Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[John Mundinger]

Non-responsive, John.  You have not proposed any solutions, nor identified the problem except for (summarizing how it all comes across, not specifically quoting you, John): "we are all sinners", "we need to confess to and repent of the world's past sins, even those not specifically our own", "we need to continue to pay retribution for those past sins, whatever they may be and whosever they were - including our real, temporal ones", "we need to do this by supporting without reservation programs to help the disenfranchised of whatever cause and condition - without asking - and of whatever provenance the programs may be, particularly if they are societal (governmental?) in scope and power"

Actually, I have proposed an approach for developing solutions in this and previous threads.  To do that, we have to acknowledge the problem.  But, as a nation, we are in denial.  Specifically, I have not advocated "retribution".

In conversations like this, Ezekiel's definition of "sodomy" might be helpful.  Behold, 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.

[Donald_Kirchner]

In conversations like this, Ezekiel's definition of "sodomy" might be helpful.  Behold, 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.

That would be like saying that this is the definition of vehicular manslaughter.

Behold, this was the guilt of your brother Eathan Couch, the "affluenza" teen: he had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

[Team Hesse]

Actually, I have proposed an approach for developing solutions in this and previous threads.  To do that, we have to acknowledge the problem.  But, as a nation, we are in denial.  Specifically, I have not advocated "retribution".

I'm sure you will correct me....but I believe you have advocated "retribution." You stated up thread that you were in favor of "democratic socialism". You also made it clear that we as a nation need to recognize our corporate sins toward indigenous people and people who arrived here by slavery, indentured servitude, or the like. You have made it quite clear that the "ruling oligarchy" needs to be cast aside so the on-going abuse can come to an end. You have also indicated that you see no problem with taxation as a means to your proposed ends. "Taxation is not taking another's goods since "we"decide within the structures of our lawful entities to do it to ourselves". When I hear all of these things being advocated together, I am left concluding that your vision would imply retributive tax structures targeting the wealthy oligarchs for the sake of the historic downtrodden so they (those abused by previous societal structures of injustice) may enjoy the full fruits of American culture. Where is my understanding of your proposed future in error? And how is this vision not retributive?


Lou

[John Mundinger]

I'm sure you will correct me....but I believe you have advocated "retribution." You stated up thread that you were in favor of "democratic socialism".

"democractic socialism" does not equal "retribution".  And, in crafting the rest of that paragraph you failed to say anything about the specific proposal that I offered.  I will, however, give you extra credit for creative use of less than best construction.

[Team Hesse]

I'm sure you will correct me....but I believe you have advocated "retribution." You stated up thread that you were in favor of "democratic socialism".

"democractic socialism" does not equal "retribution".  And, in crafting the rest of that paragraph you failed to say anything about the specific proposal that I offered.  I will, however, give you extra credit for creative use of less than best construction.

Thanks John, from you this is a compliment. Or at least as close as you can get to one.


Lou

[Team Hesse]

  I will, however, give you extra credit for creative use of less than best construction.

Actually, you could set a fine example here of something you advocate for if you would address the argument rather than attack the person....


Lou

[Matt Hummel]

The Pharisee and the Levite did nothing wrong. In fact, they followed the law just as we are to do.

They followed the law.  But, as the parable demonstrates, Christ has turned the law upside down.  The Priest and the Levite were fine examples of how people yield to the temptation to turn adherence to the Law as service of self.  Yet, it is clear from the account that our Lord is providing instruction about loving God and loving neighbor.  Doing nothing really was not following the law, at all.

The Good Samaritan did what none of us can do, Mr. Mundinger. The Good Samaritan is Jesus. Why do you turn gospel into law other than because you are addressing those of us with whom you disagree via the "royal we"? Why do you wish to turn Jesus from Savior to Lawgiver?

