...
Personal faith is Personal.
Listen... you have your faith... which I don't have a problem with. Just don't think that your truths (beliefs) apply to me (or anyone else). I'm not going to try to make you doubt your beliefs... as long as you don't try to tell me your Truth.
you know, you didn't have to read his post... he was just opening it up for discussion. And you discussed very well here. I like your points.
The main thing with Christianity is that it is bread to spread. You're not a good Christian if you're not turning souls over to God's side and enforcing your beliefs on everyone. I'd rather calmly read their 'truth' on a forum than get involved with someone trying to stubbornly win over your soul.
you know, you didn't have to read his post... he was just opening it up for discussion. And you discussed very well here. I like your points.
The main thing with Christianity is that it is bread to spread. You're not a good Christian if you're not turning souls over to God's side and enforcing your beliefs on everyone. I'd rather calmly read their 'truth' on a forum than get involved with someone trying to stubbornly win over your soul.
...
He asked for opinions... well, he got one.
And I suppose I must be mistaken. I was under the impression that a good Christian was someone who took the teachings of Jesus Christ to heart and applied those lessons to his or her everyday life. You know, that whole Blessed are the Peace Maker and the meek stuff. I was not aware that converting others to conform to their belief system was part of the deal.
The center of this specific debate is Evolution versus Creationism. The original post attempts to disregard Evolution as the science it is today and to present Creationism as a legitimate science. I find fault with that because Creationsim is a religious aspect and is not a science. I personally believe that Creationsim belongs in the church, not in the public schools... not in America. We are granted the right to religion... the religion of our choice, not the religion mandated by the state. And with that freedom to choose our religion, it includes the choice of rejecting all religion.
I do not expect anyone to listen to me... I simply express what I feel. I don't expect anyone to adapt my belief nor do I try to disuade someone of theirs. But, I will point out descrepencies in their arguements if they should crop up. I accept other people's beliefs because imagine it comforts them in times of uncertainty, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
That's why I believe personal faith as 'personal'. But, if you get bonus points for converting souls... well... I would advise the good Christians that I am not a likely candidate for assimilation. I have my God already. I find Him when I sit on the beach and watch the Sun set to the sound of the surf, not in the pews of a church, mosque or temple or the pages of a book. He loves me and His love for me has no strings attached... regardless of how I fuck things up or question the religions that were created in His name. My God also loves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists and Atheists... basically all good, descent human beings. He does not discriminate against those who question Him... do not subscribe to Religion X or even do not believe in him. My God is not such a narcissist.
But, that's just me.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
According to the Bible, God is one God, three persons. The way I see it, He's complicated because He's God. And because of that I'm not surprised by any of the Bible's claims about Him or what He did in the past.
I would label myself an agnostic. It's the creation of the universe thing I just can't wrap my head around. I sincerely believe there is something out there. I've found myself becoming interested in Judaism, which is strange because I was baptized Catholic, though I don't label myself a Catholic. I guess I have two issues with Christianity -- while I think Jesus was a great prophet and a better guy (from what I've read), the whole "son of God" thing is tough to swallow; my other issue is with free will. I often hear Christians explain that God has a plan for them and guides them. I guess I believe more in free will, which is something Judaism addresses. My main problem with Judaism, however, is its political slant. Practitioners' belief in Israel being the one true state and a one-world Jewish state at some point scares me a little. But then again, I've just started looking into the religion so I'm no expert. Right now I'm content to believe there is something out there, whatever it is, that created everything. I don't think a belief in a higher power automatically means that evolution is bunk. I guess I think if there is a plan it's just part of the plan. A belief in a higher power or creator and a belief in science aren't mutually exclusive, IMO. I guess we'll all find out the answers of an afterlife in whatever form it does or doesn't take when we die.
...From what you have been saying in this thread... It sounds like you are saying that you have done independent research and have come to the conclusion that Christianity (along with its basic doctrines) is the religion you have chosen to follow.
And it sounds like a contradiction to dismiss the Old Testament as a temporary handshake agreement with God... then, base your belief system on the Old Testament (i.e. Genesis).
I may be mistaken, but, I can only go on what you have supplied.
...
Also, Yes, I am still openminded to Islam... the same openmindedness I hold for Christianity and Judaism
First of all, I do believe in both the old and new testamenst as the inspired Word of God. In regards to Judaism, it also teaches the coming of a Messiah (meaning, God with us). The religious leaders of Jesus' day were aware of His extraordinary miracles, and so were secular historians of that day. The religious leaders wanted to hold onto the religious system and high positions they had. Pride hindered them. Jesus fulfilled every messianic prophecy (70+ if I remember correctly), yet they wouldn't accept it. Jesus' humility, being a messiah yet focused on being a servent to people with spiritual and physical needs, riding into town on a donkey, etc. was disgusting to the religious leaders. They didn't understand the messianic earthly spiritual kingdom concept God had in mind for their day and beyond as a precursor to the future physical earthly kingdom to come. Judaism became financially scandalous and oppressive under the leadership of the pharisees of that day. Judaism, today, is void of the strict foundational practices of the Old Testament. God didn't intend for the Mosaic covenant to be perminent. This is not my idea but it exists in scriptures of New testament teachers and Old Testament prophets. There were various covenants in the Old Testament: Adamic, Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc. Some of the covenants were temporal and some were perminent. From Pentecost onward Christians have experienced the New Covenant. The creation event in Genesis was not the same subject matter as the Adamic covenant. The creation event was a miraculous display of God's power. The Adamic covenant was an audible promise. Feel free to check out the link I posted about the Cabala.
...
Either you do your own interpretation of the Bible and do not follow any Church... or you don't. You cannot do both without being a walking contradiction.
I don't see why I couldn't. I simply researched for a number of years until being confident in what I believe. During that time I attended various churches. Now I attend a church where almost everything the pastor teaches is what I already believed. The minor difference he and I have on one non-essiental doctrine, eschatology, is fine with me. For anyone interested, I would strongly recommend a non-charismatic, non-denominational church pastored by a graduate of a highly respected seminary.
...
My God also loves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists and Atheists... basically all good, descent human beings. He does not discriminate against those who question Him... do not subscribe to Religion X or even do not believe in him. My God is not such a narcissist.
But, that's just me.
Surely God loves everyone, and more than likely it's people who reject God, not the other way around. God the Son chose to live out the gospel on earth in order to do away with the Old Covenant and provide an adequate sacrafice for the sins of mankind. Yes, sin is serious. Considering all that Jesus did and suffered through for mankind, I believe it's perfectly reasonable for God the Father to not settle for any less than the religion He designed with Christ's act of compassion at the center. Afterall, this faith is a free gift to those who will receive it.
But, belief is not knowledge and belief is not truth. Your belief is based upon the writings of the Bible. I, personally, do not trust the Bible bacause it was written by Man...
.
