Christianity. Christianity is the blanket term for the faith wherein you believe in Jesus Christ. All Protestants (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, etc.), Catholics, and other Jesus-based "denominations" are Christian. They have vast to minor differences in how they interpret the Bible, but they all believe in Jesus Christ. By "believe in Jesus Christ" I mean: Belief that Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man, came to us in the form of a man, born of a virgin, possessing the divinity of God, to teach us and correct misunderstandings and misguided practices concerning Him and His laws, and ultimately to give us forgiveness for all our sin. He was betrayed and hung on the cross to die. His death on the cross, as an innocent, signified/symbolized His dying in our place for our sins, so that our sins are forgiven, if we believe in Him and what He did for us in this way. He rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to heaven, and sits at the right hand of God. He will be our judge come judgement day at the end of time. Here is one of the earliest statements of Christian faith, The Apostles' Creed: I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen. Belief in Jesus, and what He did for you/us, is essentially a ticket to heaven. Boy, some of that makes no sense whatsoever. Yes. It takes a while to grasp most of the ramifications and the symbology of it all. It helps to read the Bible. Some of the complexity clears up once you have more of the history given in the Bible, especially the history given in the Gospels and Acts, the first five books of the New Testament. Also, some of the sources of symbols, traditions, and ceremonies echoed in the New Testament can be found in the first five books of the Old Testament; however, this may create more confusion than clarity, so use the approach that works for you. Who/What IS a Christian? A Christian is anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and what He did for her/him/us. That's it. No one can tell another person "you are not a Christian" because only that person and God really know. You don't have to belong to or ascribe to any particular denomination or sect to be Christian, either. If someone does tell you that you are not a Christian - if you believe in Jesus Christ - they are trying to sell you something or take something away from you. Ignore them. Now, of course, if someone says "I'm a Christian" and is performing a satanic ritual, chances are he/she isn't a Christian. But I didn't have to tell you that, did I? Another thing that will disqualify you as a Christian is if you mix Christianity with other religions. To yet again mangle the old quote from Gertrude Stein, "Christian is a Christian is a Christian is a Christian." You cannot be a Jewish/Christian, a New Age/Christian, a Wiccan/Christian, or a Hindu/Christian, etc. What is prayer? Prayer is a direct message to, or conversation with, God. Prayer is where you praise God and thank Him for all the blessings He's given you, like your good job, wonderful spouse and/or kids, etc. It's also where you ask for help and guidance. "The Lords Prayer," found in Luke 11:1-4, is a model on how to pray. What does "Luke 11:1-4" mean? It means, in the Bible, go to the book of Luke, Chapter 11, verses 1 through 4, to see what I'm talking about. Do I have to go to church to be a Christian? No. God is wherever you are and wherever you decide to worship Him. Worshiping in the fellowship of others is often pleasant and comforting, but it's not required. However, churches do perform baptisms, communion, marriages and many other services that are important events in our lives. The short version is church is not required, but it's often very nice. Look for a church you like, but don't feel as if you have to attend any more than you want to. Church is there for you, not the other way around. What is baptism? Baptism is where you are immersed in water, or have water poured on your head, during a ceremony that marks your entry into the body of Christ (officially becoming a Christian), and it also signifies that the Holy Spirit dwells in you. Various churches and sects have different ways of performing baptism, but the meaning and result are the same. What is communion? Communion is a symbolic (or perhaps real) participation in the Last Supper of Jesus Christ with the apostles where He described the covenant (a "covenant" is a promise from God) He made for us by the sacrifice of His life for our sins. Wine (or grape juice in some churches) and bread are passed around, and everyone takes and eats some as an acceptance of, and participation in, this important event in the life of Jesus Christ. What's the central idea of Christianity, or if you had to sum it up in one sentence, what would it be? To paraphrase Jesus: Love God, and love those around you as you love yourself.
You'll notice there are two parts to this. The first is "Love God." Now why would God ask you to love Him, or why is it important to love God? This was an issue I struggled with at first. Eventually, I discovered it was like that line in an Indigo Girls song: "The hardest to learn was the least complicated" (from the song Least Complicated). This may seem silly, but if you love God, the source of all you are, the love you get back in addition to the love you already have multiplies exponentially. In other words, if you love God, He gives you back that much more love (not that His love is ever lacking or conditional, but this is the only way I can think of to attempt to explain it in our language). Another way of stating the concept is: don't your parents like to feel loved by you? Even if they were omniscient and omnipotent (heaven forbid!), wouldn't they like you to acknowledge that you love them? Don't you get a thrill when your kids say they love you? The spiritual rewards that come from loving God are many, but one of the best is the deepened and strengthened faith you experience.