I think a better interpretation/application of the parable is to understand how we, as simul justus et peccator, find ourselves in each of the characters in the story.  That also would be consistent with a plain read of the text.  The "royal we" is relevant because everyone of us (except those born with an original sin exemption) find ourselves in the ditch.

I agree that there is a lot of Gospel in the parable.  There also is a lot of instruction in faithful living.  We cannot ignore the fact that Jesus concluded the instruction by saying, "Go and do likewise".

Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate) Samaritan is in fact the neighbor?

BTW- Tubus delenda est.

[Randy Bosch]

The Pharisee and the Levite did nothing wrong. In fact, they followed the law just as we are to do.

They followed the law.  But, as the parable demonstrates, Christ has turned the law upside down.  The Priest and the Levite were fine examples of how people yield to the temptation to turn adherence to the Law as service of self.  Yet, it is clear from the account that our Lord is providing instruction about loving God and loving neighbor.  Doing nothing really was not following the law, at all.

The Good Samaritan did what none of us can do, Mr. Mundinger. The Good Samaritan is Jesus. Why do you turn gospel into law other than because you are addressing those of us with whom you disagree via the "royal we"? Why do you wish to turn Jesus from Savior to Lawgiver?

I think a better interpretation/application of the parable is to understand how we, as simul justus et peccator, find ourselves in each of the characters in the story.  That also would be consistent with a plain read of the text.  The "royal we" is relevant because everyone of us (except those born with an original sin exemption) find ourselves in the ditch.

I agree that there is a lot of Gospel in the parable.  There also is a lot of instruction in faithful living.  We cannot ignore the fact that Jesus concluded the instruction by saying, "Go and do likewise".

Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate) Samaritan is in fact the neighbor?

Perhaps a "both/and", not an "either/or"?  Note also that the victim in the ditch wasn't asked what he wanted - an obvious need was met by the Samaritan.  The man in the ditch also did not turn down the help even though it was from a Samaritan.  Nor did the innkeeper refuse service to either one of them.  Whole bunch of good neighborliness going on there.

[Randy Bosch]

...the specific proposal that I offered. 

John Mundinger, you have also stated that you don't have a specific solution, more recently than your specific proposal, and that you were proposing a methodology or process, not specific solutions.

Your "specific proposal" was either so long ago in this thread, or so enveloped in fog by subsequent dissertations and digressions that it has been lost in the mist, at least to me.  Would you please do us the favor of reiterating it, or at least quoting it from your best previous iteration, to get some of us out of the fog?  Thank you in advance.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate)...

Yes, that would be Jesus, who became all of that and more, for us.

From notes in The Lutheran Study Bible: Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31):

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."

Similarly, Matt. 5:48, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

[Matt Hummel]

Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate)...

Yes, that would be Jesus, who became all of that and more, for us.

From notes in The Lutheran Study Bible: Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31):

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."

or... Maybe it was to get the young man to see that no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate) type people were his neighbors, so that when he "loved his neighbor" he had an appropriate definition. A whole lot changes when we see "neighbors" the way Our Lord wants us to see them. Our neighbors are the folks in the ELCA trying to destroy the idea of family. Our neighbors are foolish people in the LCMS who think that six 24 hour days wrought all we see. Our neighbors are Catholics who refuse to see the wisdom of Law & Gospel as the one size fits all hermeneutic. Our neighbors the Syrian Moslem refugees as well as the the Christians facing martyrdom.

Ever stop to wonder if the fact that the young man said, "the one who helped..." had less to do with his approval of the actions and more to do with the fact that he didn't want to say the S word?

[John Mundinger]

John Mundinger, you have also stated that you don't have a specific solution, more recently than your specific proposal, and that you were proposing a methodology or process, not specific solutions.

The "specific proposal" is not a "specific solution" because the latter requires our society working together to 1) acknowledge the reality of the problem; 2) accepting responsibility for it; and, 3) work together to resolve it. 