I did give some of the other reasons for my faith. Anyway, I do find it remarkable what the early Christians submitted themselves to in Nero's day (and other periods) for their faith; having their tongues cut out while their bodies were dipped in tar to burn alive as hanging lamps throughout cities, fed to lions, crucified, beheaded, etc. In addition, Bible manuscript burning campaigns were caried out by armies of various rulers. Despite all these tactics and outlawing of Christianity, in each case the manuscripts were preserved and Christianity continued to spread.
...
Because there is no evidence that dinosaurs and Man walked the Earth at the same time. It is a belief that Man and the dinosaurs lived in the same period..
It's seems like I checked into some evidence for the theory in the past. Anyway, I'm still open-minded to old earth creationism.
Here is some info on fossils that I thought was interesting:
Perhaps the classic argument against evolutionary theory comes from the fossilized remains of organisms found to have existed throughout time. If purely natural evolution has actually occurred in the past and all living organisms share a common ancestor then one ought to find the fossilized transitions between one form and another in the fossil record. However, it has been well known since Darwin's time that plausible "transitional fossils" rarely exist:
"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)
Out of tens of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be Darwin's missing transitional forms. However, a close analysis of these few fossils (commonly cited ones are Archaeopteryx (a bird), Ambulocetus (a land mammal), and Acanthostega (an amphibian)) reveal that they do not shed any light on the origin of the important features of their respective groups. Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould said,
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould, 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)
Gould proposed a theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium" which is meant to account for the lack of transitional forms, saying we dont find transitional forms because transitions didnt have a chance to be fossilized. But punctuated equilibrium does not fit with the workings of genetics--too much biological complexity must be built with far too few rolls of the dice. The lack of transitional forms remains unaccounted for and is a strong evidence against evolution. See Phillip Johnsons, "Darwin on Trial" for a good account of problems with the fossil record.
Surely God loves everyone, and more than likely it's people who reject God, not the other way around. God the Son chose to live out the gospel on earth in order to do away with the Old Covenant and provide an adequate sacrafice for the sins of mankind. Yes, sin is serious. Considering all that Jesus did and suffered through for mankind, I believe it's perfectly reasonable for God the Father to not settle for any less than the religion He designed with Christ's act of compassion at the center. Afterall, this faith is a free gift to those who will receive it.
You're looking at it from a Christian slant. Some of us do not agree that Jesus was the physical form of what we consider God. The exclusivity of religion bothers me. That's why I'm on the metaphorical fence in a lot of ways. (metaphorical was a wasted word...I'm not actually sitting on a fence ) As for the Jesus freebie, there is nothing free in any choice one makes.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Here is some info on fossils that I thought was interesting:
Perhaps the classic argument against evolutionary theory comes from the fossilized remains of organisms found to have existed throughout time. If purely natural evolution has actually occurred in the past and all living organisms share a common ancestor then one ought to find the fossilized transitions between one form and another in the fossil record. However, it has been well known since Darwin's time that plausible "transitional fossils" rarely exist:
"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)
Out of tens of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be Darwin's missing transitional forms. However, a close analysis of these few fossils (commonly cited ones are Archaeopteryx (a bird), Ambulocetus (a land mammal), and Acanthostega (an amphibian)) reveal that they do not shed any light on the origin of the important features of their respective groups. Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould said,
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould, 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)
Gould proposed a theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium" which is meant to account for the lack of transitional forms, saying we dont find transitional forms because transitions didnt have a chance to be fossilized. But punctuated equilibrium does not fit with the workings of genetics--too much biological complexity must be built with far too few rolls of the dice. The lack of transitional forms remains unaccounted for and is a strong evidence against evolution. See Phillip Johnsons, "Darwin on Trial" for a good account of problems with the fossil record.
So is this an argument against evolution? Is that what this thread is about? And if it is, who cares? I don't see how those ideas can't come together. Literal interpretation of the bible seems intellectually weak.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Someone asked why I sent my friend the email (that was part of it). I sent it after I found out he was interested in Dawkins' book. I knew the book was extremely inaccurate. I introduced him to Christianity years ago, so I felt like I should give him advice these days about the subject.
Someone also mentioned Pat Robertson in this thread. I'm not going to doubt his Christianity but there are some Christian morons in the world who dull the image of Christianity... He's way off the deep end about certain spritual gifts existing when they ceased long ago, believing Israel is solely God's chosen people under the New Conenant and the U.S. being judged by God for siding with Pakistan, etc. Respected teachers (though not really theologians) within Christianity would include Hank Hanagraaf, John McArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Micheal Easley, etc.
As for the Jesus freebie, there is nothing free in any choice one makes.
Well, it wasn't free for Christ. He paid a price. Christians can't earn salvation though, so it's free to those who have faith in Christ. This is what I believe
In the past I read studies which seem to reveal the extreme inaccuracies of carbon dating (with an error margin of well over 100 million years) and other methods. [/quote]
Carbon dating is a method that is only applicable to fossils less than 60 000 years old. Wherever you read about the 100 million year error margin needs a fairly basic lesson in both science and maths.
The principles of radiometric dating are very scientifically sound. The same understanding of the atomic processes that guide radiometric dating are also used today in electronics, medicine and many other fields. Adjustments may well be made to the hypthesized age of the earth, but it is definately a lot closer to 4.54 billion years than it is to 6000 years.
I would be curious as to what errors/innacuracies you have discovered in the god delusion... Perhaps there are some mis-interpretations of biblical texts, (although can you mis-interpret something that is open for interpretation?). Certainly the book has almost no scientific errors, (at least none that I could pick up).
In the past I read studies which seem to reveal the extreme inaccuracies of carbon dating (with an error margin of well over 100 million years) and other methods.
Carbon dating is a method that is only applicable to fossils less than 60 000 years old. Wherever you read about the 100 million year error margin needs a fairly basic lesson in both science and maths.
Maybe it was another method I was thinking of or maybe I was just off on the figure. I was in over my head making that statement because it has been about four years or more since I did any studying on the methods. I'm guessing the two links I posted were some that I read back then. I scanned over those links again last night. Those authors seem to have a bone to pick about carbon dating and other methods for some reason. That's all I know about the subject other than what you've explained.
I would be curious as to what errors/innacuracies you have discovered in the god delusion... Perhaps there are some mis-interpretations of biblical texts, (although can you mis-interpret something that is open for interpretation?). Certainly the book has almost no scientific errors, (at least none that I could pick up).[/quote]
You could probably find more thorough answers to that at equip.org than I could give. I will say that he had no basis at all for labeling Jesus as a false prophet. I hinted as to why in a previous post but it would take hours of typing for a full explanation. In short, he can't rightfully focus on one method of eschalogical interpretation and claim Jesus errored, when there are multiple eschalogical methods of interpretation which use Jesus' statement in multiple ways.
