-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
- Thread starter MeganC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- good samaritan luke parable
Caution noted. Yet it possible that nations would be judged as whole. If I am correct in extrapolating Revelation 21:26
And they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it.
It appears various nations have certain glory about them, and if there is country which like Haiti experiences earthquake and other nation like USA rallied and assisted the country, this act of glorious endeavor of being good neighbor would be credited to that nation. Imagine if this nation has reputation of helping the nations, that glory will be most glorious indeed in heavenly Jerusalem on that day. Besides virtue of nations what is more glorious? Is it their costumes, their food, their music? Probably not, weightier reputation of a nation is their reputation characterized by virtues. To help one's neighbor is virtue of love. Is not greatness of America is due to its ability to help and rescue others. Opposite can be true, a nation could have reputation of vice as described "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy".
This is apparent that the whole nation is guilty.
God used reputation of descendants of Rechab to shame Israel's unfaithfulness. And I think this could be this an example of their glory. Their faithfulness to their father was complemented.
The words of Jonadab son of Rechab have been carried out. He commanded his sons not to drink wine, and they have not drunk it to this very day because they have obeyed the command of their forefather. But I have spoken to you again and again, and you have not obeyed Me! (Jeremiah 35:14).
If you select to be outraged over helping a nation that is being slaughtered and not being outraged (in any meaningful way) over global warming and social justice initiatives that is called working for the enemy.
Building roads, setting up firefighting responses, setting up police departments would be considered liberalism in a nut shell by your definition. If that is the case, I love liberalism. I used to think of liberalism as freedom of choice.
By the way money is not in your possession for you to claim it as theft. Once it is in government's hands (current or future hands), decision is made by collective group of people. And majority of people would decide that a certain nation needs help. May be it is not your decision, but majority wins in USA ( or should). How ridiculous would you look if you start claiming theft in place of worship that you attend where you have been tithing after congregation decides to sponsor a missionary in a country that you feel animosity toward or desires to build a gym against your recommendation. Both instantes are ridiculous.
Last edited:
If you are 'outraged' by something that does not exist - like man-made so-called 'global warming' - then you are a fool as well as a dupe. And the thing to do is spend time studying what real 'science' is supposed to be (hint: hypotheses about real data, as opposed to paid-for fudging) and perhaps even what is the major influence on REAL 'climate change' - it's called 'the sun.'
As for 'social injustice' - how about teaching that crap to kids, before drugging them and cutting off their genitals?
'Drinking the Kool-Aid' it not a sales pitch.
Wow. Do you even know what 'money' is? (I'm talking Scripture, but the Constitution, back when the US had one, also had it right.)
If it's PRINTED by Big Brother, and thus is CREATED in those same Evil hands, then your conclusion is correct, even if a bit sadistic.
But what does this have to do with a parable whose meaning is already being twisted?
PS> "If I am correct in extrapolating Revelation 21:26..." No, you are not.
The word "nation" or "nations" as used by the brother of Yahushua in his original Hebrew was "goy" or "goyim." You won't understand the implications without understanding the word. But it does NOT mean "Ukraine," or Botswana, or the USA.
I do not know why it did not come across. I do not believe in global warming agenda caused by breathing out carbon dioxide. And I know that social justice agendas is communism in disguise. ( I need to work on expressing myself with clarity. My fault. Sorry). I am against those initiatives by our western leaders to address those imaginary problems. What is not imaginary is that there is dictator on loose in Europe who on more than one occasion threatened the whole world and is attacking a country. I wanted to express that of all the hills that some in government (aka MAGA branch) wanted to die they chose legitimate need to help Ukraine. They could have selected to show tantrums on global warming bills, on critical race agendas, definition of marriage, on all these things they compromised, caved in. but on legitimate need that destroys America' s nemesis that has planted Marxism in USA, and in that need and opportunity MAGA wants to stand their ground. Hence this selected outrage is out of line with what would truly be beneficial. That is what I meant.
Point of parable to help your neighbor. Who is my neighbor anyone I am able to help.
Does it bring glory to God when his children act reflective of character of our Savior Yeshua. Yes.
Is it possible that whole nation acts in accordance with character of our Savior's teaching and would it bring glory to God? Yes.
But you have to REALLY help.
Not claiming help and doing worse. Most foreign help today is certainly money taken from poor people in developed countries to bribe rich people in developing countries.
Do you have an example of this happening?
You’ve forgotten the foundational lesson of this parable, who is our neighbor and who is our enemy?
An issue with applying this to nation-states is that it can also be used on political matters that you would disagree with. Consider the situation with the southern border at the USA. I am certain that left-wing preachers use the parable of the Good Samaritan to explain why the USA must accept every refugee, because many truly are people in need and the country needs to be a good neighbour and accept them so they can be helped. You could make a very persuasive argument that this is the case. It is only by considering the larger geopolitical situation that you will see the flaws in the argument and realise that this is a misapplication of the parable.
