The good atheist

[my_little_pony]

LK 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

LK 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

LK 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain Christian that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

LK 10:32 And likewise a pastor, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

LK 10:33 But a certain atheist, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

LK 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

LK 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

LK 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

LK 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

 

[agua]

It's very interesting how Jesus depicted the Samaritan helping the Jew considering they(Samaritans) were despised by the Jews. Not only did the Samaritan help but he showed his love by ensuring the Jew was properly cared for in his absence. A powerful parable.

Mat 5:44-45 NKJV But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, (45) that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

 

[jiggyfly]

What translation is this, is it your own paraphrase?

 

[Christ4Ever]

Dear brother,
Because a Samaritan was mentioned here doesn’t mean that person was an Atheist. Neither was Christian mentioned. Ever wonder what an Atheist would make of us changing the word of God to suit the point we’re trying to make? If a story and an analogy to the story is what you want to do, then don’t use scripture references.
YBIC
C4E

 

[my_little_pony]

It's very interesting how Jesus depicted the Samaritan helping the Jew considering they(Samaritans) were despised by the Jews. Not only did the Samaritan help but he showed his love by ensuring the Jew was properly cared for in his absence. A powerful parabl

Thanks for sharing that, Agua, and the accompanying verses about enemy loving. I agree.

What translation is this, is it your own paraphrase?]

Well, more like getting the spirit of it.

Ever wonder what an Atheist would make of us changing the word of God to suit the point we’re trying to make?

Interesting observation. What is the point I am trying to make and how is that point "changed" from the point Jesus was trying to make?

 

[agua]

Samaritans were the product of intermarriage between Jew and Gentile/non Jew I believe. A Samaritan was, in general, a theist.

 

[brakelite]

Interesting observation. What is the point I am trying to make and how is that point "changed" from the point Jesus was trying to make?

We all understand the point you were making, and it wasn't any change in the 'point' that is the problem. It is in changing the word of God in order to make it. Unnecessary, and besides which your 'new' version is weaker. The Samaritans were enemies. The Jews hated the Samaritans, thus the act of kindness was so much more poignant. Atheists are not our enemies. However, inferring that they perhaps are can make them so.

 

[Christ4Ever]

We all understand the point you were making, and it wasn't any change in the 'point' that is the problem. It is in changing the word of God in order to make it

Exactly right brother.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

My_Little_Pony

Since you posted this thread in the Churches And Sermonss forum, I have to ask: What sermon or teaching did you hear that told you the Good Samaritan is an atheist? Please tell us what the message said and who preached it?

Spirit Led Ed (SLE)

 

[my_little_pony]

Hi ya'll. Thanks for giving me the chance to explain myself in a situation where I've obviously offended some people.

Hi Brakelite,
It seems you've been a bit annoyed by a couple of my posts recently. I hope we can overcome this impasse to communication in a way that does not require me to subdue my conscience for the sake of yours.

You say,

We all understand the point you were making

It may be a bit inappropriate for you to speak on behalf of everyone on talkjesus.

it wasn't any change in the 'point' that is the problem. It is in changing the word of God in order to make it.

Yeah, Christ4ever said something similar. I asked how I had "changed" the word of God if the point is still the same. Jesus himself said that his words are spirit and truth. For example, if I say "blessed are those who experience what it means to go with out food and what it means to go without water", would you think I had "changed" what Jesus was teaching?

I beleive it is because of my respect and admiration for the teachings of Jesus, that I understand that it is the sprit of those teachings that gives life and not the words themselves.

Unnecessary, and besides which your 'new' version is weaker. The Samaritans were enemies. The Jews hated the Samaritans, thus the act of kindness was so much more poignant. Atheists are not our enemies. However, inferring that they perhaps are can make them so.

Again, it's probably not appropriate for you to speak the mind of all Christians as fact. I am aware of a great deal of Christians who may not refer to atheists as their enemies, but the hatred is still there all the same.

Besides, my understanding of this teaching is that it's not about identifying who our enemies are, but our neighbors.

Since you posted this thread in the Churches And Sermonss forum, I have to ask: What sermon or teaching did you hear that told you the Good Samaritan is an atheist?

Hi SLE. Actually, I'm not suggesting the GS was an atheist at all. I was substituting one classification of people for another. Sometimes it's possible to get so wrapped up in the words on the page that we miss the spirit. Obviously, that is not true for Christ4ever or brakelite since they felt the post was pointless, but I know that I sometimes benefit from seeing a particular verse I've read hundreads of times over again, in a different light.

