Thoughts from the Teapot

I love the Good Samaritan story. Jesus told some good tales to illustrate his point.

But you're an idealist, Bags. Unfortunately, not everybody does behave like the Good Samaritan, then or now. And Jesus was explaining that you have to go beyond just following the rules. Sanctimonious? I don't think it moves the discussion on to reinterpret or misrepresent bits and pieces of scripture because you don't like the sound of them!

He's just jealous because I'm better off than him.
He also told me that when people go to university they lose their common sense! and no notice should be taken of anything they say.
What with that and my headmistress saying that medical schools would not accept anyone who was in the least attractive, I'm starting to feel very inferior!

No wonder you were annoyed, Galen - he should mind his own business!

I've given. Him first aid before now. But at the moment after his remarks about me being selfish to live in my (owned) 4 bedroom house on my own, I'd probably run him over in my scooter!

What lily describes as the Good Samaritan's actions are what I would expect of any decent human being. I'm sure many gransnetters have helped people unknown to them just our of human compassion. At the time the story was written it would not have been expected because tribalism between the Jews and the Gentiles was the order of the day. The Good Samaritan was unusual.

I'm not sure about live and let live. On the surface it seems innocent enough, but I'm certainly not happy to let people who carry out female genital mutilation or other cruel, unnecessary practices, live as they are doing without fighting (in terms of verbal persuasion, education, etc) for changes. There are lots of other aspects of how other people live, or are forced to live, that I am not happy to simply 'let' without trying to improve things somehow. I'm sure many people feel like this, or else why would there be so many charities trying to make a positive difference to people's lives?

You may have a point, mal, but I tend to think of anything sanctimonious as drivel by definition. It's not drivel to feel sorry for someone, nor is it sanctimonious, but the way it was talked about could be. Admittedly, it could be hard to say the same thing as the bit I was talking about without seeming sanctimonious. I'd take some persuading to feel sorry for someone who is cruel or who persecutes others. It certainly wouldn't come naturally.

Of course she wouldn't Lilygran. She'd be driving her mobility scooter.

But given your profession,Galen if you found him in a heap in the road I assume you wouldn't walk by on the other side?

I certainly not loving 'him next door!'

If the message of 'love thy neighbour' is too strong or too biblical then how about 'live and let live'?

I think because it is harder to feel sympathy for people whose views/beliefs/customs/appearance are different than it is for 'our sort of people' and much of what Jesus is quoted as saying is about love towards each other, love of God for us, this aspect is problematic. Loving your neighbour is easier, but 'as yourself'? And don't forget when Jesus was asked 'Who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:25) he replied with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Your 'neighbour' is your fellow human being, even if he or she is from a group with which your group is in a constant state of hostility. This level of humanity is not easy and isn't presented as easy. The Good Samaritan isn't described as having warm and fuzzy feelings towards the injured Jew, he is described as having cared for him, dressed his wounds, conveyed him to a place of safety and made sure he would be properly looked after (which he paid for).

The NT also says: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'

Bags not sure it is converted, I think there are two separate quotes, not sure though.

The language was different when it was written, which is why you think it is 'sanctimonious' now but surely not 'drivel'? Perhaps you would think that of me when I feel sorry for certain people who seem to have nothing better to do than be nasty to others. Not talking about you bags (had to write that as things get misunderstood on here!)

Thanks, nightowl. As quoted, it comes across as sanctimonious drivel. No wonder it tends to be converted to Love Thy Neighbour.

'But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you' Matthew 5:44

I think it's pretty clear what was meant by enemies.

I think it is very easy to love our neighbours because they are generally like us. It is the fear of the unknown which probably makes us tribal. I do agree that travel and open mindedness probably helps over time. Just thinking about how different my life is now since the world has got so much smaller.

I don't think criticism is a bad thing but if it were constant and from a group of people I think I would look to myself to find out why?

Isn't the injunction to love your neighbours rather than enemies? When rampant tribalism was (is) the rule, neighbours (gentiles, samaritans, etc) would be automatically regarded as enemies, probably with reason, but we don't need to think like that now in most places.

I don't assume other Europeans, or Asians, or Africans, or Americans are my enemies. I assume they are not until they show me otherwise. That seems to me a reversal of the biblican assumption that the love thy neighbours thing was trying to tackle.

Face it - 'love your enemies' is pure stupidity - it's a sure way to get yourself annihilated.

Well, there is that side of the coin too, but the same technological advances have helped humanity as well. I contend that they have helped more than they have harmed – witness human population growth. the populations of species that don't overcome basic survival problems, but merely have to deal with them over and over again, with no progress, don't grow. Or they do grow, and then crash. Stuff I've read recently suggests human populatiion will level off in this century and then fall gradually as living conditiions improve for more and more people.

At least we can try.

I agree Bags, but the counter-side is that we have used our intelligence and ability to create monsters that allow states to destroy people on the other side of the world whom we have never met, or individuals use technology to plan attacks on people they don't know, with devastating impact.
I am not sure we have moved on at all, or ever will overcome our basic primitive outlooks, Aka.

I think we are doing already. Think about how people want to help those who suffer from natural or man-made disasters, even when they are on the other side of the world and may never meet.

I agree. Just reflecting on why we developed like this and what could move us forward. If this distrust of other groups of humans is innate then it would almost take an 'advanced evolutionary type' to overcome our genetics and our distrust.
Can we override our basic primitive outlooks in sufficient numbers to make a difference?

I think global travel and global communications have helped with this because we see what we have in common with other people, as well as the differences.

Our grouping evolved to protect ourselves from any dangers. It evolved long before we became human. Herding herbivores use the same technique of crowd safety. So do birds like starlings.

Some dangers, of course, have always been from other groups of the same species. This is the same for other species of social apes, such as chimpanzees.

I think the point Teapot is trying to make is that, although there are still dangers from other humans, on the whole we have progressed a bit from an antithetical view of other humans and it's time to drop that rather primitive outlook for everyday use.