You could probably find more thorough answers to that at equip.org than I could give. I will say that he had no basis at all for labeling Jesus as a false prophet. I hinted as to why in a previous post but it would take hours of typing for a full explanation. In short, he can't rightfully focus on one method of eschalogical interpretation and claim Jesus errored, when there are multiple eschalogical methods of interpretation which use Jesus' statement in multiple ways.
Whilst I have read the bible, I would be in no position to argue the interpretation of it. As an atheist I am interested in the history of the bible, but don't see it as infallible and therefore don't have much of an opinion on the correct interpretation of it.
I was more interested in any supposed scientific errors. Dawkins may stir controversy with his interpretation of the bible, but as a scientist and a scientific writer he is excellent... especially in the area of evolutionary biology.
In the end a scientist is probably not going to convince belivers that their is no god by criticizing the bible/koran etc... Just as a believer is unlikely to convince an atheist that there is a god by discounting scientific theories just because they contradict the bible.
... For anyone interested, I would strongly recommend a non-charismatic, non-denominational church pastored by a graduate of a highly respected seminary.
...
Thanx... but, no thanx. I tried Christianity... a couple of times... it's an acquired taste that I never was able to acquire. Too much of that "I have the answers... I know the Truth" stuff, but never answer any of my questions. I have found that I'm better off on my own... because no one else knows.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Thanx... but, no thanx. I tried Christianity... a couple of times... it's an acquired taste that I never was able to acquire. Too much of that "I have the answers... I know the Truth" stuff, but never answer any of my questions. I have found that I'm better off on my own... because no one else knows.
I bet all or most of your questions could be answered after reading two short and cheap books by Hank Hanagraaf, found at http://www.equip.org : The Bible Answer Book Vol. 1, The Bible Answer Book Vol. 2. Just throwing that out there.
Whilst I have read the bible, I would be in no position to argue the interpretation of it. As an atheist I am interested in the history of the bible, but don't see it as infallible and therefore don't have much of an opinion on the correct interpretation of it.
Although you haven't mentioned it, since the release of The Divinci Code some people have been caught up in studying the gnostic gospels. There are COUNTLESS historical inaccuracies stemming from the gnostic gospels. A lot of it's claims are completely ridiculous. I'd advise anyone not to even waste any time with them. There have also been an abundance of historians and Christian authors write books refuting these. equip.org has a bunch.
In the end a scientist is probably not going to convince belivers that their is no god by criticizing the bible/koran etc... Just as a believer is unlikely to convince an atheist that their is a god by discounting scientific theories just because they contradict the bible.
For me, atheism is not a question of science vs. the bible. It's a question of why people need to believe in superstitions in order to lead a moral lifestyle.
While it isn't obvious to some, it's obvious to others that a belief in god is not required to be moral, humble, and to endeavor towards self-improvement.
So, why is it that some people believe they can only achieve those states of mind with the help of hocus pocus magic cookbooks? And why is it that they never realize that they aren't actually achieving those states of mind?
Those are the questions that need to be answered, and as society progresses, I can only hope that they will be answered before it's too late -before the inherent immorality of religion consumes any hope for mankind to realize that they themselves, without the aid of make-believe magic fairytales, are capable of existing on a universal plain alongside with infinite wisdom, understanding, and the progression of species.
I bet all or most of your questions could be answered after reading two short and cheap books by Hank Hanagraaf, found at http://www.equip.org : The Bible Answer Man Vol. 1, The Bible Answer Man Vol. 2. Just throwing that out there.
...
Oh boy... someone else who has all the answers... knows the truth.
And it was in a book the whole time.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Oh boy... someone else who has all the answers... knows the truth.
And it was in a book the whole time.
Religion divides people, some of us will go to heaven, others will be sent to hell. Believers want to save me, and therein lies the catch. They want to save my life, or rather life-after-death. I don't want to be put in the roll of a victim, a poor fool who can be saved by someone with superior knowledge.
In case anyone is interested in having an idea of God's nature in response to non-christians. This example was used in scripture for this purpose:
The Prodigal Son - Luke 15. 11-32
And he said, A certain man had two sons:
And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants
And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
And bring hither the fatted calf, 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 elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing.
And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and entreated him.
And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
There are some creationism scientists worth checking out, as well as some highly respected cross over scientists. Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" could be a starting point, but finding the names of cross overs would require a seperate search.
In case anyone is interested in having an idea of God's nature in response to non-christians. This example was used in scripture for this purpose:
The Prodigal Son - Luke 15. 11-32
And he said, A certain man had two sons:
And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants
And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
And bring hither the fatted calf, 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 elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing.
And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and entreated him.
And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
There are some creationism scientists worth checking out, as well as some highly respected cross over scientists. Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" could be a starting point, but finding the names of cross overs would require a seperate search.
...
Not sure what this has to do with Creationism versus Evolution... but...
That story of the Prodigal Son... I've heard it before and I've had it explained to me... but, i still have questions that remain unanswered.
The thing is... you MUST return to the Father... you must be FOUND... in order to recieve the Father's love. He does not care if you've been alley catting around with whores and doing lines of cocaine off their asses... as long as you come home. But, shouldn't the Father's love be unconditional? Shouldn't he love us, no matter how screwed up we are? or does it mean we all get to Heaven... no matter what? You... me... Ghandi... Ted Bundy... Hitler?
Okay. But, in your absense, you are DEAD to Him. Doesn't quite make sense to me. I mean, when your kid runs off to male prostitute camp where he shoots heroin with junkies and robs and steals to get more smack... is he dead to you? Isn't he still your son? Or do you only love him when he returns home and goes to rehab, straightens up his act and marries Emmy Lou from across the street? In this story... what if the Prodigal Son returns home as a pimp with a bunch of whores and a years supply of canned hams? No merriment for him? What happens if he leaves again? I know, he stays by his Father's side having seen the error of his ways... and they lived happily ever after. But, come on... you don't think he's replaying those nights of doing 3 whores at a time in his head.
And I do get the gist of the story... the son HAS to confess his sins and ask forgiveness... but, shouldn't the Father love him... regardless of his major fuck-ups? Like the person who 'sins' by converting to Islam (or worse, Mormonism)... does God only accept him if he forsakes his Muslim religion and accepts Christianity? That line of reasoning allows a son to go out and commit horrible acts against Mankind... such as murdering 6 million people in death camps... and confesses his sins in his bunker and asks for forgiveness and the Father accepts him. See? It doesn't make sense to me.
And what about the older son? This guy is loyal to the Father... and does not know the Father loves him? Does the sone take his Father's love for granted? Was his younger brother dead to him?
They are nice stories with good messages, but trying to apply them to explain the nature of God... especially in today's times... well, they just don't equate. It's like the guy who murders a prostitute gets a free 'Get out of Hell' card if he finds Jesus during his stay in prison. The 23 year old prostitute that was murdered before she was given the chance to confess her sins... not so lucky.
So, you see... the story probably makes perfect sense to you... and I hope you are inspired by it as it relates to your beliefs. Just as I'm sure the Qoran has similar stories of inspiration.
