Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Feeling a bit sorry for himself, he complained to God. "I've served you for fifty years, and not a single person is here to welcome ME home." And God said, "You're not home yet."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
(And I'm sorry to say I've known mission boards that callous)

---

Tell me.

I guess what I'm saying is, while it is all well and good to tell people that they should change thier attitudes when they are feeling invisible and neglected,and certainly marks them as healthy people when they can, when does the attitude of (say) a callous mission board come under accountablility? Or is there a danger that the invocation of "the Older Brother" when people articulate feelings of neglect gives folk a pass to, well, ignore those articulations?

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
The party's in full swing, the elder son doesn't know what's happening and so he asks a slave. His father doesn't even come to speak to him until he gets cross. To me the parable leaves us with this disagreement between father and elder son. We're left with the father's affirmation and nothing as to the elder son's response. Is that affirmation truly gracious, grace upon grace? Alternatively, is it too little too late? I think you can read the text both ways. Does the elder son go in to the party, reconciled to his father and brother? Or does he say, "You must be joking" and leave? It seems to me that either of those could be plausible endings to this parable.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Parables aside, wasn't the point of the OP that Christians claim to have "life more abundantly," but in practice feel the disapproval of their co-religionists on their shoulders if they have too much fun?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Why didn't the older brother throw his own goddamned party sometime in all those years? Why wait for the old man to throw one? What a big baby. "You never gave me a kid." Well it's all yours, doofus. Every kid on the plantation is yours. Go kill one and throw a party. Waa-fucking-aah.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Parables aside, wasn't the point of the OP that Christians claim to have "life more abundantly," but in practice feel the disapproval of their co-religionists on their shoulders if they have too much fun?

---

Yes, except I don't think it's just the disapproval of their co-religionists. I think it's the disapproval that's inherent in religion, or the Abrahamic ones at least, bound up in the burden of sin. By that I don't mean "the burden of my sins" as most Christians would think of it, but the very concept of sin.

I have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in sin. That sin doesn't exist. That the whole concept of sin is an oppressive man-made concept designed as a means of social and moral control. To that extent it's no different to any other man-made law, except that as it tied up to religion it's much more long-lasting and insidious in its effect.

But the idea of sin is essential to the Church; they have a symbiotic relationship. The Church needs it as a recruiting tool and the idea of sin would drop away if the church didn't keep banging on about it.

Religion hangs the idea of sin round your neck like a bloody great millstone, and every Sunday it gives it another yank to make sure you're still feeling properly guilty, whilst pretending that confession etc is actually relieving you of the burden of sin. What really does free you from the burden of sin is to realise it doesn't exist, that you are not and never have been a sinner. Then you can cut the rope and leave the millstone behind.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Parables aside, wasn't the point of the OP that Christians claim to have "life more abundantly," but in practice feel the disapproval of their co-religionists on their shoulders if they have too much fun?

---

Yes, except I don't think it's just the disapproval of their co-religionists. I think it's the disapproval that's inherent in religion, or the Abrahamic ones at least, bound up in the burden of sin. By that I don't mean "the burden of my sins" as most Christians would think of it, but the very concept of sin.

I have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in sin. That sin doesn't exist. That the whole concept of sin is an oppressive man-made concept designed as a means of social and moral control. To that extent it's no different to any other man-made law, except that as it tied up to religion it's much more long-lasting and insidious in its effect.

But the idea of sin is essential to the Church; they have a symbiotic relationship. The Church needs it as a recruiting tool and the idea of sin would drop away if the church didn't keep banging on about it.

