Who is my neighbor?

[eye4magic]

Or are you saying that the government would have us praying to a certain god, the god of the Bible for example?

For the purpose of clarification, is your OP referencing God, the Almighty or god with a lower case, as in God does not/may not exist? Or does God=god or god=God?

[chadn737]

Well, I don't have time for a civics lesson. I just find it odd that you'd stay in a place where you have no connection to the people around you or any concern for them and where you feel completely alienated from the government, especially in one where the opportunities for participation are so vast. The world is so large there must be a place for you or you can try and get involved here and make a difference.

It's no longer your money once you pay your taxes, it goes into a common pool. Everyone chips in the same as in a poker game or to buy pizza.

How do you go from "I disagree with my government" to "I have no connection..." There are huge gaps in your logic here. My family lives here. My family has farmed here for generations. Maybe you live in one of those liberal enclaves where everyone else thinks exactly like you, if so, then you should realize that half of the nation agrees with my viewpoint. Historically, America is a nation of small government, of personal independence. I risked my life many times for this nation. Disagreeing with the current government does not mean that I have no connection here. Whatever gave you such an absurd idea? You seem to be under the impression that society is synonymous with its government. That a culture is identical to the operations of the government. This blurring of lines between politics and personal life is a common theme in liberalism.

If my taxes are no longer mine once I pay them, then it is not charity. I have no decision over what is done with them. If they go to drop bombs on Iraq or to fund a lavish Las Vegas conference for a bunch of useless bureaucrats, then in what sense is it charity? You contradict yourself sir.

[evensaul]

Just for clarification before I answer, are you saying that Jesus said we must pray? I see an instruction on how to pray when we do, but I don't see any imperative such as, for example, 5 times a day.

He didn't say "If you pray", but rather "when". Jesus lived a life of prayer, and instructed those who would follow Him to do likewise.

As long as people have free time to pray (as they wish) then what would be needed from government?

The government could encourage, guide, or even enforce. In the Islamic world, prayer is enforced, and failure to follow calls to prayer may result in a death punishment. Why shouldn't there be a similar approach with the teachings of Jesus? Why shouldn't our government encourage or enforce conformity?

Or how about his teaching to go forth and create disciples? Why shouldn't our government employ missionaries to spread the word of Jesus and make disciples of other nations? Why not have the government conform with that teaching of Jesus?

Stop evading and stalling. Answer directly whether government should conform with all teachings of Jesus, or just the one you like.

[CowboyX]

My family lives here. My family has farmed here for generations.

So?

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

That a culture is identical to the operations of the government. This blurring of lines between politics and personal life is a common theme in liberalism..

Why wouldn't it be or shouldn't it be?

---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

If my taxes are no longer mine once I pay them, then it is not charity. I have no decision over what is done with them. If they go to drop bombs on Iraq or to fund a lavish Las Vegas conference for a bunch of useless bureaucrats, then in what sense is it charity? You contradict yourself sir.

I'm not certain I'm talking about charity. I'm talking about taking care of our fellow citizens as if they were our own brothers and sisters...family. Could you do that?

---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

For the purpose of clarification, is your OP referencing God, the Almighty or god with a lower case, as in God does not/may not exist? Or does God=god or god=God?

The OP referenced the Bible, so the god of the Bible, God if you will, the father of Jesus. God is a god, yes. The only god to some people.

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

He didn't say "If you pray", but rather "when". Jesus lived a life of prayer, and instructed those who would follow Him to do likewise.

The government could encourage, guide, or even enforce. In the Islamic world, prayer is enforced, and failure to follow calls to prayer may result in a death punishment. Why shouldn't there be a similar approach with the teachings of Jesus? Why shouldn't our government encourage or enforce conformity?

Or how about his teaching to go forth and create disciples? Why shouldn't our government employ missionaries to spread the word of Jesus and make disciples of other nations? Why not have the government conform with that teaching of Jesus?

Stop evading and stalling. Answer directly whether government should conform with all teachings of Jesus, or just the one you like.