...
That's why I'm out here on my own... because I don't know. I WANT to know... but, I don't. I also know that I will probably never know... and neither will anyone else. All we can do is live our lives as best we can... and we should treat everyone... Christians, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Aetheists and yes... even Mormons with respect regarding their beliefs.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
In case anyone is interested in having an idea of God's nature in response to non-christians. This example was used in scripture for this purpose:
The Prodigal Son - Luke 15. 11-32
And he said, A certain man had two sons:
And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants
And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
And bring hither the fatted calf, 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 elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing.
And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and entreated him.
And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
There are some creationism scientists worth checking out, as well as some highly respected cross over scientists. Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" could be a starting point, but finding the names of cross overs would require a seperate search.
this is why athiests are cynical towards religions....Christianity for the most part....
Honestly, I really dont like putting down people's beliefs.....I really dont....but its the bible quoting that REALLY makes my skin crawl.
Why not just quote Aesop's fables. those have good "Morals of the Story", too.
Bottom line, whatever makes you sleep better at night....go with that.
this is why athiests are cynical towards religions....Christianity for the most part....
Honestly, I really dont like putting down people's beliefs.....I really dont....but its the bible quoting that REALLY makes my skin crawl.
Why not just quote Aesop's fables. those have good "Morals of the Story", too.
Bottom line, whatever makes you sleep better at night....go with that.
...
I have known several aetheists... who are the kindest, most caring and giving people I know. Religion does not corner the market on positive human traits.
and if you look at it from this perspective... Christians (religious folk) do good thing in this life because God and Jesus sees what they are doing. Aetheists do good thing in this life... just because.
If God and Jesus are watching... do they note a difference?
...
peace... love... surf... that's all you need.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Not sure what this has to do with Creationism versus Evolution... but...
That story of the Prodigal Son... I've heard it before and I've had it explained to me... but, i still have questions that remain unanswered.
The thing is... you MUST return to the Father... you must be FOUND... in order to recieve the Father's love.
I feel kinda overwhelmed cuz I just lost a long post. Anyway, let's look at this for a minute. The Bible contains the following statements and many others similar to them:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him"
"But God demonstrates His own love toward
us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift
by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God
displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith."
Also notice that the parable didn't mention the father loving the son only when he returned home.
He does not care if you've been alley catting around with whores and doing lines of cocaine off their asses... as long as you come home.
He does care. He knows that wild living can be detrimental to peoples' lives and that consequences often linger long past conversion.
But, shouldn't the Father's love be unconditional? Shouldn't he love us, no matter how screwed up we are?
It is. He does. I have heard Hank Hanagraaf explain it this way, "God isn't going to drag someone kicking and screaming against his/her will to eternity with Him.
or does it mean we all get to Heaven... no matter what? You... me... Ghandi... Ted Bundy... Hitler?
No, the Bible doesn't teach universalism.
Okay. But, in your absense, you are DEAD to Him. Doesn't quite make sense to me. I mean, when your kid runs off to male prostitute camp where he shoots heroin with junkies and robs and steals to get more smack... is he dead to you?
The focus here is on 'spiritual' death (spiritual death is eternal seperation from God but not a cessation of existance) and spiritual rebirth. Remember, this is a parable. Anyway, the Bible teaches that everyone is born with a need for spiritual rebirth through faith in Christ.
In this story... what if the Prodigal Son returns home as a pimp with a bunch of whores and a years supply of canned hams?
canned hams, huh? . If he returned with pimps and hoes then he'd probably have the same state of mind he had in the begining when he wanted nothing to do with his father and left.
What happens if he leaves again?
---
If a person has genuine faith, God will bring him/her back again.
I know, he stays by his Father's side having seen the error of his ways... and they lived happily ever after. But, come on... you don't think he's replaying those nights of doing 3 whores at a time in his head.
Change of heart can be a process. Certain experiences would make the process more difficult.
----
And I do get the gist of the story... the son HAS to confess his sins and ask forgiveness... but, shouldn't the Father love him... regardless of his major fuck-ups? Like the person who 'sins' by converting to Islam (or worse, Mormonism)... does God only accept him if he forsakes his Muslim religion and accepts Christianity?
Faith in Christ is how a person's sin problem is dealt with. Islam offers no savior and therefore no solution. Contrary to Islam and the other religions, throughout the Bible it's taught that we can't earn salvation. Here's one example from the Old Testament:
4 For since the beginning of the world
Men have not heard nor perceived by the ear,
Nor has the eye seen any God besides You,
Who acts for the one who waits for Him.
5 You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways.
You are indeed angry, for we have sinned—
In these ways we continue;
And we need to be saved.
6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.
7 And there is no one who calls on Your name,
Who stirs himself up to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us
That line of reasoning allows a son to go out and commit horrible acts against Mankind... such as murdering 6 million people in death camps... and confesses his sins in his bunker and asks for forgiveness and the Father accepts him.
Are you refering to the Catholic crusades? It's true what one person in this thread mentioned, that man's erroring ways can't be blamed on God. But I'm an advocate of Christianity, anyway, not Catholicism.
And what about the older son? This guy is loyal to the Father... and does not know the Father loves him? Does the sone take his Father's love for granted? Was his younger brother dead to him?
I took some paragraphs from http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/91-3 to help give you an understanding of legalism, false religions, and how the two relate to the older brother in this parable. I'll post them.
The 23 year old prostitute that was murdered before she was given the chance to confess her sins... not so lucky.
God draws people and knows the end of each person's days. He has good timing. People have plenty of oppurtunities. And remember, today there's a church on about every street corner, Bibles on many store shelves, the internet, sermons on radio and t.v., Christians who witness, etc.
And so, the older brother arrives. "And when he approached the house he heard music and dancing,"and then it should say, "And he rushed in to his father and said, 'Father, what's all the joy about?'" But he doesn't do that. If he loved his father, he would have rushed into the house and said, "What's going on? What's going on?" And his father would have said, "Your brother's home," and he would have embraced his father and rejoiced with tears because he knew his father loved his brother. He knew he had ached in his heart as long as he was gone, and he knew he had gone out to look for him day after day, even though he didn't know he was back...noone had told him yet. Whatever made his father rejoice would make him rejoice if he loved his father. But he has no love for his father at all, he has a love for himself. It's all about him and his property and his reputation and his prestige."
"And he says to him, verse 27, "Oh, your brother has come." Oh-oh, that should have filled his heart with joy. That should have been enough that after that was said he rushed in because he knew how his brother's life had started out when he left. He must have been so anxious and excited to find out how that whole thing had ended up. He knew his father's heart had been broken when his brother left. He knew how he regularly looked for him and longed for him. If he loved his father at that point, he would have immediately run in. But it really was fear that his brother would come back. "Your brother has come and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound." His worst fears, his brother came back, oh, and his father...what?...received him."
