward does not mean fobbing off our responsibilities on government. Government solutions do not solve problems. They make the problems worse. Subsidiarity is the only way to lift people up. Government handouts are like a subtle narcotic which destroys the spirit of man. Subsidiarity ennobles men.

So I agree that the message of the parable is a good thing. I disagree with your solution to the problem.


I dont see it as fobbing off. We delegate these responsibilities to our governments and they fulfil them in a better or worse fashion. As I have noted before individual acts of charity or by small organisations are welcome but do not get the job done.

And government has? We have greater disparity than ever and you claim government is doing its job? You can’t be serious, if you want to waste money on bureaucracy, then government is the way to go. Government is not a Good Samaritan, they take money from workers and then give it to those they deem politically fit to receive it, which a lot goes to causes like war, not seeing how that is neighborly.

Again, you have no idea about being a Good Samaritan unless it is involuntarily taking money and giving it to another.
 
Its quite striking that apart from maybe 2 or3 people nobody on this board has stepped up and embraced the parable. And certainly nobody, bar one, has admitted that it helps guide their political beliefs.

And yet, I suspect that if we were looking to affirm the commandments we would get universal support.

Why do Christians find the Good Samaritan to be so problematic ?


Because they know that you are doing this not out of goof faith, but as a weapon to get them to support policies that are harmful to them.
By being a good neighbour ?
He is talking about you specifically which I tried to do earlier. We don’t believe that you are sincere and honest about the parable.

The Good Samaritan point out that we are all neighbors and even if you are an enemy you treat others with respect. On this board you don’t respect those with differing beliefs, you call them names and accuse them of things that they may not be saying or you not knowing what they mean.

In this thread, based on past posts, you come off as not credible. That I think is his point, so we want to know what is your real motivation.
I must intimidate you guys an awful lot. Could we not agree that the message of the parable is a good thing ?
The message of the parable is a good thing. I don't believe that is in dispute.

If my memory serves me Jesus told that parable in response to a smart alecky question asked by a Pharisee who was trying to play the gotcha game. The question he asked was who is my neighbor. What is lost in the parable by many is that the two people who passed by the injured Jew were fellow Jews. One was a priest and the other a Levite. Both were religious representatives of Judaism who would have been expected to be models of “neighbor” to the victim but pass him by. The other thing that isn't widely recognized is the parallel to Cain and Abel. When God asked Cain where Abel was his response was am I my brothers keeper. Yes, we are our brother's keepers.

So it is pretty clear that we are called to be good stewards. But being a good steward does not mean fobbing off our responsibilities on government. Government solutions do not solve problems. They make the problems worse. Subsidiarity is the only way to lift people up. Government handouts are like a subtle narcotic which destroys the spirit of man. Subsidiarity ennobles men.

So I agree that the message of the parable is a good thing. I disagree with your solution to the problem.


I dont see it as fobbing off. We delegate these responsibilities to our governments and they fulfil them in a better or worse fashion. As I have noted before individual acts of charity or by small organisations are welcome but do not get the job done.

Of course it is fobbing it off on government. And it doesn't work. If welfare worked the roles would be getting smaller not larger. Throwing money over a fence has been proven not to work.
 
sad to say----I agree with tainted-----without governmental well-fare---lots of people
in the USA would die in the gutter
 
sad to say----I agree with tainted-----without governmental well-fare---lots of people
in the USA would die in the gutter
The US Federal government is the least efficient and effective organization in the history of mankind.

They receive 2.5 trillion every year in tax revenue. Give that money to the private sector and see what would be accomplished.

But to your point if “poor” people in America had to rely on the federal government for their survival they would already be dead.
 
sad to say----I agree with tainted-----without governmental well-fare---lots of people
in the USA would die in the gutter
The US Federal government is the least efficient and effective organization in the history of mankind.

They receive 2.5 trillion every year in tax revenue. Give that money to the private sector and see what would be accomplished.

But to your point if “poor” people in America had to rely on the federal government for their survival they would already be dead.
what do you IMAGINE poor people have been relying on? christian goodwill?
 
sad to say----I agree with tainted-----without governmental well-fare---lots of people
in the USA would die in the gutter
The US Federal government is the least efficient and effective organization in the history of mankind.

They receive 2.5 trillion every year in tax revenue. Give that money to the private sector and see what would be accomplished.

But to your point if “poor” people in America had to rely on the federal government for their survival they would already be dead.
what do you IMAGINE poor people have been relying on? christian goodwill?
sad to say----I agree with tainted-----without governmental well-fare---lots of people
in the USA would die in the gutter
The US Federal government is the least efficient and effective organization in the history of mankind.