Actually, I feel we could substitue just about any title in the three places where I made a change. The "samaritan" spot could include muslims, hindus, prostitutes, drunkards, pedophiles, adulterers, businessmen, lawyers (haha), etc and the point would still be true.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Yeah, Christ4ever said something similar. I asked how I had "changed" the word of God if the point is still the same.

If the point is still the same why change it? Why introduce controversy, where none was before? You didn't add commentary to it, on why you changed the wording, or what point you were trying to make by doing so, all you did was present it as if it were scripture.

Christ4ever or brakelite since they felt the post was pointless

Please point to a post of mine where I stated what you had done was pointless? However, since you brought it up. Your point was?

 

[my_little_pony]

If the point is still the same why change it?

? I don't understand your question. You are saying the point was the same but that I still somehow changed it. If the point is still the same, it is not changed.

So, would you care to comment on what I recently posted regarding the issue?

 

[will]

LK 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

LK 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

LK 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain Christian that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

LK 10:32 And likewise a pastor, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

LK 10:33 But a certain atheist, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

LK 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

LK 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

LK 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

LK 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Ok, I'll try to roll with the punches here. :magnify:

It is true that we can substitute many different types of people in place of the Good Samaritan. And it won't change the message that the parable conveys, that is, illustrating what it means to be a "good neighbor" to a downtrodden man.

However by using a Samaritan, the Lord kept the spiritual condition of the "good neighbor" separate. That is, based on the parable, we cannot derive whether the Good Samaritan is a believer or a non-believer.

A Samaritan was just part of a group that the Jews in that period consider inferior and unworthy, yet he performed the deeds of a good neighbor in contrast to the more "worthy" people.

Now, if we substitute the Samaritan with an Atheist, I don't think it produces a good analogy. Because by identifying someone as an Atheist, by definition, we already revealed the spiritual condition of that person.

An Atheist is a person who chooses to believe that there is no God, therefore the only point of reference for the person's morality in his world-view is Self.

So any goodness that an Atheist is capable of doing, no matter how precise those matches the "good neighbor" deeds, can only be attributed and credited to the Atheist's self; and not God, which is contrary to what a "good neighbor" concept is supposed to be framed with (context-wise) which is the Great Commandment quoted in Luke 10:27.

(Note: Whether or not this Atheist make a big deal of these deeds, is irrelevant)

Therefore the above modification to the Scripture quote does change the meaning of the parable in a way that is not compatible with the Scripture itself.

 

[Christ4Ever]

? I don't understand your question. You are saying the point was the same but that I still somehow changed it. If the point is still the same, it is not changed.

So, would you care to comment on what I recently posted regarding the issue?

Seems you didn't understand my question and failed to answer another of them.

To what purpose? or maybe another way to phrase the same thing would be, what was your reasoning behind it?

Why did you make a statement on something I said, which has no basis in truth? or another way of putting it, why did you lie about something I had posted when clearly I had not done so?

Clarity is what I'm looking.

(Note: Whether or not this Atheist make a big deal of these deeds, is irrelevant)

Therefore the above modification to the Scripture quote does change the meaning of the parable in a way that is not compatible with the Scripture itself.

Agreed. Good post by way.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

Actually, I feel we could substitue just about any title in the three places where I made a change. The "samaritan" spot could include muslims, hindus, prostitutes, drunkards, pedophiles, adulterers, businessmen, lawyers (haha), etc and the point would still be true.

So identifying the Good Samaritan as an atheist was, as Jiggyfly said in his post, your own paraphrase, not a recognized biblical paraphrase. Samaritans are not atheists; they worship the same God, the God of heaven, as Jews and Christians do. As to your comment about the spirit of Jesus' teaching being more important than the words, Jesus said His words are directly from the Holy Spirit ("My words are Spirit, they are Light," - Jn 6:33), therefore they are the point.

SLE

 

[my_little_pony]

Now, if we substitute the Samaritan with an Atheist, I don't think it produces a good analogy. Because by identifying someone as an Atheist, by definition, we already revealed the spiritual condition of that person.

Hmm, I disagree. A lot of focus has been put on to the Samaritan/atheist substitution, but what about the priest and the levite? Aside from the fact that no one seemed to have a problem with me changing those two words (possibly because it was a change that did no conflict with people's understanding of who the "good guys" are), they VERY MUCH represent a "spiritual condition".