This outrageous conduct is more than this older brother can bear. Look at the phrase "safe and sound," that's a funny thing, isn't it? An Old English colloquialism that seems to last in our modern translations. It's actually hugiaino in the Greek from which we get hygiene and it basically means wholeness, well-being. But in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, that word is almost always connected to Shalom which means...what?...peace. That's really what he's saying. It's not that he's not physically hurt, it's not limited to that. He's received him back in peace. This is not just good health, this is Shalom, this is peace of a full reconciliation between a father and son. It isn't his son came back and the father told him to sit at the edge of town for a week and think about what he had done until he gained a right to talk to his father and then he'd give him the things he needed to do to earn back his reconciliation. Not that. The father received him and he received him in Shalom, he's made peace. Shalom forever. That's why there's a party. There wouldn't be a party if he had come back and had to work for the next twenty years. This...this is the worst possible scenario because now the father is using his resources on this party. The son has already depleted the whole family treasury by taking his half, selling cheaply and leaving which meant that that whole thing couldn't grow so that the older son when the father did die would have more. Now he's back depleting more of our family resources. And the foolish father is using those resources on him. The son is the favorite guest at the banquet but the banquet is really in honor of the father. The town is there to celebrate a father who's that merciful and gracious and kind and loving in reconciling. You see, that's the picture of heaven's joy. And a legalist who thinks you earn your way to heaven doesn't understand that God's joy is found in justifying the ungodly, that God's joy is found in forgiving the sinner who is bankrupt and has nothing. The older son, that's why his worst fears have come true. His brother's back, his father has embraced him, this is outrageous. And for the first time in the story the Pharisees are saying, "Yep, that's exactly the right attitude, that's exactly what he should feel. He should be outraged. We are outraged. This whole story is just one outrage after another."
And so he can't be a part of a shameful event. His son has shamed himself. His father has continually shamed himself. He's gotten the whole community involved in this shameful celebration. And he's not going to be a part of it, verse 28, "He became angry and was not willing to go in."
Of course not. Boy, I'm reminded of Matthew 23, "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the Kingdom of Heaven from men and you do not enter in yourselves or do you allow those who are entering to go in." You don't have any way into that Kingdom because your understanding of salvation is so warped. That was perhaps the most significant indictment in the Matthew 23 diatribe against them, that they did not enter the Kingdom and nor where they leading anyone else into it. Later in that same chapter He said, "Outwardly you appear righteous to men, inwardly you're full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Hypocrites are all sinners on the inside because hypocrisy has no way to constrain the flesh internally.
Of course he wouldn't go in. He hated the idea of grace. He resented this mercy and this instant reconciliation.
It's amazing. It says in verse 28, "And his father came out and began entreating him." Here we see God the initiator again. Here we see God in Christ the seeker, just as in the case of the younger son, the father came down out of his house and ran right down to the middle of town for all to see, bearing the scorn and the shame of the embarrassment of violating public common conventional behavior. And he did it to embrace the sinner and protect him from the shame. Here the father leaves the festival, goes out and does what you would never expect God to do, beg a sinner, beg a hypocrite. But He is the one who seeks to save the lost.
When the information, obviously, about the older son reaches the father, the word comes to him that his son is on the outside and he's not going to come in. He now knows he has his second rebel son and we're now going to find out how God feels about religious hypocrites. What they would have expected...what they would have expected was that the father would be absolutely insulted by this. It is a blatant insult. It is an utter disregard for the father's honor, the father's joy, the brother's well-being. He shows himself as having no love for either of them. And the traditional Middle Eastern response would be to take the son and give him a public beating for such dishonor. But nothing goes the way you'd think it's going to go in this story. It's just one breach of perceived honor after another after another, after another, after another. But instead of the father ordering him to be beaten and locked in a room somewhere until he can be dealt with, the insulted dishonored father comes out. And he starts begging him. Here he shows up again in condescension. Here he shows up again in mercy. Here he shows up again in compassion and love and humility and kindness, leaves the party, comes out, goes into the night with everybody watching and the buzz sure is going to go through and they know what's going on. Another act of selfless love kindly toward this son in the same way that he ran to embrace the younger son. He goes out in mercy and he reaches to the hypocrite the same way he reached to the rebel.
I want you to notice the word "entreating" there. It says that he began entreating him, parakaleo, that's a very, very common word, it's actually a word that comes in a noun form. The paraclete meaning the Holy Spirit, the one who comes alongside, entreating is to come alongside to speak to, to come right alongside someone. That is he comes right out and goes alongside his son. And he pleads with him, and he calls him to come to the kingdom, to come to his house, to come to the celebration. And this son with whom the Pharisees and scribes are so clearly identified should have brought them face-to-face with themselves and their complete ignorance of the father whom they said they served. Oh, they were in the house, they were around, they were the religious ones, they were the dutiful ones, they were the moral ones. But they didn't know God, they didn't know the heart of God. They had no understanding of the joy of God. They had no interest in the recovery of lost sinners. They refused to honor God for saving grace which has always been the way God saved. They see Jesus, in fact, as satanic. And as Jesus said in John 5:23, "If they honored the Father, they would honor Me." They refused to go in.
But here is this wonderful compassionate grace of God reaching out to these angry hypocrites. And the response of the older son, verse 29, "He answered and said to his father, 'Look...'" let me stop there.
Everybody would take a breath there. Ahhhh! I mean, even the prodigal came back and said, "Father, father," just as he had said father at the beginning when he asked him for his estate. You don't address your father, "Look..." There's no title. There's no respect. And then he says, "For so many years I have been serving you," douleuo, slave language, doulos.
"For so many years I have been your slave." Now there's a legalist mentality. That's a no-fun posture, no joy. And what it indicates is that in the heart of this guy he has seen this as a horrible, grit-your-teeth, grind your way through these years and years of slugging out your slavery to this guy so that when he finally dies you can get what you're after. He was no different than the younger son. He wanted what he wanted, he just had a different way to get it. He didn't have the courage of his younger brother. He didn't have, you might say, the shootsbah(??), moxie. Now he decided the safe ground was to hang around and wait till the father dies and then get it. It's all nothing but slavery to him...bitter, resentful, angry for so many years. And he piles on the descriptives.
And then if you want to know the self-image of a hypocrite, here it is. "And I have never neglected a command of yours." Wow! Now if that isn't the language of a self-righteous hypocrite, I don't know what is. Who does that sound like? It sounds like the rich young ruler, doesn't it? It sounds exactly like the rich young ruler. Matthew 19, Luke 18 where Jesus says, "Here are the commandments," and he responds by saying, "I've kept all those. I've kept all those." Here is the proud hypocrite. Here is the guy who because he has done good is under the illusion that he is good, because he has done good for self-satisfaction and pride he has buried the truth of who he is deep, because he has done good for satisfaction and pride as a way to earn salvation, he has pushed it so far down that he can't even touch it any longer, it's completely buried in his subconscious. And he lives with this illusion that he has never ever neglected a command that his father had given him. There is the amazing self-deception of a hypocrite. He's perfect. I'm perfect, which is to say to the father, "And look, buddy, you're not. I am perfect. I understand what perfection is. I understand what perfect righteousness is and perfect justice and I know what perfect honor is and I know how you're supposed to behave and you're in violation of it. Again and again you're in violation of it. You took him back, you ran, you shamed yourself. You protected him from shame. You forgave him. You embraced him. You kissed him. You gave him full sonship. You gave him honor. You gave him authority. You gave him responsibility. You hold this massive celebration for an absolutely unworthy sinner. I'm perfect and you're not."