They receive 2.5 trillion every year in tax revenue. Give that money to the private sector and see what would be accomplished.

But to your point if “poor” people in America had to rely on the federal government for their survival they would already be dead.
what do you IMAGINE poor people have been relying on? christian goodwill?
This might help.

 
nope----does not help----most of that "giving" does not reflect the every day lives of the every
day impoverished who DO depend on food stamps and SSI and stuff like that
 
sad to say----I agree with tainted-----without governmental well-fare---lots of people
in the USA would die in the gutter
The US Federal government is the least efficient and effective organization in the history of mankind.

They receive 2.5 trillion every year in tax revenue. Give that money to the private sector and see what would be accomplished.

But to your point if “poor” people in America had to rely on the federal government for their survival they would already be dead.
what do you IMAGINE poor people have been relying on? christian goodwill?
Themselves. Just as you have.
 
nope----does not help----most of that "giving" does not reflect the every day lives of the every
day impoverished who DO depend on food stamps and SSI and stuff like that
Have you ever used the world wealth calculator?


Do you imagine that poor people in America are poor like poor people in other countries?

Do you even know what poor is?
 
nope----does not help----most of that "giving" does not reflect the every day lives of the every
day impoverished who DO depend on food stamps and SSI and stuff like that
Have you ever used the world wealth calculator?


Do you imagine that poor people in America are poor like poor people in other countries?

Do you even know what poor is?
are you addressing me------dingy? I am very well aware of what POVERTY IS in
both the USA and in THE REST OF THE WORLD. By "everyday impoverished"----I
refer to USA innercity poor and USA out in the sticks poor.
 
nope----does not help----most of that "giving" does not reflect the every day lives of the every
day impoverished who DO depend on food stamps and SSI and stuff like that
Have you ever used the world wealth calculator?


Do you imagine that poor people in America are poor like poor people in other countries?

Do you even know what poor is?
are you addressing me------dingy? I am very well aware of what POVERTY IS in
both the USA and in THE REST OF THE WORLD. By "everyday impoverished"----I
refer to USA innercity poor and USA out in the sticks poor.
Yes, I was addressing you. You struggle to understand how impoverished Americans can afford to pay for their cell phones, designer jeans, air jordans, cars, car insurance, rent, etc. while ignoring that TRULY impoverished people exist in numbers which are orders of magnitude beyond American numbers in conditions that are orders of magnitude worse than conditions experienced by impoverished Americans.

We call these things first world problems.
 
And I still don't see how Rosie's argument justifies allowing an incompetent organization from wasting money that doesn't solve the problem.
 
In reality the number one problem of poor people in America is government spending which destroys the wealth of the elderly and creates higher prices for everything. Our beloved government does not want low prices. They need high prices to keep their tax revenue up to keep from defaulting on their irresponsible spending and debt.
 
nope----does not help----most of that "giving" does not reflect the every day lives of the every
day impoverished who DO depend on food stamps and SSI and stuff like that
Have you ever used the world wealth calculator?


Do you imagine that poor people in America are poor like poor people in other countries?

Do you even know what poor is?
are you addressing me------dingy? I am very well aware of what POVERTY IS in
both the USA and in THE REST OF THE WORLD. By "everyday impoverished"----I
refer to USA innercity poor and USA out in the sticks poor.
Yes, I was addressing you. You struggle to understand how impoverished Americans can afford to pay for their cell phones, designer jeans, air jordans, cars, car insurance, rent, etc. while ignoring that TRULY impoverished people exist in numbers which are orders of magnitude beyond American numbers in conditions that are orders of magnitude worse than conditions experienced by impoverished Americans.

We call these things first world problems.
wrong again -----I know all about how some americans "MANAGE" AND I also know
about the impoverished ELSEWHERE. I am not STRUGGLING to understand BTW---
I am not impoverished, I have never owned a cell phone, designer jeans or air jordans---
I did have a car and paid rent. If I lived the life of some of the "IMPOVERISHED" in my town---
who have little pictures painted on their fingernails and gold rings in their noses and and
IMPLANTED braids-------I would be impoverished too
 
Jesus was all about helping the least among us. Garnering material wealth to become powerful was no ticket to heaven.
 
nope----does not help----most of that "giving" does not reflect the every day lives of the every
day impoverished who DO depend on food stamps and SSI and stuff like that
Have you ever used the world wealth calculator?


Do you imagine that poor people in America are poor like poor people in other countries?