@MeganC's application of the Good Samaritan to US foreign military adventurism is the exact same error as that made by a preacher who calls for Christians to support the US opening the border.
Both harm the USA (draining money and resources, or endangering the country through admission of dangerous people), but in both cases that harm is justified by its supporters as a reasonable price to pay for the greater good of helping your neighbour. Surely if this parable applies to nation-states, and the USA should engage in neighbourly behaviour even if that is harmful to itself, caring about the neighbour's interests more than its own, then it should open the border also?
@MeganC's application of the Good Samaritan to US foreign military adventurism is the exact same error as that made by a preacher who calls for Christians to support the US opening the border.
Both harm the USA (draining money and resources, or endangering the country through admission of dangerous people), but in both cases that harm is justified by its supporters as a reasonable price to pay for the greater good of helping your neighbour. Surely if this parable applies to nation-states, and the USA should engage in neighbourly behaviour even if that is harmful to itself, caring about the neighbour's interests more than its own, then it should open the border also?
There is mo enemy in parable. It's only about helping?
What is problem with requirement actually finish in better state? Because real help results in that.
I'm to lazy now to check to check Daniel Mitchell's wordpress blog. He has year's work on wasteful spending of state. I'm certain he has some examples. I would start with Export-Import bank.
Point is voluntary help of "unclean" person is way better than non-help of "proper-persons".
And you are forbidden to love your neighbor than yourself. Bloody f..k, it's unbeliveable for much Christians promote breaking 2nd love command and love theft.
Great point. I do not know how to harmonize these passages with need of boundaries to be respected. But if there are refugees fleeing something and one country accepts them and the other closes the doors. I would imagine before God the one who answered the need is in more favorable light. Any kindness we do costs something to the one administering kindness. This is certainly situation that puts a nation or person in dilemma.
|
Link to blog:
International Liberty
Restraining Government in America and Around the World
danieljmitchell.wordpress.com
Great resource to learn fiscal policy, best taxes and worst bureauracy in world.
The analogy with a foreign invasion is fatally flawed.
What if the 'stranger' who was allegedly the victim of 'highwaymen' was in fact (as we often SEE today!!!!) a trojan horse, intended to get the real victim to stop, whereupon he would be set upon, killed, and robbed by accomplices?
Yahushua does NOT tell us to be stupid! Nor to ignore our understanding, or common sense. The point was that the man helped WAS, in fact, a "NEIGHBOR."
Not an invading army. Not terrorists, foreign special forces troops, not MS-13, not escaped Haitian or Venezuelan murderers, rapists, or - now - cannibals.
And let me add golden rule usage.
The answer is simple - to have laws that carefully select who to be generous to and who not to. Control immigration. Define how many people you can realistically help in a year (ie have a "refugee quota"*). Work out which people are in most need of that help, and let them in. Keep out both those who are only going to be harmful, and those who may have needs but which you do not have the means to provide for and which someone else will need to care for instead.
Those who are rejected may hate you for being generous to someone else but not to them, just as in the parable of the workers in the vineyard those who received less generosity felt hard done by and complained to the owner, but you have to take this criticism in your stride. Nobody had any actual right to your generosity - those who received it should be grateful, while those who did not receive it have nothing to complain about. Don't let the complaints of those who miss out carry you away with a simplistic idea of "love your neighbour" and let in everybody foolishly.
The same answer applies to war of course - be very careful and selective about what military assistance is offered where. Only do so where it is very clear that the net benefit will be positive. This will mean supporting some countries sometimes - and refusing to support others at other times. Those who miss out will complain, and sometimes the decision may appear harsh and unjust. But it is still a practical necessity. You cannot allow these complaints to carry you away with a simplistic idea of "love your neighbour" and think it's your duty to defend the whole world from all aggression - it's not possible, you'll destroy yourself and then leave even your closest neighbours unprotected. You have to be strategic and only help where it is very clear that you will actually achieve something truly beneficial for the world by doing so.
I don't want to apply that logic to a specific conflict as I'm trying to talk in more general terms about this parable, but I'm sure you can apply it to something and see my point...
* Note that I myself hate to say this because I intensely dislike the very idea of passport controls. My own ancestors fled France for England back around 1600, when the Catholics were killing the Protestants, and they were able to do that easily because there were no passport controls. The same goes for all the colonists of America. There were no hard borders in scripture either, people moved freely from one country to another, as Abraham did in his wanderings. Passports are a recent invention by the globalists, wanting to manage us all like cattle. We should be able to manage immigration in a freer fashion - rather than the government granting permission to people to come IN, letting everyone travel freely but carefully watching what's going on and harshly expelling those who should be kicked OUT. This is a utopian dream - but it's not relevant to how the world we live in today is set up. My statements above about refugee quotas etc simply fit the principles of the good samaritan into the present system of the world, I am not at all implying that a better system is not possible.
The enemies in that parable are the robbers who attacked the man.
Since you brought it up I'll ask you again: Had you come across a stranger being attacked on the road by a group of strangers would you intervene or stay out of it?
)