|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: God the Father by the bedside of a psychiatric patient
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Some years ago someone close to me had a serious mental breakdown. He was so ill that he did not even recognise his mother and father when they went to visit him in hospital. Of course, as loving parents they stayed with him, held his hand, prayed for him and loved him as well as they could.
The memory of this has made me think...
That man was in a state where he did not believe in and recognise his parents. Was that a bar to his parents loving and accepting him? Did they hold his 'unbelief' against him? Did they not embrace him in their love in the worst of times? Did they give a toss about the fact that his mind was screwed up in the sense that this was a personal affront to them? Of course, they were concerned about what was going on in his mind, because of their desire for his healing, but they were not personally offended and insulted because their own son did not 'believe' in them. As Christian parents did they feel that it was their holy duty to condemn and torture their son for his 'wickedness' and 'heresy' in not believing in them? Of course not.
Now if this is true of human parents, fallible though they are, why the hell would God - the perfect parent - be so obsessed with damning people because they die with screwed up ideas in their minds? Sometimes I have wept with anger at the sheer bullshit, delusion and callousness of certain 'Christians' who reduce salvation to mere right thinking - especially when I think about the condition of my friend.
Listening to the views of certain Christians going on about 'heretics' etc, frankly turns my stomach (especially in the light of the vile history of the Church's dealings with those who happen to think differently). In the light of the love of God, who gives a monkeys about this ridiculous gnostic obsession with doctrinal exactitude?
Is this really what the Church of Jesus Christ has descended to? A pitiful competition of mind control?
I just think God is like the parent by the bedside of desperately ill, fallible and vulnerable human beings, weeping for and loving those who are messed up. If there must be condemnation, it is reserved for those arrogant and cold-hearted enough to think they have God sewn up, they have all the answers and have taken it upon themselves to be judge and jury of other people.
Do you think God is like this?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Is this really what the Church of Jesus Christ has descended to? A pitiful competition of mind control?
Sadly, that has been my experience, and why I am no longer involved with a church, and why I can offer no houseroom to the notion of a deity.
I have clients, though, who occasionally believe themselves to be God (or the Blessed Virgin, or the devil, or some other manifestation of the supernatural). It is sometimes instructive to see & hear how religiously-inclined family members (and once or twice, even clergy) react to client assertions of divinity.
If I were going to believe in a deity, I'd be inclined toward the Quaker understanding that the divine dwells within each of us. And if we could only work harder at always addressing ourselves to this God-within-each-of-us, we might manage to gather together sufficient pieces to put a Humpty-Dumpty deity back together again.
A client in the grips of this sort of delusion (if you suppose it is one) once told me, "I'm God because it's too hard to just be me."
[ 25. April 2013, 01:25: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I think of it more like toddlers and parents. Children (in an ideal scenario) are valuable beyond definition to their parents and loved unconditionally. The Children can't understand or vocalise that love they just sense it. In that sense I think the wrath of God is like a Mum who grabs her kid out of traffic and goes NO! And then hugs them when they cry.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think you could change the scenario to a mental patient who, on hearing that his loving parents have come to visit, refuses to see them or even acknowledge them.
That's more like humanity tbh. They refuse to acknowledge the presence of the true parent - and the influence of other controlling factors around them, makes it worse.
The parents are refused entry and so the relationship, though there on an emotional level as far as the parents are concerned, is in reality terminated.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Mudfrog, you are assuming that the mental patient recognises his parents and then refuses them entry. EE was, as I understand it, saying that his friend did not recognise his parents - they were as strangers to him.
And those parents, like our God, I sincerely hope, would have kept on coming, loving him, writing to him maybe, enquiring after his condition and generally acting as a loving parent would.
If I thought God was the sort that would turn his back on us because we were {b}unable[/B] to recognise him, then that is not my God.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, I understand that the scenario in the OP is a real situation but my take on the relationship of fallen humanity to God is reflected in what I wrote.
God wants to be in our lives, part of them, sharing his love. But it's the world's decision to keep him outside. It's when people refuse to acknowledge God that he is excluded from their lives and therefore there can be no relationship.
The God we see in the Bible is indeed like the shepherd who goes looking for his sheep and brings them home rejoicing, but he is also like the father of the prodigal son who mourns the 'death' of his son through total estrangement. He graciously and loving welcomes him back but he does nothing to go and find him until the wayward boy decides to come back of his own free will and volition and then actually starts on the journey home; it's at that point that the father runs to meet the boy and the relationship is rekindled and restored.
Had the boy not recognised his need to return to the father then he would have remained 'dead' to the family as far as the family was concerned, and outside the privileges of sonship.
I don't agree with the OP when EE says that people reduce salvation to 'right thinking' about God; it isn't that at all - it's a relationship with God in Christ. The 'right thinking' of course is vital because we need to know who Jesus is in order to put our trust in him - the Truth will set us free, after all.