By the way, this is why Paul went around killing Christians because he hated grace. It was Paul, you remember, in Philippians 3 who says, "Blameless according to the law, that's how I live my life, under the illusion that I was absolutely blameless and these Christians with their message of grace were violators of God's holy law." And he went everywhere he could breathing threatening and slaughter and imprisoning and killing them.
He has no love for the father. He has no interest in the father's love for his younger brother. He has no desire to share in his father's joy. He has no joy period in anything. But he's still perfect and needs no repentance. How about that? What a classic illustration of a hypocrite. Angry, bitter, slave mentality, I've done all this to get what I expect to get, but he sees himself as perfect and needing no repentance. You want to know something? Nobody goes into the Kingdom of God without repentance. This is classic hypocrisy. His heart is wretched. His heart is wicked. His heart is alienated. His heart is selfish and he's blind to spiritual reality. And again, here are the Pharisees and the scribes, here's the religious sinner in the home of God, in the house of God, if you will, making a public display of affection for God, wearing clerical garb, or attending a certain kind of ritual, certain religious activities, moral on the public front, outwardly good, outwardly obeying the law, keeping all the rules. But no relationship to God. No concern for the honor of God. No joy. No understanding of grace.
The son isn't finished. He's going to dig his claws deeper into his father whom he sees as a sinner. He sees his father as a violator of righteous standards of which he is the source and says to him this. "I have never neglected a command of yours and yet you have never given me a kid, or a goat, that I might be merry with my friends. I've been the worker and I don't even get a goat. He's done nothing for you and he gets the fattened calf. This is not fair. This is not equitable. This is not just. This is not righteous."
You know what the son is really saying? "Father, I don't need to ask you for forgiveness, I haven't done anything. But I'll tell you something, you need to ask me for forgiveness for what you've done." That is the outrage of hypocrisy. That is the outrage of legalism. It demands that God forgive us for a violation of our understanding. He thinks the father needs to ask him for forgiveness.
And the Pharisees are going to identify with him. Yeah, this is right, this is the right posture. This is outrageous conduct by the father. The father is the culprit. The father is the bad guy here,. The son is a bad guy, son number one, sure he's a bad guy, the younger son, but the father's really the bad one, he's the one who has completely violated all conventional standards of respect and honor.
The son gives himself away a little bit here, he says...because he says, "You've never given me a kid that I might be merry with my friends." MY friends. He's accusing the father of favoritism and he's accusing the father of an unjust favoritism. But he's also pointing out the fact that when he has a party, it's not going to include his brother, it's not going to include his father. He lives in a completely different world. He has a completely different group of friends. He's at home but he has no relationship to the family. All his friends are outside the family. He parties with those who thinks the way he thinks. He parties with those who have no connection to the father. He doesn't understand the father's love, compassion, kindness, mercy, forgiveness and joy. He has no fellowship with the father. He is angry, resentful, jealous, envious, impenitent, and greedy. He thinks he's worked as a slave so long and what has he gotten? Nothing. And when he does get what he wants, it's not going to be a celebration with the family because he has no relationship to them. His father is nothing more than a slave master. He's going to have his party with his buddies. So classic in his description of the Pharisees who associated only with themselves, as we have seen in other texts.
This is the time when the older brother wishes the father were dead, probably wished it a lot if this were a real person. But in the story it comes out. "I haven't had my party. I haven't had anybody kill a kid for me so that I could have a party with my friends." He doesn't care about his father and now his father is wasting assets on this other son, a wicked son who by his own admission is unworthy. If his father was just dead, all of this would be over. If his father was just dead, then he would possess everything and he could start the party with his own buddies. Get the father out of the picture and everything is good, everything is as it should be, everything is honorable again. Let's get back to an honorable world here. We've got to get rid of all this shameful stuff.
Verse 30 carries on a further assault on his father's character, integrity and virtue. "But when this son of yours," he won't even say my brother, so much disdain in him, "When this son of yours came who has devoured your wealth with harlots, you killed the fattened calf for him. You don't give me a goat, but you kill the fattened calf for him, this son of yours." Wow, you can cut that contempt with a knife.
How did he know...how did he know that he had used all that money with harlots? Because Jesus said he knew in the story. Just a little insight that tells us more about the behavior of the first son in the story and there, of course, characters that Jesus has fabricated. And so this is part of the story. This is to emphasize again that this man has lived as low as low gets. Add that to all the rest of the horror of his behavior. Some people have suggested that he made this up just out of scorn. But there's nothing in the text that says that. We assume that if Jesus puts it in his mouth, it was a reflection of what Jesus wanted us to know about the behavior of the younger son.
So here is something juxtaposed against a celebration that's pretty stark. You've got a celebration going on with music and dancing and the younger son and the feast and it's just a high time of joy. And out in the dark of the night you've got this horrific assault going on and the older brother is attacking the virtue, the integrity, the character of his father. All that he had kept in for all those years explodes out of him, all that fake respect and honor is gone. The facade is off. The cover is blown. And while they're all inside honoring that father, he's on the outside heaping contempt on him. This is the Pharisees. They saw themselves as righteous. They saw themselves as just. They therefore sat in judgment on God in Christ and they condemned Jesus for His mercy, compassion, love, and the gospel of grace. And the Pharisees would see this older brother, yeah, and this is righteous indignation, this is for finally in the story we have somebody who holds up honor.
You know, in his mind a Pharisee would think that son should be dead. If you spend your money on harlots, you get killed. Deuteronomy 21:18 to 21, you get stoned to death. He should be dead. Instead of dead, look at the party. This is incongruous. This is outrageous. This is shameful, everything about it. It's a shameful reaction by the son who is looking at the whole thing as shameful.
By the way, a little note here. You killed the fattened calf for him...not really...not really. The fattened calf wasn't really killed for the son, he was killed for the father. The father is the one who gives the credit...gets the credit, I should say, he's the reconciler. He determines who is going to be reconciled and under what terms. He's the one who ran and embraced and kissed. It really was a celebration of the father. But his anger has completely blinded him. And he has no knowledge of his father. The father is the main figure at the feast. The father is the one they're all honoring for such loving forgiveness. And the people will accept the younger son because it's against convention to accept him. It would be against the norm to accept him back under those conditions. But they will because the father has. And so it's really the father who is being celebrated, just as in the end, in heaven, the joy of heaven, the eternal joy of the angels and all the redeemed that gather around the throne of God and even the joy of God is the joy that comes to God Himself for being the reconciler. When we go to heaven, the direction of our praise isn't going to be toward the sinners, it's going to be toward the Savior.