Religion hangs the idea of sin round your neck like a bloody great millstone, and every Sunday it gives it another yank to make sure you're still feeling properly guilty, whilst pretending that confession etc is actually relieving you of the burden of sin. What really does free you from the burden of sin is to realise it doesn't exist, that you are not and never have been a sinner. Then you can cut the rope and leave the millstone behind.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

But turning it into sin creates a completely different beast. The scope changes, e.g. the surveillance of the heavenly thought police; the timescale changes, up to the idea of final judgement and beyond with all the implications of that; and, as I said before, it's power as a means of control.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
No it's perfectly possible to recognise that some actions are wrong, or at least should be avoided, without dressing it up in the cosmic language of sin. I'm sure most atheists and most peoples who have never been exposed to Christianity manage to do it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
No it's perfectly possible to recognise that some actions are wrong, or at least should be avoided, without dressing it up in the cosmic language of sin. I'm sure most atheists and most peoples who have never been exposed to Christianity manage to do it.

---

Is it? What makes an action wrong outside a theistic framework?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Belle - Given the importance you place on exploring and using our own judgment, why not cut out the "middle man" and go with Reason instead of God?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
I have a lot of sympathy with what you [Pre-cambrian] say, but suspect there may be a baby somewhere in the bathwater you're throwing out. To me, your point would be just as well made by jettisoning guilt rather than the whole concept of sin.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Belle, it's a total tangent, but the law about a woman marrying her rapist wasn't somehow to punish her. It was to enforce the only kind of restitution possible from such a jackass at that point in history--that is, to force him to give her an honorable place in society and to support her for the rest of her life. To underline that last bit, he had the right of divorce taken away from him--any other man could divorce, but not this one. So the woman now had all the power.

And if she looked at him and the whole package and still said "I can't stomach that asshole" (and who could blame her?) he would be forced to pay brideprice anyway, for her support. Which would be a pretty hefty item (and probably delay or destroy any chance he had of marrying elsewhere).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
I have a lot of sympathy with what you [Pre-cambrian] say, but suspect there may be a baby somewhere in the bathwater you're throwing out. To me, your point would be just as well made by jettisoning guilt rather than the whole concept of sin.

---

I don't think we have the option of jettisoning guilt. That would be, sociopathic tendencies apart, denying a universal aspect of human experience. Guilt is what we get from comparing our behaviour with real human standards, either our own personal expectations of ourself or those of the wider community.

Sin is the result of using God's standards. However loudly and consistently religious people claim they know what these are, they really don't. Sin is the artificial concept. I agree with Pre-cambrian.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
If you're saying that God is uninterested in our behaviour, then you seem to be talking Deism rather than Christianity.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Belle, it's a total tangent, but the law about a woman marrying her rapist wasn't somehow to punish her. It was to enforce the only kind of restitution possible from such a jackass at that point in history--that is, to force him to give her an honorable place in society and to support her for the rest of her life. To underline that last bit, he had the right of divorce taken away from him--any other man could divorce, but not this one. So the woman now had all the power.

And if she looked at him and the whole package and still said "I can't stomach that asshole" (and who could blame her?) he would be forced to pay brideprice anyway, for her support. Which would be a pretty hefty item (and probably delay or destroy any chance he had of marrying elsewhere).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That was my point! But you may have worded it a lot better. It's not a punishment for her, it's a protection for her, he can't do a one night stand and discard her the next morning as if dirt.

And the punishment threat to him would help keep the pants on a man.

Often laws aren't - and probably weren't - enforced as written, they give bargaining positions. "By law I am allowed to require this of you, what are you going to do for me so I don't insist on imposing the law?" Like you said, suddenly the woman has all the bargaining power. That's really uncomfortable for some men, especially given that rape is a power play.

It's a classic "eye for an eye" solution - he took power over her, she now has power over him. Nice turnabout.

But I'm getting off line for Lent, just trying to finish out anything I might have left hanging.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
The only thing I know about is stuff like this, for which I don't have words (YMMV greatly).

- Chris.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've just read through this thread and wondered whether the notion that coveting was wrong might have something to say. Coveting was illuminated for me very well by the horrible Hannibal Lecter in "The Silence of the Lambs". Something along these lines

Hannibal Lecter: And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
Clarice Starling: No. We just...
Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day.

