Or he had just enough to travel with himself but was willing to sacrifice it.

The REAL lesson of the story is in not shutting out people who aren't in your group.

There are many lessons to learn. Meditate on the meaning you have and see it from another point of view. Some people are racist and deserve to be shut out. Bad associations corrupt. (read 1 Corinthians 15:33)

All right. let me be more direct so you can get this.

It was a rebuke of tribalism. The belief for example that Christians are better people than heathens or Muslims. He took the most despised category of heretic for Jews of his day and showed them some of them were vastly better people than the exalted orthodox.

So for your purposes, imagine a pastor, a lay minister, and a bible translator all passing the man by.

Now imagine a gay AIDS-infected gigolo in makeup or a Muslim caring for him, binding up his wounds, and paying him so he could recover.

Which of these was neighbor to the man?

Do you get it *now*?

If you hear it from my mouth, you would have heard it from his.

If you reject it from my mouth, you would have rejected it from his.

yes; it doesn't take a reason, or shouldn't, to be friendly.
But, as you dwell on the parable and look deeper, what if the man wanted to be kind, but couldn't afford too. Many people, especially socialist/communist types, even many Christians, look down on wealth as if it is a bad thing. People can use wealth for good; and it is not wrong to acquire wealth for yourself and to benefit your community at large.

It.. is. not. about. being. "friendly."

It is not about doing good works.

It was about WHO you do good too.

Remember the story context in which the parable came up. Talmudic Judaism taught that doing good ONLY applied to Jews and was NOT obligatory on heathens and heretics. Jesus rightly called bullshit on that. Head on.

The same diseased thinking is back in the minds however of the religious today. And losing sight of that would let the problem spread. So people should remember what it was REALLY about.

I never said wealth was bad. I did question whether or not your argument was implicit in the parable, because I think it isn't.

In fact if you think about my version, it helps you understand the original even better from just your money angle. Who would have had a lot more money - Jim Bakker and Oral Roberts or even Joel Osteen -- or some heretic without that kind of cash influx in hostile theological territory?

But again most importantly - remember that the explanation I gave you was the primary reason for the parable. If he had meant it to be about money instead of group superiority, it would have been a very different story.

Best not to lose the forest for the trees, I think.

I understand your point. However, the first and obvious point of a story or a parable isn't the only lesson that can be learned from it. You could also discuss the trust of the inn keeper who believed that the Samaritan would return and pay more money for the car of a stranger he had just met. He could have bailed after the first act of kindness and left the inn keeper with an extra ward.

Obvious correction for when typing too fast: whom you do good to.

There are defenses of the free market elsewhere. But this one is not it - and arguing differently distracts from the true message - which would be a crime to lose sight of.

It takes a new angle to get people to talk about an old story sometimes. Shows that the Bible can be interesting and thought provoking in new and exciting ways. People should read it more.