However. doctrinal knowledge is not needed for salvation - trust in God and the work of the cross is.
What about those who have never heard or do not have the opportunity or capacity to hear and understand? That is the underlying question behind the OP and it is one that has been addressed sooooo many times.
I believe that everyone has received something of the truth - and it's their response to that 'something' that is the important thing. 'According to the light they have received.' is what I believe to be true.
If a man has never heard of Jesus but is faithful to what he knows of 'god' - then he will be saved.
If a man has heard lies about Jesus, or a twisted version and that has caused him to sincerely and earnestly look elsewhere - then I believe he will be saved.
(both of these scenarios are founded on God's grace and mercy and not the merits of the man, of course).
But if a man has heard of Jesus, or if he has the opportunity to find out about Jesus through readily available and accurate information and then consciously rejects Jesus, then he cannot be saved because, as Paul puts it, he is 'without excuse.'
The unbelieving and unaware world is like the case in the OP. However, there are many opportunities to hear the Gospel and I would say that in the twenty first century, unbelief is largely down to rejection rather than never having heard of Christ or his saving work on the cross.
[ 25. April 2013, 08:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Muddy, I know lots of non-Christians. None of them refuse God, in the sense that I might refuse a pint (unlikely) or reject a person. They don't actually believe there's a genuine offer to reject or accept.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
EE, your friend was suffering from a mental illness which effectively removed their personal culpability for their beliefs.
If you beleive that God is like your friend's parents then you must believe that humanity is like your friend. That we are so mentally ill that we cannot be held accountable for our beliefs.
I strongly disagree. The majority of us are not mentally ill and we are all culpable for how we think about and approach our God.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Muddy, I know lots of non-Christians. None of them refuse God, in the sense that I might refuse a pint (unlikely) or reject a person. They don't actually believe there's a genuine offer to reject or accept.
Exactly. IOW, we don't "recognize" either the offer or the offerer, (assuming an offerer exists to begin with).
[ 25. April 2013, 10:56: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
EE, your friend was suffering from a mental illness which effectively removed their personal culpability for their beliefs.
If you beleive that God is like your friend's parents then you must believe that humanity is like your friend. That we are so mentally ill that we cannot be held accountable for our beliefs.
I strongly disagree. The majority of us are not mentally ill and we are all culpable for how we think about and approach our God.
We have all been influenced in may ways since our blank sheet minds came into the world. How much of our culpability is shared by those who have fed into the way we think about and approach God?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:The God we see in the Bible is indeed like the shepherd who goes looking for his sheep and brings them home rejoicing, but he is also like the father of the prodigal son who mourns the 'death' of his son through total estrangement. He graciously and loving welcomes him back but he does nothing to go and find him until the wayward boy decides to come back of his own free will and volition and then actually starts on the journey home; it's at that point that the father runs to meet the boy and the relationship is rekindled and restored.
The sheep, like the son, thinks that he can live autonomously without the shepherd/father thank you very much. When we come to recognise our helplessness and lack of control, we're more likely to look up and see God and want relationship with him.
Yes, I think that the father is ready for that moment, waiting patiently to meet us where we are.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
If that's what you think then you need to re-read the Old Testament. The God we see in the bible is like an abusive father who kicks his children out of the house the first time they disobey him, passes all the blame off onto them. He then blames them for his violent and abusive behaviour even if he has had to mind control others to give himself an excuse to be abusive. You mention that complete failure of child-rearing, the Parable of the Terrible Father in which the father has treated the Prodigal so terribly that the only thing that can induce him to go home is the strong possibility of starving to death. And abuses his children to make an example for the others - both in the Prodigal Son and with Jesus.
If he was real (and as presented in the bible), the correct response to his "love" would be a restraining order.
Sometimes reading your posts makes me think that if God presented himself as someone who never judged evil and was the most indulgent parent one could imagine, who always bailed his children out, you would complain that "God is so nasty, because he doesn't give us any space or personal responsibility"! In other words, nothing that God can do could conceivably please you.
But anyway, that was just my impression of your general approach. Nothing more.
As for "The Parable of the Terrible Father", you say:
quote:
...the Parable of the Terrible Father in which the father has treated the Prodigal so terribly that the only thing that can induce him to go home is the strong possibility of starving to death.
Huh???
'Fraid I don't see that in the story at all. Where does it say - or even imply - that the reason the younger son went off to the far country was because he was seriously pissed off with the way his father was treating him? Talk about eisegesis par excellence!
The father was so "evil, nasty and abusive" that he decided - contrary to normal custom - to give his younger son his inheritance while he (the father) was still alive. Goodness me, what a big softie!! Or perhaps you hold that against him, because his generosity 'caused' the son to go off and have a bit too much of a good time? "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" springs to mind...