So we have three people in the story. Two of them are obviously meant to be the good guys and one of them is a spiritual unknown. Maybe he has some spirituality, but then again, maybe not, too.

The two spiritual guys, whom we would normally think of as the good guys BECAUSE of their spirituality chose to ignore their duty.

The guy we would normally not think of as the good guy BECAUSE of his LACK of spirituality chose to show love.

The point of the story is that talk is cheap. What God is looking for are people who are willing to show love and not just talk about love.

So any goodness that an Atheist is capable of doing, no matter how precise those matches the "good neighbor" deeds, can only be attributed and credited to the Atheist's self; and not God

I strongly disagree with this point. Here is the conclusion Jesus gave:

LK 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

LK 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Go and do likewise. Spirituality, or lack of it, is totally irrelevant to the point of this story because what Jesus is looking for are people who will show love EVEN IF they don't have the "right" theology.

 

[my_little_pony]

This line was meant to be at the end of my previous post.

To say that the loving kindness of an atheist is actually only selfishness, because that person is an atheist, appears to be taking the role of God. I believe it is the spiritual superiority that this comment from will suggests, that the parable of the GS is dealing with. It is in fact, ironic.

 

[jiggyfly]

This line was meant to be at the end of my previous post.

To say that the loving kindness of an atheist is actually only selfishness, because that person is an atheist, appears to be taking the role of God.

I agree with you here but you misrepresented the scriptures by telling your story by changing some of the words yet using book, chapter and verse headings to pose as scripture which makes your post an errant translation of scripture.

Next time post the scripture and then your paraphrase. If your going to try to communicate a point by telling a story post it in the lounge forum in the story sub forum. :wink:

 

[my_little_pony]

I agree with you here but you misrepresented the scriptures by telling your story by changing some of the words yet using book, chapter and verse headings

Let's pretend that it's your birthday, and I know you like fruit. I buy apples, bananas, oranges, strawberries, plums, and grapes to make a fruit basket for you.

Let's also pretend that you like tomatoes. I take away the plums and instead I put tomatoes in to surprise you.

Have I misrepresented the fruit basket?

to pose as scripture which makes your post an errant translation of scripture.

Next time post the scripture and then your paraphrase.

Are you aware that the word "good" is not used in the scripture? And yet, the story is commonly called The good Samaritan. Isn't that an errant translation? Shouldn't anyone who wants to use the phrase "Good Samaritan" also clarify, each time they use it, that they are paraphrasing so that other people don't get confused? Someone may be conned into believing that the wording of the scripture actually uses the word "good" to describe the situation and then later lose their faith when they find out that they've been believing an "errant translation" all along.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? The reason is because, whether the word "good" is found in the scripture or not, it is CONSISTENT with what the scripture says, so no one has a problem inserting it. See, our faith isn't in words on paper. It's in the spirit communicating through those words and I think the spirit becomes stifled when we push it aside in favor of the ink on the page.

Jesus mentioned this hard, inflexible attitude by comparing it to old wine bottles. God can't fill them up with something new because they will crack. He is looking for soft, flexible wine skins who are able to see things from new and different perspectives, willing to flow with the spirit.

Look at C4E's comments. [paraphrasing here:] He said it didn't matter if the spirit of what I was saying is consistent with the scripture. If I didn't use the exact same words, then it's wrong. Sounds like old-bottle thinking. That's not meant to be an insult, but just an observation which I feel is relevant.

Anyway, I look forward to more fruitful discussion. Oh, btw I posted this topic here because I saw some other comments on another thread in this section about atheists, so that's why. I think it's relevant, especially the "church" section of the title.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Look at C4E's comments. [paraphrasing here:] He said it didn't matter if the spirit of what I was saying is consistent with the scripture. If I didn't use the exact same words, then it's wrong. Sounds like old-bottle thinking. That's not meant to be an insult, but just an observation which I feel is relevant.

Jiggyfly was attempting to provide you a method that you could use when paraphrasing Scripture. You should take his advice.

First you don't need to paraphrase what I said, unless you don't understand what I said, which I can understand. You are incorrect in either instance to infer what you did to any of my posts.

I'm just curious why you would fail to answer my questions, and then misquote/paraphrase/make-up something within my posts as being the position I hold in regards to what you'd originally posted to someone else?

By the way I prefer old wine skin type of thinking. New doesn't always mean better, just different.