I think coveting may be one of the real engine of joylessness. Wanting what we see someone else has got gets in the way of being thankful for what we have. And I don't think it matters whether you are Christian or not. If as a child your Christmas presents sometimes seemed in some way diminished by those received by others, then you know the territory.

Of course this can easily be seen as just another "Thou shalt not" to add to all the others. Hey, sensible prohibitions are a good thing! This one strikes me as pretty sensible, once you consider the baleful, joy-diminishing, effects that coveting can have.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Why didn't the older brother throw his own goddamned party sometime in all those years? Why wait for the old man to throw one? What a big baby. "You never gave me a kid." Well it's all yours, doofus. Every kid on the plantation is yours. Go kill one and throw a party. Waa-fucking-aah.

---

How did he know (prior to this) that it was all his? Acting like you've already inherited your parents' wealth while they're still around is (at the very least) asshole-ish behaviour in contemporary culture, I can't imagine it was looked on more favourably in Jesus' time.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]]You're right, there's no way he could have asked or anything. The only way he could have a party was to wait patiently for diddums to throw him one.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]]You're right, there's no way he could have asked or anything. The only way he could have a party was to wait patiently for diddums to throw him one.

---

Of course he could have asked but equally he may never have.

It's just not as black and white as you make it out to be.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You're right, there's no way he could have asked or anything. The only way he could have a party was to wait patiently for diddums to throw him one.

---

Of course he could have asked but equally he may never have.

It's just not as black and white as you make it out to be.

---

You mistake me. I am fighting the black-and-whiteness of the other side.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesus
The other key point is that the Bible does not regard the woman as the injured party but rather her father. That's who gets the payment indicated and who would be doing any negotiating about marriage to the rapist. And, once again, the "power" involved is the "threat" to sell the rapist his daughter as a sex toy.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Leprechaun said:
I agree with you about the ending. But why is Jesus telling the story? Surely not to affirm the Pharisees in their "older brother" attitude but to ask them to join in with God's joy in welcoming the lost rather than demanding God make a big fuss of their good works.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon G:
Isn't this just another example of attaching a twenty first century value system to a Bronze age one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for Dad's involvement--as I said, it was the best justice could do under the circumstances at the time. . . .

We might argue with his choice and say that the rapist ought to have been put to death. Fair enough. But given the (sinful and inescapable) local culture, that would almost certainly condemn the woman to a life without marriage, which at that time for women meant a life without honorable social standing and without financial support--in other words, a high chance of either starving or being forced into prostitution to survive.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon G:
Croesus, this talk of rationality and common sense was used by eugenicists, imperialists and fascists in the last century and look where that got us?!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M:
Fair enough, but FWIW, I don't think sarcasm and ridicule are the best weapons for that.

---

You'll note that "Diddums" neither invited his oldest son to leave, nor called him a crybaby and ridiculed him. He heard the guy out and addressed his question respectfully.


What an enabler, right?

And, by the way, whose "side" was the father on? From my read, he wasn't really taking "sides." He was trying to connect everybody.

Funnily enough, the more I think about this parable, the more I put myself in the place of a party guest looking on and hoping this troubled family can sort things out. I want to rejoice in the young one's return, but I want to comfort the elder as well. Because they are both part of the family.

[ 27. February 2009, 18:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
It teaches us things about ourselves that maybe we'd rather not know.

---

On that note, if this parable is indeed aimed at the "pharisaical" mindset, isn't one such tendency that of honing in on somebody else's flaws, rather than admitting your own?

I said it several posts back and i mean it-- more power to Marv, and anybody else who is willing, for admitting they feel those feelings occasionally. Shutting up about it and pretending you don't might make everybody else more comfortable, but it smacks of a weird emotional prosperity gospel to me.