So here is this great feast and all the celebration honoring the father. And here at the same time is this son who heaps dishonor on the father simultaneously. It's the picture, the party symbolizes all the sinners who have collected around God to honor Him for their salvation. And outside are the Pharisees who are heaping scorn upon the Father God in Christ.
Then there's a shameful response. From another angle, verse 31, "He said to him, 'My child, you've always been with me, all that's mine is yours.'" What a tender response. That would be...that would be shameful in the eyes of the villagers. They would say, "Wait, you should finally somebody slap this guy. I mean, enough is enough, this mercy is getting a little over the top here. Please." But he says, "My child," teknon, eight times in this section huios, the more formal word for son. Tekna, my boy, my child, it's speaking in grieving, painful, agonizing, compassionate love and mercy. He speaks to him in endearing terms and that's the heart of God toward a wretched hypocrite. Wow, is there any question about God being a loving, compassionate Savior? The son uses no title, no respect. The son attacks the virtue, the integrity, the justice and the righteousness of the father. The son is saying in effect, "You need to be forgiven by me for the outrageous and unjust and dishonorable conduct that you have perpetrated." And here you see the patience of God with the sinners, even hypocrites. Sometimes, you know, it's easier to be patient with prodigals than it is with hypocrites. I will confess that. We all love a great story about a wicked, outrageous sinner who is converted, but we aren't nearly as excited about a hypocrite that's converted. And, of course, that's even more rare. People who are in false religion don't come as often. In fact, this is a footnote, it never say sin all four gospels that a Pharisee believed on Jesus and was saved. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and it implies that he came. Later on, Paul the Pharisee, was saved on the Damascus road, those are the only two. But he says to him, "Look, my child," endearing terms. "You've been around."
The father knows he's estranged. You've been around here superficially. Everything has always been available, it's all here. I always think of that when I think of people who misinterpret the Scripture. You know, cults, false religions, it's here. It's all here. You've always had it. If you ever wanted a relationship with Me, I was here and everything I have was here. And look what he says, "All that is mine is yours. I don't ever have to split it up." And here's the picture of the magnanimity of God and the endlessness of His grace and His resources, it's all for all who come to Him. It will never be yours with your attitude. It will never be yours by works. You'll never earn it. But it's here if you ever want to establish a relationship with Me.
And verse 32 goes back to the main theme. "We had to be merry and rejoice. We had to." It's not like we had an option. "For this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live and was lost and has been found." We had no choice...why? This is what causes joy to God. This is heaven's joy. It can't be restrained. It can't be delayed. It can't be postponed. It can't be subdued. It can't be mitigated. It can't be lessened. Divine joy is released when one sinner repents and is reconciled. And heaven's joy will be released not just for a prodigal, not just for someone who's immoral and irreligious and blatantly sinful, but for secret sinners, rebels, the religious, the moral, the hypocrites, the ones whose lawlessness is all on the inside. God is saying here, Christ is saying, "I go out into the street for the prodigal and I go out into the courtyard for you. I humble Myself and take on public shame for the prodigal. And I humble Myself and take on public shame for you. I come with compassion and love and forgiveness and I am ready to embrace you and to kiss you and to give you full sonship with all its privileges, not just if you're the prodigal, but even if you're the hypocrite." He's really inviting him to salvation. You can come to the party if you choose, if you recognize your true spiritual condition, if you come home you can take possession of everything that's always been there.
The younger son was overwhelmed with his father's grace. Immediately confessed his sin, confessed his unworthiness in the very most magnanimous ways and he received instantaneous forgiveness, reconciliation, sonship all the rights and privileges that the father had at his disposal to give. He entered into the celebration of the father's joy, that is eternal salvation. And as I've been saying, that joy goes on in heaven forever.
The older son, the same tenderness, the same kindness, the same mercy, offered the same grace, reacts with bitter resentment, attacks the virtue, the integrity of the father. And his father makes one final appeal. "My child, it's all here. We had to celebrate, implied, and we will celebrate for you too if you come."
And it stops in verse 32, isn't that strange? What do you have hanging in your mind right now? Do you have a question there? I do. This is not an ending. What happened? Right? What did he do. You don't end a story without an ending, it's...and I guess this is another one of a series of shocks. After all of this you're waiting, you're waiting, you're waiting and it stops. And, you know, if you had been listening to the whole thing you'd say, "Come on." It's like a joke with no punch line that lasts a long time. We're all saying the same thing, what did he do? What did the older son do? The guests are all there. They're waiting. They know what's going on outside because the word is going in. What did he do? The guests are waiting, they want to know if he comes in. Having embraced and kissed his older son who repented, they want to know if he humbled himself, if he fell down before his father and sought grace for his long hypocrisy and bitter service. They want to know if he was forgiven and reconciled and they would love to see the father come in with his arm around his son, bringing him to the head table and sitting him next to his brother. Wouldn't that be great?
Now that's...you know, there are a lot of stories like this, you just sort of write your own ending. By the way, just from a technical standpoint. The story is divided into two halves. The first half has eight stanzas and they feature the younger brother. The second half has eight stanzas and they...has seven stanzas, I should say, and they feature the older brother. It should be eight and eight, but it's eight and seven. And in the symmetry of the story there's a lot of technical things that show you the symmetry of the story that I haven't pointed out, but you have eight and then all of a sudden strangely you have seven. And so even in hearing the story, reading the story you would say it should be eight and eight, because that would be the symmetry that would be designed into that kind of Middle Eastern prose. The end isn't there. There's one section missing.
Now I would love to write one. I think maybe this would be good, "And the older son fell on his knees before his father saying, 'I repent for my loveless cold service, my pride and selfishness. Forgive me, father, make me a true son, take me to the feast.' At which point the father embraced and kissed him, took him in and seated him at his table by his brother and all rejoiced in the sons who had been reconciled to their loving father."
I like that. Or maybe another shorter one. "The son seeing his father's love, compassion and grace came to his senses about his wicked heart, was humbled, repented and reconciled."
But you know what? I don't get to write the end. Who wrote the end? The Pharisees wrote the end. Here's the end they wrote. "And the older son being outraged at his father, picked up a piece of wood and beat him to death in front of everyone." That's the ending they wrote. That's the cross and that's what they did just a few months after this. And, by the way, congratulated themselves on their righteous act that preserved the honor of Israel and Judaism and true religion and God. Let's pray.
