devonst@burdvax.UUCP (10/01/86)
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) writes: > >Interesting question. I don't recall the Samaritan risking life and >property for another. He bandaged some wounds, took the man to an inn >and paid for the bill until the man could leave on his own. The >description led me to believe the man did not have the strength to attack >the Samaritan. Would you please explain what you mean in this last sentence? Are you implying that the Samaritan was a potential target of attack from the injured man? That's a novel interpretation. >(Perhaps having this person around increased his chance >of becoming a victim.) The story seems to say go out of your way to help >a stranger, even if it is going to cost some money. This does not mean >there are not other stories that claim christians should risk life >and property for other, I just don't think this one says it. > > Pamela K. Whitehurst > ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur > ...!sun!idi!tymix!whitehur > And exactly how would you define "property"? Certainly by stopping on his journey and helping the injured man he opened himself to possible attack from the same robbers. Providing expensive oil to tend to the wounds of the other man and giving money to the innkeeper cost the Samaritan something. You seem to have a rather restricted view of "property" if money and possessions don't fall into that category. -- Tom Albrecht "Reformata, semper reformanda"