Spirituality
11 Nov 17
13 Nov 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterWhile it's easy to understand how what the Good Samaritan did is "righteous", "morality" and "good works", how exactly is it "Christianity" and "faith"?
That is christianity
That is righteousness
That is morality
That is good works
That is faith
Just a parable, nothing to do with doctrine.
13 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @divegeesterMy POV is that there is no such thing as altruism based on the fact that doing good things for others makes us feel good, it is a reward in itself... I’m just arguing that altruism, if described as doing something for someone with absolutely no reward, benefit or good feeling for oneself, doesn’t exist.
Do you feel that calling another POV “an old chestnut” somehow adds weight to your own POV?
My POV is that there is no such thing as altruism based on the fact that doing good things for others makes us feel good, it is a reward in itself. I will go so far to say that Christ’s work of redemption was not altruistic as he did it for himself.
I’m no ...[text shortened]... d that it was altruistic for them to look after their own children. Complete nonsense of course.
Just because in your experience all otherwise selfless acts make everyone "feel good", doesn't mean that ALL selfless acts make EVERYONE "feel good".
Also not every otherwise selfless act that makes someone "feel good" is motivated by "feel[ing] good".
13 Nov 17
Originally posted by @divegeester"...altruism, if described as doing something for someone with absolutely no reward, benefit or good feeling for oneself, doesn’t exist."
Do you feel that calling another POV “an old chestnut” somehow adds weight to your own POV?
My POV is that there is no such thing as altruism based on the fact that doing good things for others makes us feel good, it is a reward in itself. I will go so far to say that Christ’s work of redemption was not altruistic as he did it for himself.
I’m no ...[text shortened]... d that it was altruistic for them to look after their own children. Complete nonsense of course.
As Ghost pointed out, this is not at all a common definition of the word "altruism".
"One poster in here claimed that it was altruistic for them to look after their own children. Complete nonsense of course."
But is it really?
altruism
[al-troo-iz-uh m]
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).
2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
By definition 1), a devoted parent looking after their kids can qualify as "altruism".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The parable is about Christ's salvation to the self righteous who cannot achieve eternal life because of the fall of man.
Jesus, taking up the question, said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, ..."
The certain man is the lawyer who is falling away from the foundation of peace with God (Jerusalem) to a place of God's curse (Jericho). The downward direction from the blessed place to the cursed place symbolizes the fall of man.
" ... and he fell among robbers who having both stripped him and beaten him went away leaving him half dead."
Fallen man is taken advantage of by legalistic teachers of the law of Judaism as in John 10:1. There Jesus said the legalistic law teachers were not the Son but the robbers who seek to enter the sheep fold illegally.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, He who does not enter through the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up from somewhere else, he is a thief and a robber."
The robbers in the parable must be the legalistic law teachers who opposed the Son of God and take advantage of the fallen sinners.
The stripping is caused by the misuse of the law of Moses.
The beating are the blows of the killing power of the law of Moses (Rom. 9:9-10).
The Good Samaritan is Jesus. As Jesus was totally rejected by the legalistic religion so they made him as the outcasts and disregarded Samaritans with whom the Jews had no dealings (John 4:9) .
The Judaistic teachers teachers left the lawkeeper in a dead condition as seen in (Rom.7:11,13). Because the ones supposedly able to render help cannot because they TOO are a part of the fall - going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They are in the very same condition.
They are unable to render any help for they are not the Son of God, the Good Samaritan who is above the curse of the fall.
" ... a certain priests was GOING DOWN on that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. And likewise also a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the opposite side."
cont. below
13 Nov 17
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemBut the definition is incomplete and does not account for genetics and parental satisfaction.
"...altruism, if described as doing something for someone with absolutely no reward, benefit or good feeling for oneself, doesn’t exist."
As Ghost pointed out, this is not at all a common definition of the word "altruism".
"One poster in here claimed that it was altruistic for them to look after their own children. Complete nonsense of course." ...[text shortened]... quote]
By definition 1), a devoted parent looking after their kids can qualify as "altruism".
13 Nov 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI don’t exclude this hypothesis.
[b]My POV is that there is no such thing as altruism based on the fact that doing good things for others makes us feel good, it is a reward in itself... I’m just arguing that altruism, if described as doing something for someone with absolutely no reward, benefit or good feeling for oneself, doesn’t exist.
Just because in your experience all oth ...[text shortened]... ot every otherwise selfless act that makes someone "feel good" is motivated by "feel[ing] good".[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Nov 17
The Good Samaritan who renders help is the Savior Jesus. He is a "layman" of low estate. He is despised and slandered as an outcast and reject. Yet His human morality is of the highest order.
The Jews called him a Samaritan with a demon to utterly insult and reject Christ (John 8:48). But He is the highest moral MAN who has ever lived. He is able to help the self-righteous and self-justifying one who is on his way down to God's place of a curse.