By the way, you will notice that the father divided to them his livelihood - see Luke 15:12. So thanks to the cheek of his younger brother, the elder son also got his inheritance early. So why the bloody hell was he complaining later that his father was depriving him of anything? It seems that he had blown his money as well, poor chap!
So in the light of this I cannot help breaking into "eudaimoniac laughter" when reading the 'exegesis' (ahem) on the website you linked to, which informs us that the father was lying to the elder son when he said "all that I have is yours". This 'deconstruction' makes a big deal out of the fact that the father had not informed his elder son of the party for the younger son's safe return, but the Bible actually makes clear that the elder son was invited, and the father pleaded with him to come into the party. Now if you think that that constitutes deprivation, then words fail me, frankly.
Apparently "the falling out was so great that the Prodigal Son literally only went home because it was that or starve". Yeah, the falling out with his father was so bad that his father bothered to give him exactly what he wanted, waved him goodbye, presumably hoping that his son would use his inheritance wisely. One could hardly accuse the 'terrible father' of forcing his son to go and throw his money away!
Therefore the son starved through his own fault, and certainly not the fault of the father. Why did he need to be driven to the point of starvation before he "came to his senses"? We are not told the reason for his desire to leave his father's house. Yes, it could have been a falling out with his father, or it could have been his own personal pride. We are not told, and therefore it is intellectually dishonest to assume one theory over any alternative. That is where we have to leave that issue, because without any evidence we just do not know.
The father was so 'terrible' that he did his utmost to prevent his younger son from suffering any humiliation and embarrassment by having to go through the whole repentance rigmarole, which had already been rehearsed. In fact, it could be argued that the father humiliated himself by making a public show of running down the street to meet his son. I am sure that didn't look very dignified!
I could extract more from the parable in my rather more positive 'deconstruction', but that'll do for now, to make the point that your eisegesis is really well out of order and completely unwarranted. Nonsense, in other words.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Huh???
'Fraid I don't see that in the story at all. Where does it say - or even imply - that the reason the younger son went off to the far country was because he was seriously pissed off with the way his father was treating him?[/qb]
What it took for the son to return was starving almost to death. Which means there must have been some reason that was almost that bad.
quote:
The father was so "evil, nasty and abusive" that he decided - contrary to normal custom - to give his younger son his inheritance while he (the father) was still alive. Goodness me, what a big softie!! Or perhaps you hold that against him, because his generosity 'caused' the son to go off and have a bit too much of a good time? "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" springs to mind...
You mean that matters between the father and the Prodigal were bad enough that the Prodigal was willing to have the father effectively declared dead. On its own that wouldn't be sufficient to make a case for abuse - but when we see the way he treats the Elder the case gains substance.
quote:
By the way, you will notice that the father divided to them his livelihood - see Luke 15:12. So thanks to the cheek of his younger brother, the elder son also got his inheritance early. So why the bloody hell was he complaining later that his father was depriving him of anything? It seems that he had blown his money as well, poor chap!
OK. Now you're making things up about the text.
The inheritance was split two ways. Elder and Prodigal - with a normal inheritance the person giving the bequest isn't a third party. Which is why "Everything [the father] has is [the Elder's]". He was complaining about the fatted calf that was part of his share.
Your commenting that the elder had blown his money is you making things up that are in stark contradiction to the text. The prodigal had, of course, and the inheritance was in two parts. If the elder had blown his half of the inheritance then father and elder both would be destitute. Instead the elder remained at home looking after the farm which was his share.
quote:
'deconstruction' makes a big deal out of the fact that the father had not informed his elder son of the party for the younger son's safe return, but the Bible actually makes clear that the elder son was invited
Once more you are making things up that are contrary to the text. There was explicitely no invitation that had been sent to the elder son. The son had to ask a servant what was going on. Being allowed to attend is a very different matter from being invited. The first time the Elder was actually invited was when the father went out to get him to join the party.
quote:
and the father pleaded with him to come into the party. Now if you think that that constitutes deprivation, then words fail me, frankly.
I don't consider it constitutes deprivation. I consider it demonstrates that the father didn't even spare a thought for the elder when he had something shinier (the younger returned). This despite the family matter being something the younger might possibly have an interest in.
quote:
Apparently "the falling out was so great that the Prodigal Son literally only went home because it was that or starve".
Explicit in the text. There was a famine, meaning that starvation was an issue. The elder was hungry enough that he wanted to eat pig slops before he even thought of returning home.
quote:
Yeah, the falling out with his father was so bad that his father bothered to give him exactly what he wanted, waved him goodbye, presumably hoping that his son would use his inheritance wisely. One could hardly accuse the 'terrible father' of forcing his son to go and throw his money away!