As long as you aren't confusing disciples of a religion with disciples of the teachings of Christ. Jesus most certainly didn't say to forced them, so the death penalty for not praying? No. He said to win their hearts.

[evensaul]

As long as you aren't confusing disciples of a religion with disciples of the teachings of Christ. Jesus most certainly didn't say to forced them, so the death penalty for not praying? No. He said to win their hearts.

More evasion about details, rather than answering a direct and simple question.

Debating you is a waste of time, so I'm done with you.

[eye4magic]

I'm not certain I'm talking about charity. I'm talking about taking care of our fellow citizens as if they were our own brothers and sisters...family.

There are different kinds of love. The good Samaritan parable of your OP is talking about a specific kind of love – charity and selflessness. The Smaritan depended on the Inn keeper (Charity) by donating his money to him specifically so he could take care of the man while he recovered and the good Samaritan went back to work and his life.

• Charity is the love toward others that suffers long with them and is kind (1 Corinthians 13:4)
• It does not behave unseemly, seek to get its own way, or is easily provoked (1 Corinthians 13:5)
• It rejoices not in the iniquity of others (1 Corinthians 13:6)
• It bears, believes, hopes, and endures (1 Corinthians 13:7)
• And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

As long as you aren't confusing disciples of a religion with disciples of the teachings of Christ.

With our current government model we can't have governmental policy that even suggests or encourages people pray or love God any God. Christ's teachings are not wanted in government or governmental policy. Did you want to change that?

[CowboyX]

There are different kinds of love. The good Samaritan parable of your OP is talking about a specific kind of love – charity and selflessness. The Smaritan depended on the Inn keeper (Charity) by donating his money to him specifically so he could take care of the man while he recovered and the good Samaritan went back to work and his life.

• Charity is the love toward others that suffers long with them and is kind (1 Corinthians 13:4)
• It does not behave unseemly, seek to get its own way, or is easily provoked (1 Corinthians 13:5)
• It rejoices not in the iniquity of others (1 Corinthians 13:6)
• It bears, believes, hopes, and endures (1 Corinthians 13:7)
• And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

[COLOR="Silver"]

I'll agree that Jesus was talking more of the emotion of charity than the act, the former being more important as read in your last reference above. I don't see where one cannot be emotionally involved with others through a government. I often get very moved at my local town meetings. I love my neighbors very much.

---------- Post added at 02:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 AM ----------

There are different kinds of love. The good Samaritan parable of your OP is talking about a specific kind of love – charity and selflessness. The Smaritan depended on the Inn keeper (Charity) by donating his money to him specifically so he could take care of the man while he recovered and the good Samaritan went back to work and his life.

• Charity is the love toward others that suffers long with them and is kind (1 Corinthians 13:4)
• It does not behave unseemly, seek to get its own way, or is easily provoked (1 Corinthians 13:5)
• It rejoices not in the iniquity of others (1 Corinthians 13:6)
• It bears, believes, hopes, and endures (1 Corinthians 13:7)
• And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------


With our current government model we can't have governmental policy that even suggests or encourages people pray or love God any God. Christ's teachings are not wanted in government or governmental policy. Did you want to change that?

You can't force people to believe or pray in a certain way, that is true. Jesus didn't say that, however, he said to win their hearts.

---------- Post added at 02:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 AM ----------

More evasion about details, rather than answering a direct and simple question.

Debating you is a waste of time, so I'm done with you.

I'll say yes in an effort to keep you from taking your ball and going home.

Creating disciples - that wouldn't necessarily mean missionaries. It could mean we that through our actions we could show people the importance of what Jesus commanded - do God's work and love one another.

As long as it didn't confuse religion with religious teachings I'd say it would be ok. Forcing someone to take communion wouldn't be ok.

[eye4magic]

I'll agree that Jesus was talking more of the emotion of charity than the act, the former being more important as read in your last reference above. I don't see where one cannot be emotionally involved with others through a government. I often get very moved at my local town meetings. I love my neighbors very much.