Jesus came down as the most proper Man and had compassion on us. In tenderness He sought to save sinners who are blindly self-righteous yet torn up and robbed by the religion which cannot heal them.
"But a certain Samaritan, who was journeying, came upon him; and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion; And he came to him and bound up his wounds and poured oil and wine on them. And placing him on his own beast, he brought him to an inn and took care of him."
The pouring on the wounds with the oil signifies the dispensing of the Holy Spirit to the forgiven and healed sinner. Christ in saving imparts the Spirit of God to regenerate and heal the self righteous self justifying victim of legalism.
In short Christ brings the sinner to the new covenant church where He leaves him to be taken care of until the time of His second coming. Then in the time of His second coming He will recompense His faithful servants who also have compassion and care for those whom Jesus has brought into the church - the "inn".
"And on the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, Take care of him; and whatever you spend in addition to this; when I return I will repay you."
This is not the repaying of a man with the GIFT of eternal life. This is the recompensing of His servants with some reward in the millennial kingdom in addition, for their compassion and faithfulness in being like the Lord Jesus.
The innkeeper points to those who shepherd the new covenant church all during the church age caring for the believers who are brought there by the Savior Jesus. Actually, they call came into the church in a similar way.
The self justifying lawyer needed a man like this with great compassion and the ability to help him by being His good neighbor.
13 Nov 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterIf that's the case, then how do you logically maintain that " there is no such thing as altruism"?
I don’t exclude this hypothesis.
Originally posted by @sonshipC'mon Jaywill, why don't you allow the words of Jesus to speak for themselves?
The Good Samaritan who renders help is the Savior Jesus. He is a "layman" of low estate. He is despised and slandered as an outcast and reject. Yet His human morality is of the highest order.
The Jews called him a Samaritan with a demon to utterly insult and reject Christ [b](John 8:48). But He is the highest moral MAN who has ever lived. He is abl ...[text shortened]... ed a man like this with great compassion and the ability to help him by being His good neighbor.[/b]
Luke 10
25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.” 29But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31“And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32“Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33“But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35“On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ 36“Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” 37And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”
Jesus tells the parable as an answer to the 2 questions that the lawyer asks (see the questions in BOLD above)
Jesus plainly states that the answer to the first question is to "Go and do the same" as the Good Samaritan.
The answer to the second question is that EVERYONE is your neighbor.
You continue to demonstrate that you can neither hear nor understand the words of Jesus.
13 Nov 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneEasily, it’s my opinion based on basic human nature, learned social norms and other environmental benefits. Other than your opinions and hypothesis do you have anything else I can consider?
If that's the case, then how do you logically maintain that " there is no such thing as altruism"?
13 Nov 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @divegeesterYour response doesn't address the question I posed in the context it was asked.
Easily, it’s my opinion based on basic human nature, learned social norms and other environmental benefits. Other than your opinions and hypothesis do you have anything else I can consider?
The following recap should help you understand the question:
DG: My POV is that there is no such thing as altruism based on the fact that doing good things for others makes us feel good, it is a reward in itself... I’m just arguing that altruism, if described as doing something for someone with absolutely no reward, benefit or good feeling for oneself, doesn’t exist.
ToO: Just because in your experience all otherwise selfless acts make everyone "feel good", doesn't mean that ALL selfless acts make EVERYONE "feel good"...Also not every otherwise selfless act that makes someone "feel good" is motivated by "feel[ing] good".
DG:I don’t exclude this hypothesis.
ToO: If that's the case, then how do you logically maintain that " there is no such thing as altruism"?
Can you answer the question in the context it was asked?
13 Nov 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWhat context?
Your response doesn't address the question I posed in the context it was asked.
The following recap should help you understand the question:DG: My POV is that there is no such thing as altruism based on the fact that doing good things for others makes us feel good, it is a reward in itself... I’m just arguing that altruism, if described as d ...[text shortened]... o such thing as altruism"?
Can you answer the question in the context it was asked?
13 Nov 17
Originally posted by @sonshipI see the parable as Jesus explaining Christianity without the dogma of the contemporary church.
The Good Samaritan who renders help is the Savior Jesus. He is a "layman" of low estate. He is despised and slandered as an outcast and reject. Yet His human morality is of the highest order.
The Jews called him a Samaritan with a demon to utterly insult and reject Christ [b](John 8:48). But He is the highest moral MAN who has ever lived. He is abl ...[text shortened]... ed a man like this with great compassion and the ability to help him by being His good neighbor.[/b]
14 Nov 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterSo now you're going to pretend that you don't understand the question even after I detailed the context in my previous post?
What context?
Given your track record, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'd stoop to such a tactic in order to avoid admitting that you're wrong.