Bible talk

[Gori the Grey]

So, so far the lawyer is doing great.

But then it blows it.

We know he blows it because we know the meaning of the parable. We've heard it a million times. It means "love everybody," but, as the commentary points out, this question seems designed to limit the population to whom he is expected to direct care. But we'll pretend we're experiencing the parable for the first time. And then, it's a somewhat plausible follow-up question, no? Legal question, I mean. Define your terms. Who falls into the category of this "neighbor" I'm obligated to love?

Every time I ask you a "no?" I just really want you to parrot back the material in the set-up line. So here: "asking who falls into the category of 'neighbor' represents a reasonable follow-up question for the lawyer to ask."

 

[Samson]

Asking who falls into the category of 'neighbor' represents a reasonable follow-up question for the lawyer to ask. May have to go to bed soon.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Sleep on this, then @Samson :

But . . . not to dog on the lawyer too much, it's also (outside of the context of this parable) actually just a reasonable question in its own right, no? About the word "neighbor," I mean. Imagine you live in a neighborhood, a developed suburb. How many of the people living in it do you count as "neighbors"? Just the ones on your very street. Also the ones with whom you share a back yard? Maybe more streets over than that, if you're a friendly fellow? Maybe the exact ones who throw a block party every summer? The whole suburb? I mean, it's a legitimate question where you're going to set the boundary, no?

The Greek word here, as your commentary suggests, just means near-person. It's the adjective for "near" turned in to substantive. How far out does near extend (to phrase it as sort of a Zen koan)?

And (I'll ask you two questions at once) it's even kind of a legitimate question of social organization, no? Like, isn't it true (at a higher level of abstraction) that humans sort of need in-groups? We might even think of out-groups as a regrettable consequence of having in-groups, but a concession that must be made none the less? (That last one's actually a legit question, to which I'm open to any answer; don't have anything in particular that I need you to say; though I think my own answer is yes.)

So the lawyer's not just trying to limit his obligations under this Biblical injunction--though he is probably is doing that too--he's asking a question tha we can. in various ways, regard as a legitimate question, no?

(I know you've in effect answered these questions with your last answer, but here I'm just adding some more precise ways in which "yes, it's a legit question to ask.")

 

[Angst]

(thanks for the tag, but because samson picked up, i'll just be reading along for this exchange.

i have my own thoughts on the samaritan specifically because the end of the exchange is kind of interesting; i think it underlines reciprocity as part of neighbourness over affliation; the neighbour in the parable is the one that helps; the others aren't neighbours! even if this is the outgroup enemy; BUT jesus also implores the lawyer to go and help LIKE the neighbour, helping anyone regardless of affliation. so it's kind of constructive, but there's hints of bleakness as to who actually is the neighbour to love; there are hints as to lack of universality, depending on interpretation, from what i can tell. shatters the idea of enemies of your ingroup, but demands a semblance of reciprocity

if that's where you're going, gori, don't spoil it, just keep doing da socrates)

 

[Gori the Grey]

if that's where you're going, gori, don't spoil it, just keep doing da socrates

No, you've got it basically right. That's where I'm going. I'm happy to spoil it. Once I get my whole interpretation developed, it's not going to be radically different from what we all already know the parable to mean. Don't anybody expect that. The only things that might prove interesting are 1) how Jesus takes the lawyer to that answer that we all know is the answer and 2) that he, in a way, anticipates Samson's question about the genetic make-up of Samaritans.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I always liked Michael York. Whether he was playing Logan (Logan's Run), D'Artagnan, I forget the character he played on Babylon 5... actually, there was a religious angle to that one, if I recall correctly. But he was also really good in Romeo and Juliet (Mercutio) and in Lost Horizon.

So I'll take the third one in. Wojak-atheist says to Christian-Chad, "If you were born somewhere else, you wouldn't be a Christian." And Christian-Chad says back, "If you were born somewhere else you wouldn't be an atheist."

Atheists have existed for millennia. It's not just the current crop of monotheistic deities that some people don't believe in. Atheists don't believe in any of them. So we also don't (didn't) believe in Zeus, Thor, Raven, Changing Woman, any of the Aztec ones I don't remember how to spell, and so on around the world over thousands of years. So it doesn't matter where people are born. If someone decides they don't believe in god(desses)s, spirits, etc. it's irrelevant what the locals who are believers believe in.