The second part, "love those around you as you love yourself," is the ol' Golden Rule. Imagine what the world would be like if all of us lived every moment with this idea guiding us. Imagine if we strove just to achieve Kurt Vonnegut's suggested alternative (and I paraphrase): "Just try to be polite to one another." What a wonderful world it would be, eh?
For the record, Jesus' exact words are (Matthew 22:37-39):
He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
And (Luke 6:31):
"Do to others as you would have them do to you."
What are the rules or commandments you have to follow as a Christian?
Well, first there were the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God (Exodus 20:3-17):
Jesus summed up the law, or rules, this way (Matthew 22:35-40):
...one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
And that's about the size of it. There are many, many more rules given in the books of Moses and the Gospels and Acts, but those above are the main rules to be followed by Christians.
So, what's the best way to investigate this for myself?
Read the Bible, particularly a good translation. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New International Version (NIV) are particularly good translations. Most churches use the Revised Standard Version (RSV). The King James version (KJV) is very pretty, but 1/3 of the words used in it do not have the same meaning now as they did when it was translated, so it's not really the best Bible to read for information and clarity. Further, it's based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation that the Catholic Church used for a while, so it's a translation of a translation, and there are many mistakes in it. It's best used for ceremonies and such because the language is so beautiful.
Once you have a good translation, here's what you should read to get the gist of it:
The first five books of the Old Testament (the books of Moses):
The first five books of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts):
Reading these will give you the basis of it all. There are other useful books like Job (about the nature of suffering), Jonah (the whale story and following God's will), and Isaiah (which is the book Jesus refers to the most and which contains prophesies of His coming). However, the 10 books listed above will get you started, and they contain most everything you need. If you want to cut to the chase, just read the Gospels and Acts.
One personal note: even in a clear translation, some of the things you'll read will be hard to understand. I have found that praying to God for understanding before reading the Bible has the effect of lending you comprehension you wouldn't have had before. Try it, you'll be amazed.
Finally, and best of all, here's where you can find most English translations of the Bible on the Internet. They're free, and you can search them! Wow, huh?!?!
http://www.gospelcom.net/bible
http://www.biblestudytools.net/
Are there other resources, besides the Bible, on Christianity?
Yes. Many. A whole industry even. However, outside of the Bible, these are the best two:
"Mere Christianity: Comprising the Case for Christianity, Christian Behaviour, and Beyond Personality" by C. S. Lewis
"The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
And for something completely different, try C. S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters." It's fiction, but it presents Christian theology, and discusses some of the problems of being a Christian, in the interesting "reverse theology" form of a demon (Screwtape) writing letters to one of his minions, a trainee, on how to turn someone away from Christianity. It's funny, shocking, and surprisingly revealing. The best version of the "Letters" is an audiobook read by John Cleese of Monty Python fame. He absolutely nails the delivery of the letters. Sadly, it's out of print, so you will only be able to get it through a local library. It's worth the hunt, though.
Of course, you can always go the traditional route and just read it yourself: "The Screwtape Letters" by C. S. Lewis
Is the Bible the literal "Word of God?"
This will get me into trouble with some of the various sects of Christianity, but: some parts are, others aren't.
The Bible is a mix of literal accounts of actual events (such as Jesus' life) and purely allegorical passages (like Job). Nonetheless, some Christians believe that the Bible is the direct, literal Word of God all the way through, and that every story is something that actually occurred in reality. They feel that if it's not all the literal truth, then it would all be tantamount to a lie. The majority of Christians do not hold this view, because even though some things are told in the form of allegory, that doesn't make them false, nor do they carry any less authority. It simply means that sometimes when a mustard seed is discussed, it's not really about mustard seeds. Jesus often taught via allegory.
Hebrew and Greek texts are the source of our English translation of the Bible (though parts were in Coptic, Latin, and Aramaic, in very small amounts – the vast majority of original texts are Hebrew and Greek). The form of the Bible we now have was put together in the 4th century A.D. Anything that is translated can lose or alter some of the meaning of the original. Still, this does not mean that the intended message and specific laws are not still correct and not quite the original intent of God. The Bible is the first and best place to go to know about God.
Also, I personally believe (because it's mentioned in a few places in the Bible) that God directed and directs the creation, translation, and interpretation of the Bible. So, even though the Bible is the words of men, God is the ultimate architect behind it all.
Finally, nowhere in the Bible is the Bible called "the Word of God." That designation is given only to Jesus in the Gospel according to John.
The Bible is best, oldest, most complete, and revered source we have for information about God.