One could easily accuse the father of driving his son away to the point that he was willing to say the father was dead to him (hence inheritance). That takes a breakdown on both sides.
quote:
Therefore the son starved through his own fault, and certainly not the fault of the father. Why did he need to be driven to the point of starvation before he "came to his senses"? We are not told the reason for his desire to leave his father's house. Yes, it could have been a falling out with his father, or it could have been his own personal pride.
We aren't told why he left. We are told how much it took to make him stay away. And we are shown how shabbily the father treats the Elder - no parties allowed, and taking stuff he claims belongs to the Elder.
quote:
We are not told, and therefore it is intellectually dishonest to assume one theory over any alternative.
This is the most ironic sentence I've read in the past three days. Your reply about the parable is made of nothing but assumptions - and in two cases assumptions in flat contradiction of the text. Such as the elder having wasted his money - when everything else explicitely belongs to the elder.
quote:
That is where we have to leave that issue, because without any evidence we just do not know.
But as I've shown, we do have plenty of evidence on a number of the issues you've raised. The text tells us, and we do know. Now try reading the bible rather than assuming you know what's there. Because with two of your claims being in direct opposition to the text it's obvious you don't.
quote:
The father was so 'terrible' that he did his utmost to prevent his younger son from suffering any humiliation and embarrassment by having to go through the whole repentance rigmarole, which had already been rehearsed. In fact, it could be argued that the father humiliated himself by making a public show of running down the street to meet his son. I am sure that didn't look very dignified!
Standard abusive pattern. When things are new and good it's all smiles and rainbows. When things are normal he takes things for granted and forgets about them (as he did about inviting the Elder or even sending someone to say "You might want to know your brother's home") And when things are bad they get bad.
quote:
I could extract more from the parable in my rather more positive 'deconstruction', but that'll do for now, to make the point that your eisegesis is really well out of order and completely unwarranted. Nonsense, in other words.
If you need to make things up then you don't have a leg to stand on when claiming nonsense. Go and actually read what's in the bible and stop coming up with assertions like the elder having wasted his money that are the opposite of what the text says.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Going back to the OP. Let's say the person you are referring to died while in that state? Would he be condemned to hell (if there is one)?
I would say no because it is not about what we are capable or incapable of that determines our state grace. It is what God does. I assume the person had been baptized. As a Christian I would say that is the formal assurance that nothing would be able to separate him from the love of God. I think God was probably using the person's parents to continue to be present in the person's life.
Many, many years ago as a chaplain I was called on to do a funeral for a man who committed suicide. He had been stationed at a remote radar site in the North Sea. He had come home for thirty day leave, but he was so depressed. The day before he was to return to that radar site he killed himself.
Now, I was raised in a church that would have said the man was condemned to hell. I chose to take a different tact. I affirmed that the man was not in his right mind. I also affirmed that it is God who had claimed the man as God's own by virtue of the man's baptism. This is what the family needed to hear.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Your reply about the parable is made of nothing but assumptions - and in two cases assumptions in flat contradiction of the text. Such as the elder having wasted his money - when everything else explicitely belongs to the elder.
Amazing. You accuse me of making assumptions, and yet your entire reading of the parable is full of speculation, leading to a conclusion that tells us that Jesus was effectively blaspheming, and intended to do so.
quote:
You mean that matters between the father and the Prodigal were bad enough that the Prodigal was willing to have the father effectively declared dead. On its own that wouldn't be sufficient to make a case for abuse - but when we see the way he treats the Elder the case gains substance.
Please show me the textual evidence that the rift between the father and the younger son was the fault of the father. Since your entire thesis relies on this, I don't think it is too unreasonable a request.
The fact is that you are making a pure assumption without any evidence whatsoever. You assume that the breakdown of a relationship must involve fault in both parties. If that is the case, then I'm afraid I don't know what world you live in. Of course, it may indeed have been partly or even wholly the father's fault, but we just don't know. The text does not tell us. Therefore we cannot build any theory on silence.
So don't accuse me of making assumptions, when there is a glaring howler at the very heart of your interpretation.
It really is quite frightening to think that a "case for abuse" can be made on such a pathetically flimsy foundation. If you were in a position to make that kind of allegation against a person in contemporary society, we would be certainly looking at a serious miscarriage of justice, if a jury were ever convinced by this kind of (non)-reasoning and wild speculation.
quote:
Your commenting that the elder had blown his money is you making things up that are in stark contradiction to the text. The prodigal had, of course, and the inheritance was in two parts. If the elder had blown his half of the inheritance then father and elder both would be destitute. Instead the elder remained at home looking after the farm which was his share.
Well, I suppose you have a right not to read things in context. Allow me to quote what I wrote to remind you...
quote:
So thanks to the cheek of his younger brother, the elder son also got his inheritance early. So why the bloody hell was he complaining later that his father was depriving him of anything? It seems that he had blown his money as well, poor chap!