Well, as I pointed out in a previous post, people -- the individual can love and extend the heart-to-heart to another person. Government is not in the business of personally loving people. Social programs can be a helpful support, but they can't love you; they can't personally help you hold a burden because you can't carry it on your own; they can't feel your pain and suffering. In that government can enact laws to protect people and enforce the peace, it can’t make anyone love someone else. Love is a person-to-person, heart-to-heart willful process.

A government can also support and enforce a strong framework (U.S. Constitution) were by people have the opportunity to freely love and be charitable. Charity (love) is a individual responsibility and opportunity. And, yes, individuals can join together and form "Inn Keepers" charities that are supported by voluntary donations to help people in need on a large scale.

I’ve been involved with government at the local level on and off over the years and served as a delegate. I would say most people I’ve worked with at that level get involved with their local government because they want to be part of the process that helps bring about some sort of change in their area or state; or they want to learn how the process works; or they feel a sense of duty to serve rather than an emotional need.

You can't force people to believe or pray in a certain way, that is true. Jesus didn't say that, however, he said to win their hearts.

He did teach that: win their hearts over to God.

Are you suggesting that U.S. government policy can even suggest prayer?

When you state: “We have the ability to make our government conform to the teachings of Christ” that would strongly imply conforming governmental policy to the teachings of Christ.
What would that type of policy look like, Cowboy? Can you provide some examples?

[CowboyX]

Are you suggesting that U.S. government policy can even suggest prayer?

When you state: “We have the ability to make our government conform to the teachings of Christ” that would strongly imply conforming governmental policy to the teachings of Christ.
What would that type of policy look like, Cowboy? Can you provide some examples?

I'm not sure it would have to. Is there a need for the government to be suggesting prayer?

I mean that in a democratic society we have the ability to integrate those teachings into the government through laws if we so wish.

When we do find something that does conform to his teachings, such as taking care of the sick and injured, shouldn't we encourage and applaud that?

[eye4magic]

I'm not sure it would have to. Is there a need for the government to be suggesting prayer?

I think Saul brought up prayer because it’s an important part of the teachings of Christ which you are suggesting we can conform with our government. How would you suggest the principle of prayer be integrated to conform with government or with a law?

I mean that in a democratic society we have the ability to integrate those teachings into the government through laws if we so wish.

If you agree that we can’t make people pray, or love, or believe in God, why would we want to have a law that would mandate such actions or am I misunderstanding you?

Can you provide some examples of a type of law that would integrate some of the teachings of Christ like:

1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor
3. Prayer
4. Personally serve and help others in need
5. Be responsible and accountable.

When we do find something that does conform to his teachings, such as taking care of the sick and injured, shouldn't we encourage and applaud that?

Does that comment imply that the thousands of charities in the country and individual personal selfless acts of people helping others are not recognized enough?

[CowboyX]

Does that comment imply that the thousands of charities in the country and individual personal selfless acts of people helping others are not recognized enough?

Possibly. The problem I have is that in Conservative Land it is often viewed as an either-or decision, government or private. I disagree with that.

---------- Post added at 08:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor
3. Prayer
4. Personally serve and help others in need
5. Be responsible and accountable.

I don't. If you have a specific verse and idea you'd like to talk about I will respond. Other than that we are going off-track from the OP.

[eye4magic]

Possibly. The problem I have is that in Conservative Land it is often viewed as an either-or decision, government or private. I disagree with that.

Well, disagreement is part of the American process.

However, I kind of wish you could be more clear on how you would conform Christ teachings, such as mentioned above, into government.

[CowboyX]

I'd like to stay on topic of the OP.


[Sorry, Cowboy, I accidentally deleted the first part of your post. I did not intend to do that. But I will respond below.]

[eye4magic]

I'd like to stay on topic of the OP.

Doesn’t your OP make the point that the selflessness of the good Samaritan and his donation to the Inn Keeper to take care of the man in need of help should be a responsibility of government? If that is not the main point of your OP, feel free to correct the misunderstanding.

[CowboyX]

Doesn’t your OP make the point that the selflessness of the good Samaritan and his donation to the Inn Keeper to take care of the man in need of help should be a responsibility of government? If that is not the main point of your OP, feel free to correct the misunderstanding.