What's the Trinity, and why isn't it mentioned in the Bible?
The Trinity is God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit). This is another area where various denominations and sects of Christianity differ. The Trinity, to most denominations, represents the three aspects of the one God.
You will read about God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost in the Bible, but they are never referred to as the Trinity. The term "Trinity" was something conceptualized later (after the Bible was written) to collectively refer to God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of the Trinity was the early church's way of talking about God.
Why are there four different versions of the same story, Jesus' story (the Gospels)?
Have you ever played that game where you sit in a circle, someone whispers something to the person next to them, and it goes around the circle until it comes back to the original person; then the originator reveals what they said originally and what the last person said in order to show how much it changed?
Having four different versions of the Gospels serves to mitigate the inaccuracies that arise from retelling and varying perspectives. If you have the same story from four different perspectives, you're going to get a clearer picture of what really happened. Also, the authors of the various Gospels each had a different viewpoint or set of teachings they wanted to deliver. Some of the differences can be explained by taking into account the goal the author had.
Why does God allow suffering and injustice?
We humans allow most of the suffering and injustice that we encounter. It's up to us to make things better and more fair. The suffering and injustice that we cause or allow to happen is what God considers sin.
Also, there IS evil in the world, and there are evil people in the world. Sometimes pure, unmitigated evil is the cause for suffering. This is a hard fact to face, but it is true. However, please use caution in judging someone as evil. Often what appears to be evil can be the result of something other than evil, such as insanity or lack of understanding.
And sometimes, bad things just happen. There's a famous profane bumper sticker that sums this up nicely in two words. I do not include it here for obvious reasons. (Well, the "G rated" version is "Stuff Happens.")
Suffering that happens due to unforeseen events beyond our control is often the hardest kind of suffering to endure. There are no easy or pat answers for handling this kind of suffering. Often, the only way to get through it is to "give it to God." By that I mean: pray to God and ask that He take this problem and the suffering and manage it for you. Mention that the problem is too big for you to handle alone. You will be amazed at the results this will have. Don't expect an immediate miracle, but notice how the burden lightens dramatically. In addition to this, do what you can yourself to move through troubling times; in other words, help God help you.
Some forms of suffering are, in hindsight, preparation for future events, or lessons that you needed to learn. The lessons learned may not always be immediately understandable, but if you look back to problems you've had in the past, and how the results of your actions got you to other, better places (usually), you might be able to discern the message God was trying to relay to you.
Clearly there is no simple or easy answer to this question. It goes to the core of our existence. I recommend praying to God for an answer on this one.
What will happen to me if I don't believe in Jesus or God?
God only knows. Chances are pretty good you will find out. Look at it that way.
I recommend reading the Bible yourself (or at least the 10 books mentioned above) before you decide.
Why are so many Christians close-minded hate mongers?
Good question. Everything Jesus did, said, and stands for would go against this. I think this goes back to the person and not the faith. There are, and always will be, close-minded, mean people. (One of the ways they manifest themselves is using the phrase or concept "God hates _____," such as, "God hates sin." The words "God" and "hate" do not really belong in the same sentence.) Just because they happen to be Christian, and tie a lot of how they live their own mean little lives into what they preach and perceive, does not devalue the faith, God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit.
In other words, jerks are everywhere. Just because they are Christian doesn't save them from being jerks. For example, if someone who works in a bookstore is a jerk, do you assume that every book in the store is bad because of it? Of course not. So, if you encounter a mean person who claims to be a Christian, avoid the person, but don't elect that person as a representative of the whole faith.
This is actually a symptom of a much larger problem. Increasingly these days in America, we (and particularly the media) tend to classify and define a group via the worst part of that group. Let me explain. Every group, whether it's Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Black, Asian, White, Democrat, Republican, sport utility vehicle drivers, mini-van drivers, etc., etc., can usually be depicted as belonging on some part of a bell curve of behaviors. Let's imagine that on one side of the bell curve are all the really good people in that group, on the other side are all the schmucks, and in the bulging middle are the rest of the folks somewhere along the continuum. Then, take the schmucks and think of them as comprising the whole of the group.
For example, think of the worst cliché or description you can for a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, and then think of the whole group in those terms. This is what I'm saying happens all too often. Well, of course, the overwhelming majority of each of these groups is not like that. Half of the people you deal with everyday belong to one of those groups, and do they fit this terrible definition you've imagined? One of the central ideas of all three religions is fostering the love and respect due to everyone, and a love and desire for peace and harmony with one another and God/Jehovah/Allah (all the same Guy, by the way). That should be the perception we have of each group.