 

[Angst]

On retrospect, I guess the video is not addressed to atheists. The opening is talking about atheists, not to them: they don't know that their objections have already been addressed over the centuries. So I guess the video is intended for Christians to enjoy Christian-Chad giving atheist-wojak a take-down.

just saw this. most christiantube/atheisttube is like this

edit: watched some of the video. its core issue is that most of the arguments place the burden of proof against god on atheism. like, for most of the arguments, it's still up for the christian to provide proof for any atheist to take it seriously (or to provide compelling emotional or artistic material for atheists to be compelled through faith; that is how most people convert into christianity, after all; the logical argument doesn't work as well as compelling belonging and emotion, because the proof and logic is bad).

i've actually found the channel before. it does mspaint humor posts about christian subjects similar in style to sam o'nella and such. it's cute and sometimes informative, but it's explicitly proselytizing, and after finding this out i got kind of turned off. at least, for christians, it's actual youth outreach, in with the memes and such. the wojack isn't too inappropriate here

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Condemning billions of people to eternal damnation in the past and billions more in the future is not love in any way shape or form. It is especially heinous since so many have/had no or no significant, knowledge of Christianity.

God doesn't condemn anyone to hell. Every person on this planet has the choice of accepting or not. I'm not sure how things work with those who have never heard of God but I'm pretty sure He judges those cases fairly. Satan wants us to believe that God sends people to hell when in reality it is Satan who deceives many into going to hell of their own accord.

 

[Samson]

And (I'll ask you two questions at once) it's even kind of a legitimate question of social organization, no?

It is a legitimate question to ask of a social organisation.

Like, isn't it true (at a higher level of abstraction) that humans sort of need in-groups?

I do not accept that we need them. Would not the conventional interpretation as given above be largely a rejection of in groups, certainly as far as being neighbours with people is concerned.

We might even think of out-groups as a regrettable consequence of having in-groups, but a concession that must be made none the less?

Out-groups are pretty much a consequence of in groups.

 

[bernie14]

It is a legitimate question to ask of a social organisation.

I do not accept that we need them. Would not the conventional interpretation as given above be largely a rejection of in groups, certainly as far as being neighbours with people is concerned.

Out-groups are pretty much a consequence of in groups.

As to the second point, i think mammalian biology sorta necessitates "in groups"?

EDIT: perhaps somehow associated with another foundational moral, such as care?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Would not the conventional interpretation as given above be largely a rejection of in groups

Yes, it is, and this--

I do not accept that we need them.

--tells me that you've incorporated the ultimate message of the parable into your world view: who is my neighbor? everybody.

But I'm going through the parable in little baby steps, and we're still focused on the lawyer's question, so I'm going to back up a little bit to the question you didn't answer. Can you imagine where the boundary lines lie for whatever you count as your actual "neighborhood"?

Or let me ask it this way. We sometimes use the word "neighbor" outside of even things having to do with human social organizations. If you were to hear the phrase "Mount Olympus and its neighbor peaks" would you know just where on the globe to look for those other mountain peaks? In its base meaning "neighbor" can in English mean something like what it does in Greek: near-one. We use it mostly to refer to human beings, but it can have this other, more general, meaning too, no? It's based on the word "nigh," that has mostly dropped out of use, but when it was in use just meant "near."

 

[Samson]

Can you imagine where the boundary lines lie for whatever you count as your actual "neighborhood"?

If someone said to me "They are in your neighbourhood" I would have a pretty good idea what they meant, though the details would be pretty context dependant.

If you were to hear the phrase "Mount Olympus and its neighbor peaks" would you know just where on the globe to look for those other mountain peaks?

It would expect it to mean the Himalayas.

We use it mostly to refer to human beings, but it can have this other meaning too, no?

It can defiantly have this meaning.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

God doesn't condemn anyone to hell. Every person on this planet has the choice of accepting or not. I'm not sure how things work with those who have never heard of God but I'm pretty sure He judges those cases fairly. Satan wants us to believe that God sends people to hell when in reality it is Satan who deceives many into going to hell of their own accord.

Hell is in Michigan. Or Norway, depending on how you spell it. And you're naive to think anyone gets "judged fairly" for allegedly committing "sins" against someone they never heard of/don't believe existed. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is something we hear often when it comes to matters judged by humans. And how would a "god" judge someone who may have done things completely in tune with the laws and morals they knew as being right, but may not be in agreement with Judeo-Christian laws and morals?