Few weeks ago, I was in a training seminar about "diversity' and we had to do this weird exercise in which we formed a tight circle, began a random conversation centering around a "staff pot luck", and deliberately refused to let another staff member who'd been removed from the room enter the circle (without talking to them or acknowledging their presence in any way.)

it was all in fun, the outsiders caught on quickly and fought back in hilarious ways, and everybody shook hands all around afterward.
In the after discussion , I started talking about how I'd deliberately enacted some tricks that had been used on me (For instance, I would wait a couple minutes and repeat something the "outsider" in our group had said, as if I'd thought of it myself.)I admitted that when I did this I felt this strange forbidden thrill that I hadn't expected, and was both troubled and interested by it.

Another woman in the group glared at me and said "well, I didn't feel good at ALL! I thought it was AWFUL!" and at that point, if anybody had any thoughts of discussing what people might actually get out of excluding others, they were too ashamed to do it.

And I still think, after 4 weeks or so, what a lost opportunity! Of course people must get something out of excluding others, otherwise it wouldn't happen on such a regular basis-- but what chance are we going to get to discuss those kinds of "not nice" feelings, and how we can cope with/ master them, if there is a load of shame dumped on someone willing to voice those feelings?

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
How annoying, then, when the feckless brother is saved from the consequences of his own folly by the father's love. Suddenly, our goodness seems to count for nothing and, worst of all, instead of looking good we look fucking stupid - we could have had our fun and then come back to a safe home and a party. Instead, what is our reward - oh yeah, we get to work in the fields.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Or, "When will my outlook, my joy and everything else, finally come from inside me, dependent upon how I relate to God, rather than from the externals?"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by earrings:
It sounds so very like what the elder brother says in the parable of the loving father (prodigal son).

---

Don't get me started. I've worked my fucking tits off and denied myself for years to stay with you and serve you, and what do I get? Nothing! This waster spits in your face and pisses off with half your cash, and what does he get when he comes crawling back? A fucking party! Where's my fatted calf? Where's my party? Where's my fucking love? I wanted to be out there living it large as well, you know, but I chose to stay and do the right thing, the honourable thing. What was the bastard point of me being so fucking good if you're going to shit all over it like this? I wasted my life for nothing. Fuck you, and fuck your party.

oops. i got started.

Yeah, I identify with the elder brother. Shit, I am the elder brother.

quote:

---

we can stil be aware that we are much-beloved children of God.

---

woo.

---

I feel your pain. I identify with the elder brother here BOTH because I am a cradle Christian and because I am, actually, the elder sibling.

I don't really have an answer to how we're supposed to feel about this situation and I suspect it will continue to bug me throughout my life. However, if I ask myself - well, how DO I want the story to turn out - what are the other options? Do I want the prodigal son to be told that he's made his bed and now he can lie in it, that it's too late to be sorry, that he's wrecked everything and he can just go back and eat with the pigs because that's what a pig like him deserves? And I find the answer is no. No, I wouldn't want either my earthly or my heavenly father to be that kind of person. And I'm relieved that neither of them are. Where exactly that leaves the elder [sons] amongst us, I don't know, but at least we are not labouring day in and day out for a bitter, revenge-addled monster...

(to which you may justifiably say - 'woo').


--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Face it, Marvin, you're just turning into a grumpy old man. It happens to most people of a certain age, and is a highly honourable estate.

You can be a grumpy old non-Christian man, or a grumpy old Christian man. It's up to you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Face it, Marvin, you're just turning into a grumpy old man. It happens to most people of a certain age, and is a highly honourable estate.

You can be a grumpy old non-Christian man, or a grumpy old Christian man. It's up to you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Bringing this back to the original point, don't these arguments amount to saying we should use our experience and common sense (i.e. Reason) instead of relying on God's purported laws? I see a lot of equivocating about varying cultural norms and the limitations within which a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being must work, but no one seems willing to argue that God made the right call and that's the rule that should be followed today. So if we're supposed to use our (supposedly God-given) sense to reason through to the correct moral answers, why not just cut out the middle-man and chuck morality-by-divine-fiat altogether?

---