So, if you catch yourself thinking of any group as the clichéd definition determined by the worst in that group, STOP IT!
Atheists claim only they are intelligent and everyone else is delusional. What's up with that?
The atheists who claim that aren't proving anything about their intelligence, but they certainly are proving their arrogance.
Essentially they are relying on a debating trick as their catechism. It goes like this: "There is a lack of sufficient physical evidence of the existence of God; therefore, I lack belief in a God or gods." There is lack of sufficient physical evidence of many things atheists do accept as real, so they typically apply this test only to the question of the existence of God. If you probe, you will find many inconsistencies on how they apply their test.
You will not get them to admit that, though. Remember, they view themselves as already more intelligent than you are (if you are a Christian, that is. And by the way, they typically only go after Christians), and their conceding anything in this type of argument will not happen. All claims to the contrary, they just will not be honest enough to concede a valid point. When you encounter such an atheist (I think of them as "fundamentalist atheists" because their world-view is the only correct one, you understand), I recommend not arguing with them at all, as it's typically an exercise in futility.
Another tactic you will encounter is they will claim the burden of proof is on you, because as a believer you are making a positive statement, i.e. "God exists," therefore you have to prove it. They then claim they don't have to prove their assertion that there is no God because that would be proving a negative, which can't be done, they say. Well, horsecookies. (e.g., "There is no dog in that house," can be proven.) This is just another debating trick, and it's futile to argue this one as well. They may still pine to be back on the high school debating team, but I bet you have better things to do with your time.
One of the more laughable phrases they may wing at you is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I know it's getting repetitive, but this is just another semantic trick. Say your child comes running in and says, "There's a big bug on the sidewalk!" You say, "Let's go have a look!" The bug is there, so the claim is proven. Now, say you live in North Dakota, and your child comes running in and says, "There's a cougar eating a bug on the sidewalk!" You suspect this might be a wild imagination at work, so you say, "Let's go have a look!" Outside, you discover a half-eaten bug in a puddle of what appears to be drool, scratches on the sidewalk that look like they were made by cougar claws, and some tan fur in one of the cracks of the sidewalk. This doesn't really help you prove if there was a cougar there or not; you have to choose to believe the child and the scant evidence or not. However, the proof required that this unlikely event occurred is just the same as it would be for the occurrence of a simple bug. Had the cougar been there when you walked outside, that would have been enough.
Many atheists also believe the fallacy that our recent generations are the most intelligent and informed that have ever graced the surface of the planet. C. S. Lewis called this "chronological snobbery." Granted, we have made strides in science and technology that no previous generations have achieved, as far as the available historical record indicates. Yet having computers, indoor plumbing, and heart transplants doesn't necessarily make our knowledge of the human soul and condition any fuller or more informed than it was in either Moses' or Jesus' day. They had similar social structures and economies back then, and certainly human nature was just the same. So, when "scholarly" people say that modern, educated people just shouldn't believe in all the superstition and hocus-pocus that those backward folks did, they are just showing they weren't paying attention in history class.
I'm happy to report there are a few honest atheists out there who won't go down this road at all. They will readily admit they've simply made a choice on their non-belief in God, and they will still allow that God could exist, but they don't think He does.
I like what Carl Sagan has to say about it:
"Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire little confidence indeed. A wide range of intermediate positions seems admissible, and considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questing, courageous and open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of God."From: Broca's Brain - Chapter 25, "The Amniotic Universe," by Carl Sagan
If most atheists were this reasonable about it, I might finally be convinced of their claims of intelligence.
Is Christianity simply mythology as some claim?
I like how C.S. Lewis tackles this one:
In my mind the perplexing multiplicity of "religions" began to sort itself out. The real clue had been put into my hand by that hard-boiled Atheist when he said, "Rum thing, all that about the Dying God. Seems to have really happened once"; by him and by Barfield's encouragement of a more respectful, if not more delighted, attitude to Pagan myth. The question was no longer to find the one simply true religion among a thousand religions simply false. It was rather, "Where has religion reached its true maturity? Where, if anywhere, have the hints of all Paganism been fulfilled?" With the irreligious I was no longer concerned; their view of life was henceforth out of court. As against them, the whole mass of those who had worshipped - all who had danced and sung and sacrificed and trembled and adored - were clearly right. But the intellect and the conscience, as well as the orgy and the ritual, must be our guide. There could be no question of going back to primitive, untheologized and unmoralized, Paganism. The God whom I had at last acknowledged was one, and was righteous. Paganism had been only the childhood of religion, or only a prophetic dream. Where was the thing full grown? or where was the awakening? (The Everlasting Man was helping me here.) There were really only two answers possible: either in Hinduism or in Christianity. Everything else was either a preparation for, or else (in the French sense) a vulgarization of, these. Whatever you could find elsewhere you could find better in one of these. But Hinduism seemed to have two disqualifications. For one thing, it appeared to be not so much a moralized and philosophical maturity of Paganism as a mere oil-and-water coexistence of philosophy side by side with Paganism unpurged; the Brahmin meditating in the forest, and, in the village a few miles away, temple prostitution, sati, cruelty, monstrosity. And secondly, there was no such historical claim as in Christianity. I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion - those narrow, unattractive Jews, too blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them - was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it. And no Person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time, as Plato's Socrates or Boswell's Johnson (ten times more than Eckerson's Goethe or Lockhart's Scott), yet also numinous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god - we are no longer polytheists - then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not "a religion," nor "a philosophy." It is the summing up and actuality of them all.
