Jesus Christ said He was giving a new command "that we love each other" who can argue with that message?
Sure,loving each other is good. "Christian" love seems to have a way of going sour, in my opinion. I won't pretend to know exactly why that it -- maybe because it's based on ransom sacrifices or something, who knows. There are very few people who can actually practice Christian love, involving, as it does, the very strict censuring of oneself (if your eye stumbles you, cut it out) and of others (don't associate with those not like you is a common Christian theme, though not universal). Anyway.
The example Jesus set was always good.Well, maybe, maybe not. He did curse a tree that didn't bear fruit out of season, which was pretty dumb, in my opinion. He spoke in riddles that no one understood, was more confusing than a Greek oracle, which was pretty lame, in my opinion. He was rather rude and condescending to his parents and his disciples, but heck, maybe that was a matter of culture, right? Anyway.
I don't think it is at all limited to Christians. Christians should take the lead in showing love and kindness to everyone, that is the New Testament message.See, I think it's condescending to say that "Christians should take the lead in showing love and kindness to everyone." It implies, whether you mean this or not, that other people aren't as good at being loving and kind because they're missing something that Christians have. When really, other people are just as good at being loving and kind as Christians.
True Christianity would fit both of the men in this story.Probably if you got a room full of Christians together they couldn't decide what "true Christianity" meant"
One chose to live a very simple life of working for food and necessities while distributing bibles because he was convinced that was the best way he could help people.Well, maybe there's something to that. Don Quixote was convinced that attacking windmills was the best way to help people. Didn't mean he was right -- in fact, he was a downright nut, but I suppose that doesn't make him a bad person.
The other man was conscience stricken and chose to offer a little help to someone in need.Yeah, to another Christian. Wonder if he would've helped an atheist? Especially if the atheist never came around to accepting Christ or whatever. Think he would have looked back with such fondness at the meal the two shared?
How can that be "us vs them"? I don't think any Christian would see this story as an "us vs them" story. If everyone in the world followed the example of these two men, would the world be better or worse? If that means following a Christian way of life, whats wrong with that?Well, maybe I'm out on a limb here, but I think that anytime you assert a creed or belief system you're pretty much setting up an "us versus them" situation, especially when that belief system is grounded in faith alone. In the story, there are Christians who feel deeply and ... well, no one else. Right? No other views are represented, no other faiths or thoughts about what makes a good spiritual life. And I suspect that, if they were represented, they're be shallow depictions of materialistic lost souls who didn't get the vague, "transcendent" message of this little anecdote.
Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse, borgfree. Please understand that I'm not mocking your response to the story. My guess is that you personally are deeper than the story is and that your response is grounded in that, and not the actual text, which is pretty insipid and (I'll type it again, because I love this word) mawkish. Sorry we disagree. But I still think you're AOK.
Dedalus