Do you even know what poor is?
are you addressing me------dingy? I am very well aware of what POVERTY IS in
both the USA and in THE REST OF THE WORLD. By "everyday impoverished"----I
refer to USA innercity poor and USA out in the sticks poor.
Yes, I was addressing you. You struggle to understand how impoverished Americans can afford to pay for their cell phones, designer jeans, air jordans, cars, car insurance, rent, etc. while ignoring that TRULY impoverished people exist in numbers which are orders of magnitude beyond American numbers in conditions that are orders of magnitude worse than conditions experienced by impoverished Americans.

We call these things first world problems.
wrong again -----I know all about how some americans "MANAGE" AND I also know
about the impoverished ELSEWHERE. I am not STRUGGLING to understand BTW---
I am not impoverished, I have never owned a cell phone, designer jeans or air jordans---
I did have a car and paid rent. If I lived the life of some of the "IMPOVERISHED" in my town---
who have little pictures painted on their fingernails and gold rings in their noses and and
IMPLANTED braids-------I would be impoverished too


I only recently got a smart phone and I was the last of my peers to get a cell phone.


My friends used to make fun of my cell phone. I only got rid of it, because my wife's phone, an identical one bought at the same time, died, and I didn't want to lose my saved contact info when/if that happened.
 
nope----does not help----most of that "giving" does not reflect the every day lives of the every
day impoverished who DO depend on food stamps and SSI and stuff like that
Have you ever used the world wealth calculator?


Do you imagine that poor people in America are poor like poor people in other countries?

Do you even know what poor is?
are you addressing me------dingy? I am very well aware of what POVERTY IS in
both the USA and in THE REST OF THE WORLD. By "everyday impoverished"----I
refer to USA innercity poor and USA out in the sticks poor.
Yes, I was addressing you. You struggle to understand how impoverished Americans can afford to pay for their cell phones, designer jeans, air jordans, cars, car insurance, rent, etc. while ignoring that TRULY impoverished people exist in numbers which are orders of magnitude beyond American numbers in conditions that are orders of magnitude worse than conditions experienced by impoverished Americans.

We call these things first world problems.
wrong again -----I know all about how some americans "MANAGE" AND I also know
about the impoverished ELSEWHERE. I am not STRUGGLING to understand BTW---
I am not impoverished, I have never owned a cell phone, designer jeans or air jordans---
I did have a car and paid rent. If I lived the life of some of the "IMPOVERISHED" in my town---
who have little pictures painted on their fingernails and gold rings in their noses and and
IMPLANTED braids-------I would be impoverished too


I only recently got a smart phone and I was the last of my peers to get a cell phone.


My friends used to make fun of my cell phone. I only got rid of it, because my wife's phone, an identical one bought at the same time, died, and I didn't want to lose my saved contact info when/if that happened.

I understand----we live in a complicated world
 
nope----does not help----most of that "giving" does not reflect the every day lives of the every
day impoverished who DO depend on food stamps and SSI and stuff like that
Have you ever used the world wealth calculator?


Do you imagine that poor people in America are poor like poor people in other countries?

Do you even know what poor is?
are you addressing me------dingy? I am very well aware of what POVERTY IS in
both the USA and in THE REST OF THE WORLD. By "everyday impoverished"----I
refer to USA innercity poor and USA out in the sticks poor.
Yes, I was addressing you. You struggle to understand how impoverished Americans can afford to pay for their cell phones, designer jeans, air jordans, cars, car insurance, rent, etc. while ignoring that TRULY impoverished people exist in numbers which are orders of magnitude beyond American numbers in conditions that are orders of magnitude worse than conditions experienced by impoverished Americans.

We call these things first world problems.
wrong again -----I know all about how some americans "MANAGE" AND I also know
about the impoverished ELSEWHERE. I am not STRUGGLING to understand BTW---
I am not impoverished, I have never owned a cell phone, designer jeans or air jordans---
I did have a car and paid rent. If I lived the life of some of the "IMPOVERISHED" in my town---
who have little pictures painted on their fingernails and gold rings in their noses and and
IMPLANTED braids-------I would be impoverished too


I only recently got a smart phone and I was the last of my peers to get a cell phone.


My friends used to make fun of my cell phone. I only got rid of it, because my wife's phone, an identical one bought at the same time, died, and I didn't want to lose my saved contact info when/if that happened.

I understand----we live in a complicated world


We are followers of dave Ramsey, debt reduction guru.


But at this point, we could not justify NOT getting the smart phones. We can afford them and I do like the ability to look stuff up at the drop of a hat.

Though it has ruined the drunken bar debate, of two guys both drunk both sure they are right, insisting up and down for hours.

Now, they can just look shit up, right there, in between beers.


Takes all the fun away. Well, most of it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top