(Emphasis added by me.)
From: Surprised by Joy, Pp. 235-237, by C.S. Lewis.
What about alcohol, like wine, beer, or whiskey?
Some Christian sects feel that drinking alcohol is a sin. I don't agree with that. I think this has more to do with a particular sect's originator or leader than anything stated in the Bible. Jesus' first documented miracle was turning water into wine at a wedding (John 2:1-10). This means Jesus intended the wine to be used for a "party" and not for a holy purpose, as later during the Last Supper. Sinning while drunk, which we all are prone to do, is the problem, not the alcohol.
What about Rock and Roll?
Put another dime in the jukebox, baby. Make a joyous noise unto the Lord. Rock on.
Some fundamentalist Christians will tell you that listening to secular, non-religious music is a sin, or that it's not quite appropriate, for some bizarre reason or another. They are wrong.
What about homosexuality?
This topic is so complex, I don't feel I can adequately handle it here. I suggest you find a pastor or priest or rabbi you trust and ask him or her, read the Bible, and decide for yourself.
My personal take on this (after taking my own advice above) is that if Jesus forgives my sins, He will forgive the sins of someone homosexual who believes in Him as well.
Here's my pastor's point of view: "The Bible knows nothing of the contemporary psychological definition of sexual orientation, and so using that word to translate anything in scripture is anachronistic. What the Bible says is sin is exploitation, unnaturalness, and lust. The Bible, of course, also calls lots of stuff 'abomination' with which we have no trouble these days. It must be read historically, in context."
Do you have to be Republican (or Democrat) to be a Christian?
Of course not, thank God. God could care less about your political party. Once again, if someone tells you that you have to do or be anything other than a believer in Jesus, get away from him or her and make sure you still have your wallet.
(Apologies to international readers. This silliness is a real component of certain kinds of American political discourse, sadly enough.)
A "Christian" told me I'm going to hell. Am I?
Probably not. Jesus is the ONLY judge of that, not another man or woman.
Isn't most of the Bible and Christianity biased against women?
The Bible isn't, particularly in the better translations. You are going to find references to men being the head of the household, but you will also find declarations about the status of women, according to God. Men and women come out pretty even in status in the eyes of God. Read it for yourself if you doubt me. Keep in mind that most of the Bible comes from patriarchal cultures, so patriarchy is bound to get an emphasis. God and Jesus had to work within the cultures they contacted to be understood. Also, though none of the twelve apostles were women, women were within Jesus' inner circle, held status, and performed many important acts, such as discovering that Jesus had come back from the dead and had ascended to heaven.
Again, the second most important commandment is: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Not: "You shall love your male neighbor as yourself, but only love your female neighbor if she knows her place." Note there is no sexual discrimination in the Ten Commandments nor in the words of Jesus.
Some Christian churches and sects are heavily biased against women and women's equality. Don't become a part of those groups if you are uncomfortable with their views.
Personally, I feel God cares more about our souls than our gender.
So, who's right: Christians, Jews, Moslems (Muslims), Hindus, Buddhists, etc.?
Well, the Jews are still God's chosen people. God never changed that. However, it says in the Bible that He can graft anyone He wants into His "tree" (Romans 11:16-24). Christians are a graft into His tree of life. I think C.S. Lewis dispatches with paganism pretty well in this paragraph. As for everyone else, only God knows. That might seem like an evasion, or a politician's answer, and perhaps it is; however, it is the truth. I know that I am saved; I cannot pretend to guess the mind of God outside of that.
But here's a thought, or perhaps a clue, to this mystery of God's (Luke 10:29-37):
But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" Jesus replied, "A man was going down to from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.' Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
© Copyright 2004, Timothy Troy Hanson