If you really cannot see from the way the comment is phrased that I was being somewhat facetious, by using the reductio ad absurdum argument to show the logical consequence of the claim that the elder brother had a legitimate grievance, then I suppose I ought to be far more prosaic in the way I communicate to you. The elder brother was complaining to this father that "you did not even give me a young goat that I might make merry with my friends", as if he was so deprived and abused by his neglectful father. And so I made the comment along the lines of "one would think that he also had blown his inheritance!" That is rather different from stating categorically that I thought he definitely had done. Much as I disagree with your views, I did actually have sufficient respect for your intelligence to think that you would understand this style of expression. My bad.
quote:
Once more you are making things up that are contrary to the text. There was explicitely no invitation that had been sent to the elder son. The son had to ask a servant what was going on. Being allowed to attend is a very different matter from being invited. The first time the Elder was actually invited was when the father went out to get him to join the party.
Oh for goodness sake, Justinian! The father is overcome with emotion that his son has returned and on an impulse tells his servants to go and throw a party. One would think that the elder son would have the maturity to understand this. Perhaps you are so eminently organised and regimented in the way you relate to people that you don't understand such impulsive behaviour. In fact, there is no evidence that the father did not instruct the servants to let the elder son know about the do. All that the text says is this:
quote:
"But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.
“Now his older son was in the field. And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and because he has received him safe and sound, your father has killed the fatted calf.’
“But he was angry and would not go in.
So we have the younger son who is hungry - though obviously not starving, otherwise he would not have been able to make the journey from the "far country" - and he is obviously in a relatively bad way. The father's immediate response is to attend to the needs of the son who is in greatest urgent need. After all, that is generally what happens in real life when faced with human need: we give our immediate attention to those in greatest distress and assume that other people in good health and less need will understand the concept of prioritising without being hypersensitive about it. The father, full of joy and relief after a long period of agonising waiting, asks his servants to put together a celebration. Perhaps the father assumed that the servants would tell the elder son? Perhaps he did in fact tell them to go and inform the elder son, and in the hustle and bustle of preparations they were neglectful or perhaps thought: "Oh we'll tell him when he comes from the field"? There are all sorts of scenarios that one can imagine, but one thing we can be certain of is this: the father most definitely wanted his elder son to attend and enjoy the party. That is the only fact that we can work with. Therefore to claim that the father was somehow deliberately neglecting and even abusing (!) his elder son in this situation, is an interpretation so replete with special pleading and desperate eisegesis, that frankly it can be dismissed as pure fantasy.
quote:
I don't consider it constitutes deprivation. I consider it demonstrates that the father didn't even spare a thought for the elder when he had something shinier (the younger returned).
So "pleading" with someone to come into the party equates to "didn't even spare a thought for" that person? Yes, Justinian, if you say so...
quote:
There was a famine, meaning that starvation was an issue. The elder was hungry enough that he wanted to eat pig slops before he even thought of returning home.
Yes, he felt hungry and asserted to himself that he was perishing with hunger. However, he had the strength to take a long journey (from the "far country"), which he successfully completed. Therefore the facts of biology tell us that he could not have been near death by starvation. It is very common to say "I'm starving" when feeling very hungry, and when that hunger persists there is a fear of death. But death may still be a long way off. So the younger son was not suicidally terrified of returning to his "nasty, abusive" father, but was willing to return at the first experience of personal hardship. So, no, this is not evidence at all that he was desperately running away from an abusive home.
Actually, if we look at the younger son's words when he "came to his senses" we can discern that he acknowledged the goodness of his father:
quote:
“But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!"
I hear the son say the following: "Even the servants are not only well fed, but have an abundance of food. My father treats his servants well, and as his son it is appalling that I should be hungry, because, of course, my status as his son is greater than that of the servants. So how shocking is it that one who would be treated better than the well treated servants, should have got himself into this state?!"
To my mind this is strong circumstantial evidence that the son knew his father was kind, generous and not an abuser.
Perhaps you see something else in those words that say the exact opposite. If so, let's hear it. I would be fascinated to see the logical contortions required to draw that conclusion!
quote:
If you need to make things up then you don't have a leg to stand on when claiming nonsense. Go and actually read what's in the bible and stop coming up with assertions like the elder having wasted his money that are the opposite of what the text says.
Well, I am satisfied that I have well and truly refuted your incredibly bizarre interpretation of the parable. But then that is the beauty of stories: we can read them as we like, and I suppose they are mirrors that reflect something of our own desires and agendas. Yours is pretty clear: "God is a monster and I am utterly determined to put the darkest, the most unrealistic and the most paranoid possible construction on the text of the Bible in order to prove that point!"
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
EE. No again. Form is content. Our beliefs cannot differ from our actions.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Amazing. You accuse me of making assumptions, and yet your entire reading of the parable is full of speculation, leading to a conclusion that tells us that Jesus was effectively blaspheming, and intended to do so.