Not exclusively.

[eye4magic]

Not exclusively.

I agree that helping someone in need to get back on their feet is not exclusively a government responsibility.

[CowboyX]

I just realized this was such a great thread so I'm revisiting it. In the last page or so this seemed to be the major contention:

He didn't say "If you pray", but rather "when". Jesus lived a life of prayer, and instructed those who would follow Him to do likewise.

The government could encourage, guide, or even enforce. In the Islamic world, prayer is enforced, and failure to follow calls to prayer may result in a death punishment. Why shouldn't there be a similar approach with the teachings of Jesus? Why shouldn't our government encourage or enforce conformity?

Or how about his teaching to go forth and create disciples? Why shouldn't our government employ missionaries to spread the word of Jesus and make disciples of other nations? Why not have the government conform with that teaching of Jesus?

Stop evading and stalling. Answer directly whether government should conform with all teachings of Jesus, or just the one you like.

I'll take the the side that we should follow all the teachings of Christ if we are to call ourselves Christian.

"The Great Commission
…18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”…"

First off, I take it there wouldn't be any force involved. Jesus has the authority over the other nations. So it isn't a command to go forth and physically command and conquer.

What he does command is that we "baptize" and "teach" them. Both would require a willing participant who would then institute the teachings of Christ in their own nation as needed.

Secondly, how does one nation do that to another nation without employing religious leaders and all the ceremony and mumbo jumbo? The same way as it would in my example of the OP. By supporting or rejecting policies and structures which support the teachings of Christ.

Which I'd argue we do. So, for example, loving and caring for one another. A nation allowing its people to starve to decrease its surplus population would be derided and even sanctioned.

[nahaee]

how can i tell who is your neibour ?

[Ibelsd]

Luke 10:25-37
New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”


So the Samaritan paid for the healthcare of the hated foreigner. What does this tell us about our society where we often hear complaining about "illegal aliens" showing up at our emergency rooms for care? Doesn't Jesus say we should take care of them?

How about when people claim that constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens? Is this true? Does morality stop at a borderline?

I believe the recent policies of the U.S. and the policies supported by progressives are that the Samaritan should have demanded 6 denarii from the Levite to pay for the costs of the meal and boarding plus administrative fees for the foreigner. Then, when the robbers were caught, also found to be foreigners, they would have been detained briefly before being released back into the community. The Levite would be taxed an additional 5 denarii in order to pay for prisons, lawyers, schools and other services for the foreigners and their children. The Levite, being of middle class, would end up living paycheck to paycheck because 1/2 of his money went to pay for the Samaritans, much of it mismanaged for political projects like increasing the population of foreigners who would be beholden to the Samaritan class. Despite giving up over half of his salary to pay for the lavish lifestyle of the Samaritans, he'd still be reprimanded by these self-serving Samaritans who demanded that he still wasn't paying his fair share or doing enough. Further, he'd be called a racist if he complained.

Thank you for reminding us of Jesus' actual message. It is so very different than the message progressives would like us to learn.

[CowboyX]

I believe the recent policies of the U.S. and the policies supported by progressives are that the Samaritan should have demanded 6 denarii from the Levite to pay for the costs of the meal and boarding plus administrative fees for the foreigner. Then, when the robbers were caught, also found to be foreigners, they would have been detained briefly before being released back into the community. The Levite would be taxed an additional 5 denarii in order to pay for prisons, lawyers, schools and other services for the foreigners and their children. The Levite, being of middle class, would end up living paycheck to paycheck because 1/2 of his money went to pay for the Samaritans, much of it mismanaged for political projects like increasing the population of foreigners who would be beholden to the Samaritan class. Despite giving up over half of his salary to pay for the lavish lifestyle of the Samaritans, he'd still be reprimanded by these self-serving Samaritans who demanded that he still wasn't paying his fair share or doing enough. Further, he'd be called a racist if he complained.

Thank you for reminding us of Jesus' actual message. It is so very different than the message progressives would like us to learn.

Thanks for answering the question. You believe morality stops at the borderline...or a change in skin color.