Were we to do #3, it would result in a comprehensive overhaul of our social services program; health care; and, public education.  It might include public works projects to both address our failing infrastructure and to provide employment and employment training opportunities (I don't think I said that in the previous post - I should have).  I also noted a personal preference for public-private partnerships for delivering social services (I referenced "Reinventing Government") - i.e. government defines minimum standards and provides some of the funding/private organizations deliver the services with accountability.  It might require additional revenue, especially if we are unwilling to reduce spending on defense. 

It is my observation that we do not want to do either #1 or #2 so we cannot even begin to have the dialog necessary to make #3 a possibility.  And, were we to actually have that conversation, it would be exceedingly difficult to control the influence who think profits are a higher priority than actually serving the people who need the service (e.g. note the influence the pharmaceutical industry had in developing Medicare Part D).

[Dave Benke]

Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate)...

Yes, that would be Jesus, who became all of that and more, for us.

From notes in The Lutheran Study Bible: Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31):

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."

or... Maybe it was to get the young man to see that no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate) type people were his neighbors, so that when he "loved his neighbor" he had an appropriate definition. A whole lot changes when we see "neighbors" the way Our Lord wants us to see them. Our neighbors are the folks in the ELCA trying to destroy the idea of family. Our neighbors are foolish people in the LCMS who think that six 24 hour days wrought all we see. Our neighbors are Catholics who refuse to see the wisdom of Law & Gospel as the one size fits all hermeneutic. Our neighbors the Syrian Moslem refugees as well as the the Christians facing martyrdom.

Ever stop to wonder if the fact that the young man said, "the one who helped..." had less to do with his approval of the actions and more to do with the fact that he didn't want to say the S word?

Yes to this post.  The first sentence in the Lutheran Study Bible quote inverts the process.  "We," the Jews of that time or the Christians of ours, are by nature inclined to put ourselves in the position of the helpers of the helpless, when all too often we stand idly by.  And "they," those we objectify as on the outside, are (uh-oh) able to carry out righteousness in God's realm of the left as neighbors.  That is not the aim of the Study Bible, because the second sentence taken from the Lutheran Study Bible spiritualizes the parable eisegetically in a way not stated in the text at all.

Dave Benke

[Brian Stoffregen]

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."

So you (and the Lutheran Study Bible) do not see this parable also falling under first use of the law? Do you conclude that since we cannot perfectly fulfill the laws, we shouldn't even try to love God or do loving deeds for our neighbors because they will be tainted by sin?


I have often preached that we are the man half-dead in the ditch and God is the Samaritan who gets in the ditch with us to restore us to life. This also can imply that at other times we may also be the innkeeper to whom God turns over the care of the needy. ἐπιμελέομαι ("take care of") is used of what the Samaritan/God/Jesus does for the man in the inn in v. 34, and also what the innkeeper is to continue to do for the man in v. 35 after the Samaritan leaves. The only other time this word is used in the NT is 1 Tim 3:5 where bishops are told to "take care" of the church of God (like they "manage" (προΐστημι - lit. "stand before" = "have authority over") their own households. Should pastors stop trying to "take care" of their flocks because we can't do it perfectly? We do the best we can, repenting all the way for the many times we fail.


"Do this and live" and "go and do likewise" need to be seen as 1st use laws (as well as 2nd use).

[John Mundinger]

Yes, that would be Jesus, who became all of that and more, for us.

From notes in The Lutheran Study Bible: Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31):

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."

Similarly, Matt. 5:48, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

I agree with the comments from the study notes and I suspect that others who are in this conversation also would. Certainly, the Good Samaritan understood that the man in the ditch was his neighbor and he sacrificed on the man's behalf.  He did not die for him.   So, I'm not convinced that the notes necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jesus is the Good Samaritan.  I'm not sure what is to be accomplished debating that point.

Regardless, I referenced the parable in the context of this conversation because, even if we cannot keep the commandment, how are people who know the parable and who accept the "third use" to respond to the commandment to go and do likewise?