Given you've been caught making things up that are in direct contradiction to the text, you don't have a leg to stand on.
quote:
Please show me the textual evidence that the rift between the father and the younger son was the fault of the father. Since your entire thesis relies on this, I don't think it is too unreasonable a request.
Please show me the evidence otherwise. I believe that like most rifts there was fault on both sides - and that the text is clear that the father doesn't treat the other son well.
quote:
You assume that the breakdown of a relationship must involve fault in both parties. If that is the case, then I'm afraid I don't know what world you live in. Of course, it may indeed have been partly or even wholly the father's fault, but we just don't know.
So you're now hiding behind "We just don't know." You have no evidence that it wasn't completely 100% the father's fault in that case. And so you can't apportion blame to the prodigal eitehr.
quote:
It really is quite frightening to think that a "case for abuse" can be made on such a pathetically flimsy foundation. If you were in a position to make that kind of allegation against a person in contemporary society, we would be certainly looking at a serious miscarriage of justice, if a jury were ever convinced by this kind of (non)-reasoning and wild speculation.
Of course it's not a case beyond reasonable doubt - there isn't enough for a jury to convict. Just enough of a case to merit further investigation. You are creating a strawman.
quote:
Well, I suppose you have a right not to read things in context. Allow me to quote what I wrote to remind you...
quote:
So thanks to the cheek of his younger brother, the elder son also got his inheritance early. So why the bloody hell was he complaining later that his father was depriving him of anything? It seems that he had blown his money as well, poor chap!
If you really cannot see from the way the comment is phrased that I was being somewhat facetious, by using the reductio ad absurdum argument to show the logical consequence of the claim that the elder brother had a legitimate grievance, then I suppose I ought to be far more prosaic in the way I communicate to you.
If you were attempting to give a reductio ad absurdam you failed miserably. You failed because your hypothesis is directly contradicted by the text. Which means that your facetious argument was almost fractally wrong - it was a strawman and one that demonstrates you don't know what you were talking about.
quote:
Oh for goodness sake, Justinian! The father is overcome with emotion that his son has returned and on an impulse tells his servants to go and throw a party. One would think that the elder son would have the maturity to understand this.
One would also expect that at a time when his mind should be aimed towards his family and his sons, he would think of who else was in his family, who else would care, and who else would want to be there. But we know that he did not send a message saying "Your brother's home." The thought of actually inviting the Elder didn't cross the father's mind.
The father was clearly rejoycing at the return of one son to the point of forgetting about the other one. The father's impulse was to throw a party for what he had got back rather than what his family had got back. He didn't even think that the Elder might want to be there or to know his brother had returned.
quote:
Perhaps you are so eminently organised and regimented in the way you relate to people that you don't understand such impulsive behaviour.
You are missing the point. I understand impulsive behaviour. But there are selfish and generous impulses. A generous impulse is one that you want to share. And if it were a generous impulse, who would the father want to share the family reunion with? The rest of the family.
quote:
In fact, there is no evidence that the father did not instruct the servants to let the elder son know about the do.
There is evidence. There is strong evidence. There just isn't conclusive proof. We don't know everything the father did - but we do know that no servant, on the father's direction, told the Elder. We know this because the Elder had to ask a servant what was going on when he eventually came home.
Now it isn't 100% beyond the bounds of possibility that the father instructed a servant to tell the Elder, and the servant disobeyed or failed to find the Elder. But for you to say there is no evidence is simply failing to read the text.
All that the text says is this:
quote:
The father's immediate response is to attend to the needs of the son who is in greatest urgent need.
Because a party was an urgent need. Also arranging music takes some time. So does butchering a calf. The party didn't instantaneously spring into being. I have no objection to dealing with the physical needs - but he went way beyond that and laid on a party. And the party was in full swing by the time the Elder returned home. So no, this doesn't hold water unless you mean to support my point that the father forgot the Elder because he was too happy with the new shiny to pay him any mind.
quote:
There are all sorts of scenarios that one can imagine, but one thing we can be certain of is this: the father most definitely wanted his elder son to attend and enjoy the party.
We know two things. The father wanted his elder son to attend and failed to make sure he was told about it. Which fits the pattern of taking the Elder for granted. As normal you are only reading the parts you want to.
quote:
So "pleading" with someone to come into the party equates to "didn't even spare a thought for" that person? Yes, Justinian, if you say so...
You are, of course, familliar with the idea of linear narratives and a timeline. The father only spares a thought for the Elder after the Elder has:
1: Come back from the fields without knowing what is going on.
2: Made his own investigation to discover that there is a party and why.
3: Refused to enter.