Given the number of things listed that people could be killed for that are just plain nuts, I don't see how fair judgment could be rendered.

It would expect it to mean the Himalayas.

My first thought was Olympus Mons on Mars.

 

[Gori the Grey]

So I'm just trying to get established how we feel about the lawyer's question. And I think you've said what I basically need you to say: namely that it is, at least in some ways, a legitimate question.

But do you also feel, as I do and as the commentator does, that, at least to a degree, he might be trying to limit what "love your neighbor" obligates him to: to make it a relatively small group of near-folks (i.e. essentially what we mean by an in-group)?



By the way, though, here

It would expect it to mean the Himalayas.

are you just razzing me? Or is this how you would really interpret the phrase "neighbor peaks of Mt. Olympus"?

 

[Samson]

So I'm just trying to get established how we feel about the lawyer's question. And I think you've said what I basically need you to say: namely that it is, at least in some ways, a legitimate question.

Yes

But do you also feel, as I do and as the commentator does, that, at least to a degree, he might be trying to limit what "love your neighbor" obligates him to: to make it a relatively small group of near-folks (i.e. essentially what we mean by an in-group)?

Yes, though I may phrase it as assuming there must be a limit on who ones neighbours are.

are you just razzing me? Or is this how you would really interpret the phrase "neighbor peaks of Mt. Olympus"?

Just a brain fail. I had been reading this and just saw Everest not Olympus.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yes, though I may phrase it as assuming there must be a limit on who ones neighbours are.

Oh, a better answer than I had anticipated, even!

If "near-ones" is going to mean anything at all, it (just logically speaking) has to have as an implicit contrast "far-ones," and so the one thing it can't possibly mean is "everyone." Is that a fair paraphrase/extension of what you are driving at?

 

[Samson]

Oh, a better answer than I had anticipated, even!

If "near-ones" is going to mean anything at all, it (just logically speaking) has to have as an implicit contrast "far-ones," and so the one thing it can't possibly mean is "everyone." Is that a fair paraphrase/extension of what you are driving at?

I had not considered that way of looking at it, but that would certainly be a fair paraphrase/extension of what I am characterising as the lawyers mindset.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This is a bit of a side question, but are you ok if I sometimes use the words "near-ones" (in place of "neighbors") and "far-ones" as its antonym? I'm trying temporarily to get us away from how we now sometimes understand the word "neighbors" (how you yourself in fact understand that word, but only, I would argue, as a result of this very parable.)

But if you're basically on board, I can ask you my next question? Isn't it kind of amazing--as a rhetorical feat, I mean--that Jesus managed to get the word "neighbor" to mean the one thing that that word cannot possibly mean: namely "everybody"?

A minute ago, you told me that you're agreeable to the proposition that the one thing "neighbor" just logically cannot mean is "everybody." And yet, earlier in this discussion, you told me that, for you, the meaning of "neighbor" is "everybody." That's some slick verbal legerdemain on Jesus' part, no?

 

[Samson]

This is a bit of a side question, but are you ok if I sometimes use the words "near-ones" (in place of "neighbors") and "far-ones" as its antonym? I'm trying temporarily to get us away from how we now sometimes understand the word "neighbors" (how you yourself in fact understand that word, but only, I would argue, as a result of this very parable.)

But if you're basically on board, I can ask you my next question? Isn't it kind of amazing--as a rhetorical feat, I mean--that Jesus managed to get the word "neighbor" to mean the one thing that that word cannot possibly mean: namely "everybody"?

A minute ago, you told me that you're agreeable to the proposition that the one thing "neighbor" just logically cannot mean is "everybody." And yet, earlier in this discussion, you told me that, for you, the meaning of "neighbor" is "everybody." That's some slick verbal legerdemain on Jesus' part, no?

I think I can agree to that, though I am not sure what legerdemain means.

 

[Kyriakos]

Guys I fear you are arguing over a glaring mistranslation. The term in the original text is πλησίον, which means "one next to you". It's not a general (let alone metaphorical) neighbor
Same root with the verb that means "to approach".
In the parable, the Samaritan is said to have become the closest (ο πλησίον) to the injured man; it is to be inferred that people 'should' love those close to them as themselves or as they do love themselves etc.

(my own issue with the parable is that, quite clearly, some people don't even love themselves, so the "law"/advice wouldn't apply to them).