Regardless of how you phrase it, it still boils down to one party, as the initiator, is creating a situation where they have extended something to another (cooperation, civilty, love, empathy). This offering maybe be seen as a debt to be repaid, or as a gift to be exchanged, in either case this is a matter of perception for all of the parties involved (initiator, receiver, observer).<quoted text> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
There seems to be no point, you absolutely refuse to see the difference in the motivations. One offers as the motivating factor the desire to seek to create a debt in the receiver in order to gain from it. The other seeks to motivate the listener/reader to treat another well with NO EXPECTATION of "reward" for the action.
Regardless of how any of the parties view the offering, the fact remains that the initiator setup the potential for a reciprocal exchange, why is their motivation of such concern when the motivation of the initiator can vary from person to person (regardless of how their particular culture phrased such a reciprocal exchange).
Tell me, do you think that people were not participating in this type of exchange before being instructed to do so in Leviticus. Or is it far more likely that the concept was widespread and diverse among cultures thus predating its mention in Leviticus.
Would you like to go around again?