The father demonstrably does not get a message to the Elder until after the Elder has kicked up a fuss. Yes, I consider that not sparing a thought until you have to. You, however, would say that because the father finally did something at the end he should be treated as if the Elder hadn't had to get this shock? Why? Because he's a time traveller?
quote:
Yes, he felt hungry and asserted to himself that he was perishing with hunger. However, he had the strength to take a long journey (from the "far country"), which he successfully completed. Therefore the facts of biology tell us that he could not have been near death by starvation. It is very common to say "I'm starving" when feeling very hungry, and when that hunger persists there is a fear of death. But death may still be a long way off.
The Prodigal was hungry enough pig swill looked appetising. Yes, he wasn't on the point of death. Yet.
quote:
Actually, if we look at the younger son's words when he "came to his senses" we can discern that he acknowledged the goodness of his father:
Can we? We can acknowledge the father paid a wage.
quote:
To my mind this is strong circumstantial evidence that the son knew his father was kind, generous and not an abuser.
Paying people well and not being abusive are two different things.
quote:
Well, I am satisfied that I have well and truly refuted your incredibly bizarre interpretation of the parable.
Given the amount you have made up and read into the parable and ignored of the text you might have satisfied yourself. But that doesn't have much to do with the parable itself.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Justinian -
Given that your whole case against the father is based entirely on unknowns and speculation, and given that arguments based on silence can have some legitimacy (as can alternative theories based on that same silence), then I can only assume that the parable has done its true work: it's a mirror to reveal the state of the interpreter's heart.
As the Bible says (in Hebrews 4:12)...
quote:
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Any more nasty stuff up your sleeve, Justinian?
How about having a crack at an atheist (or anti-theist) 'deconstruction' of the Parable of the Good Samaritan? I am sure we can make God look really nasty, if we are imaginative enough. Let me have a go...
quote:
“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead."
How could a God of love allow this to happen to anyone? Appalling.
quote:
"Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.
Yeah, how typical of 'religion', which, of course, as we all know equates to believing in God. Obviously it was because these priests and Levites believed in God, and that was the reason they were so nasty, because, of course, God is nasty. If only they had been atheists...
quote:
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
OK, so the Samaritan may have believed in God, but he was a semi-heretic, and in the historical context I think we can assume that he was the nearest to an atheist. Well, anyway, I decide that's the case, so it must be true. And do notice that the Samaritan never said any prayers for the man, so that's proof, if ever you needed it, that prayer doesn't work, and only natural practical help matters! Yep, another confirmation of atheism.
quote:
On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’
See, it's money that matters, not prayer to God! Utterly irrefutable evidence that Jesus was a materialist and an atheist!!
quote:
So which of these three do you think was neighbour to him who fell among the thieves?”
And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
That's right. It was the bloke whose mind wasn't poisoned by the virus of religion, who had money, forgot about all that spiritual stuff, and was effectively an atheist.
There you go. A wonderful new interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan that is so obviously irrefutably true, and which thoroughly proves that Jesus was an atheist!!
Gosh, that was fun!
See I can do 'deconstruction' just as well as you.
(Ooops, sorry. This is Purg. I thought we were in the Circus!) ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
Justinian, you seem to be taking a Watsonian ('inside the text') approach to a parable. The Doyalist (omniscient authorial) view is perhaps rather more appropriate when analysing Scripture, especially when analysing a story told by a person in Scripture. (What do they mean by it? What is their intent?) When Jesus tells stories and parables, He is obviously using metaphor, rhetoric, illustration, etc etc etc. Also, CONTEXTUALISATION. You cannot analyse the Bible without this in mind.
So, then: the real prodigal in this parable is the forgiving father, not the runaway son. The meaning of the word 'prodigal' has shifted (ironically because of our familiarity with the parable): the traditional use means 'extravagant, generous'. This parable is far better called the Parable of the Lost Son. Or, as some have suggested, the Parable of the Prodigal ('generous') Father.
In the Middle Eastern context of this story, when the younger son demands his inheritance, he is pretty much wishing his father was dead. In the culture of Jesus' day, no son would do this. PERIOD. So already Jesus has His listeners - the vast majority of them observant Jews or converts to Judaism - tutting with dismay and disgust at this callous ingrate of a younger son.
Now to the behaviour of Abba when he sees his youngest son returning down the road. He starts running down the road (which would mean hitching up his robes) towards his son to throw his arms around and kiss him - verse 20. Say what? - by now Jesus' listeners are electrified, even horrified. No father in his right mind would behave like this in their patricharchal culture. Forget all about his rightful dignity and embrace an ungrateful son who squandered his entire inheritance.
Therefore this story would be completely subversive to Jesus' listeners. As was His intent. It's powerful and beautiful. We are all capable of being both the rebellious younger son and his self-righteous, butt-hurt elder brother. That is the point. The Father will welcome anyone home. That is the point.
This is my favourite parable. And I'm not a fan of dreary deconstructionism. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The meaning of the word 'prodigal' has shifted (ironically because of our familiarity with the parable): the traditional use means 'extravagant, generous'. This parable is far better called the Parable of the Lost Son. Or, as some have suggested, the Parable of the Prodigal ('generous') Father.
That's not entirely true. A prodigy was something unnatural, that contravened the accepted and usual boundaries and norms. In taking his inheritance early and leaving home to set himself up as head of his own 'household of one' while his father was still alive was the prodigous act of the story.
In Roman society an observed prodigy (often a comet, or two-headed calf or similar) was considered damaging to society as it broke the normal way of things. Such prodigies would have to be expiated by a religious ritual in order to make things right again and reset the boundaries of society. The father's actions at the end of the story effectively expiated the prodigal nature of the son, and reset the correct way of things. This act of extreme and radical generosity was the religious ritual necessary to make things right. A quite excellent parallel with Jesus' sacrifice.
Theoretically 'prodigy' could also be stretched to mean generous beyond the usual norms of the time. No father would have given the inheritance early like that so the father was 'unnaturally' generous. But this doesn't fit the religious parallel inherent in the story quite so well IMO since a prodigy at the time was considered something bad that needed to be expiated and made right by God.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
And regarding Justinian's tragic attempt to sack and loot the parable, least said, soonest mended IMO.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Which parable is that? I've read the bible from end to end. Where did I miss it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
The title 'The Prodigal Son' is misleading. It does not occur in the text. The text says, 'A certain man had two sons...'
The parable is about all three of them.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The title 'The Prodigal Son' is misleading. It does not occur in the text. The text says, 'A certain man had two sons...'
The parable is about all three of them.
Moo
Yup. All three of them failed in their ways and relationships. This, however, isn't the message many people want to see. They want to see a perfect God - and will therefore blind themselves to the text whatever is there.
And @EE, I can't even be bothered to respond to your latest round of fabrications. Including your ignoring half the parable, making things up, and bad attempt at satire. The closest thing you have to a point is that the Good Samaritan is about works rather than faith.
@Laurelin, I believe both Doylist and Watsonian approaches are appropriate for most things. The point is one part - the inherent assumptions are well worth investigating as well. And thanks for an actually well thought out response ![[Smile]](smile.gif) The father's approach is indeed shocking for the time and place. And thank goodness we aren't there and then.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
And @EE, I can't even be bothered to respond to your latest round of fabrications.
Well, my so called 'fabrications' actually involve acknowledging what the text actually says - and, more importantly, what it doesn't say - rather than indulging in post-modern hyper-subjectivist unfalsifiable piffle.
Still, I am glad that you appreciated Laurelin's intelligent post - as I did - as it blows your thoroughly naive and untenable case completely out of the water.
I am still trying to get my head round: "Son, please come to the party. Everything I have is yours. But how I also love spending my life abusing you!"
Surreal.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The meaning of the word 'prodigal' has shifted (ironically because of our familiarity with the parable): the traditional use means 'extravagant, generous'. This parable is far better called the Parable of the Lost Son. Or, as some have suggested, the Parable of the Prodigal ('generous') Father.
That's not entirely true. A prodigy was something unnatural, that contravened the accepted and usual boundaries and norms. In taking his inheritance early and leaving home to set himself up as head of his own 'household of one' while his father was still alive was the prodigous act of the story.
In Roman society an observed prodigy (often a comet, or two-headed calf or similar) was considered damaging to society as it broke the normal way of things. Such prodigies would have to be expiated by a religious ritual in order to make things right again and reset the boundaries of society. The father's actions at the end of the story effectively expiated the prodigal nature of the son, and reset the correct way of things. This act of extreme and radical generosity was the religious ritual necessary to make things right. A quite excellent parallel with Jesus' sacrifice.
Except that 'prodigy' and 'prodigal' have different derivations according to this.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The Father did not fail at any point. Which one are you Justinian? That's rhetorical. I KNOW.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KevinL
Apprentice
# 12481
|
Posted
To Hawk's analysis of the etymology, are we sure "prodigal" and "prodigy" rely on the same root/that their Latin equivalents hadn't already acquired the disparate meanings? Merriam Webster online has that "prodigal" is derived from "prodigus," itself from "prodigere": to drive away, to squander. "Prodigy," on the other hand, is from "prodigium," a monster or omen. The relationship between the two words and the concepts they represent, then, may lie deeper in history than when the word was applied to the parable. I'm not a Latin scholar though, so I would be interested to know if prodigus and prodigium are related in classical latin usage, or if prodigus was used to mean extravagant in antiquity?
Edit: completely missed leo's post. please disregard.
[ 28. April 2013, 01:09: Message edited by: KevinL ]
Posts: 35 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