What an ironic thing it is, God, that the father should have beaten the son, is beaten by the son to death in the greatest act of evil the world has ever seen. And yet, and yet, O God, out of that horrible ending of killing Your Son with wood came our redemption. The final shameful resolution of the story is the cross but out of that You have wrought our redemption for on that cross He died to bear our sins and what the leaders of Israel meant for evil, You meant for good. We thank You for this glorious salvation.
While your heads are bowed for just a moment. I don't know where you see yourself in this story, we're all there, either you're the open sinner or the hidden one, or some degree of that, or you're restored to the Father and you really do identify with the Father's heart. You're one of those folks at the party. You have gathered around Him as one of the redeemed to celebrate. I hope that's true. But if you're still estranged from God living in sin, or estranged from God living in secret lawlessness, corrupt on the inside, come to the Father who has borne shame for you, who has come down and run the gauntlet to embrace you and protect you from the shame you deserve, who has come out into the night, who's left his throne to plead with a hypocrite, this is our gracious and good God who delights in mercy and finds His joy in forgiveness."
I think I speak on behalf of many people who have participated in this thread, mikesguitar, when I say that I just feel really sorry for you for being so terrified of having your own opinion that you've gotten to the point where you really think that posting a bunch of someone else's rhetoric is the same thing as having a point of view.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him"
That is a condition. God's love is not unconditional.
Comments
The main thing with Christianity is that it is bread to spread. You're not a good Christian if you're not turning souls over to God's side and enforcing your beliefs on everyone. I'd rather calmly read their 'truth' on a forum than get involved with someone trying to stubbornly win over your soul.
He asked for opinions... well, he got one.
And I suppose I must be mistaken. I was under the impression that a good Christian was someone who took the teachings of Jesus Christ to heart and applied those lessons to his or her everyday life. You know, that whole Blessed are the Peace Maker and the meek stuff. I was not aware that converting others to conform to their belief system was part of the deal.
The center of this specific debate is Evolution versus Creationism. The original post attempts to disregard Evolution as the science it is today and to present Creationism as a legitimate science. I find fault with that because Creationsim is a religious aspect and is not a science. I personally believe that Creationsim belongs in the church, not in the public schools... not in America. We are granted the right to religion... the religion of our choice, not the religion mandated by the state. And with that freedom to choose our religion, it includes the choice of rejecting all religion.
I do not expect anyone to listen to me... I simply express what I feel. I don't expect anyone to adapt my belief nor do I try to disuade someone of theirs. But, I will point out descrepencies in their arguements if they should crop up. I accept other people's beliefs because imagine it comforts them in times of uncertainty, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
That's why I believe personal faith as 'personal'. But, if you get bonus points for converting souls... well... I would advise the good Christians that I am not a likely candidate for assimilation. I have my God already. I find Him when I sit on the beach and watch the Sun set to the sound of the surf, not in the pews of a church, mosque or temple or the pages of a book. He loves me and His love for me has no strings attached... regardless of how I fuck things up or question the religions that were created in His name. My God also loves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists and Atheists... basically all good, descent human beings. He does not discriminate against those who question Him... do not subscribe to Religion X or even do not believe in him. My God is not such a narcissist.
But, that's just me.
Hail, Hail!!!
According to the Bible, God is one God, three persons. The way I see it, He's complicated because He's God. And because of that I'm not surprised by any of the Bible's claims about Him or what He did in the past.
Surely God loves everyone, and more than likely it's people who reject God, not the other way around. God the Son chose to live out the gospel on earth in order to do away with the Old Covenant and provide an adequate sacrafice for the sins of mankind. Yes, sin is serious. Considering all that Jesus did and suffered through for mankind, I believe it's perfectly reasonable for God the Father to not settle for any less than the religion He designed with Christ's act of compassion at the center. Afterall, this faith is a free gift to those who will receive it.
I did give some of the other reasons for my faith. Anyway, I do find it remarkable what the early Christians submitted themselves to in Nero's day (and other periods) for their faith; having their tongues cut out while their bodies were dipped in tar to burn alive as hanging lamps throughout cities, fed to lions, crucified, beheaded, etc. In addition, Bible manuscript burning campaigns were caried out by armies of various rulers. Despite all these tactics and outlawing of Christianity, in each case the manuscripts were preserved and Christianity continued to spread.
It's seems like I checked into some evidence for the theory in the past. Anyway, I'm still open-minded to old earth creationism.
In the past I read studies which seem to reveal the extreme inaccuracies of carbon dating (with an error margin of well over 100 million years) and other methods. I'm not exactly sure which web pages I read but here are a couple links on the subject: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
Here is some info on fossils that I thought was interesting:
Perhaps the classic argument against evolutionary theory comes from the fossilized remains of organisms found to have existed throughout time. If purely natural evolution has actually occurred in the past and all living organisms share a common ancestor then one ought to find the fossilized transitions between one form and another in the fossil record. However, it has been well known since Darwin's time that plausible "transitional fossils" rarely exist:
"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)
Out of tens of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be Darwin's missing transitional forms. However, a close analysis of these few fossils (commonly cited ones are Archaeopteryx (a bird), Ambulocetus (a land mammal), and Acanthostega (an amphibian)) reveal that they do not shed any light on the origin of the important features of their respective groups. Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould said,
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould, 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)
Gould proposed a theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium" which is meant to account for the lack of transitional forms, saying we dont find transitional forms because transitions didnt have a chance to be fossilized. But punctuated equilibrium does not fit with the workings of genetics--too much biological complexity must be built with far too few rolls of the dice. The lack of transitional forms remains unaccounted for and is a strong evidence against evolution. See Phillip Johnsons, "Darwin on Trial" for a good account of problems with the fossil record.
You're looking at it from a Christian slant. Some of us do not agree that Jesus was the physical form of what we consider God. The exclusivity of religion bothers me. That's why I'm on the metaphorical fence in a lot of ways. (metaphorical was a wasted word...I'm not actually sitting on a fence
So is this an argument against evolution? Is that what this thread is about? And if it is, who cares? I don't see how those ideas can't come together. Literal interpretation of the bible seems intellectually weak.
Someone also mentioned Pat Robertson in this thread. I'm not going to doubt his Christianity but there are some Christian morons in the world who dull the image of Christianity... He's way off the deep end about certain spritual gifts existing when they ceased long ago, believing Israel is solely God's chosen people under the New Conenant and the U.S. being judged by God for siding with Pakistan, etc. Respected teachers (though not really theologians) within Christianity would include Hank Hanagraaf, John McArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Micheal Easley, etc.
I know what you mean, but it would be a lot of work typing 'this is what I believe' before or after each statement
Well, it wasn't free for Christ. He paid a price. Christians can't earn salvation though, so it's free to those who have faith in Christ. This is what I believe
Carbon dating is a method that is only applicable to fossils less than 60 000 years old. Wherever you read about the 100 million year error margin needs a fairly basic lesson in both science and maths.
The principles of radiometric dating are very scientifically sound. The same understanding of the atomic processes that guide radiometric dating are also used today in electronics, medicine and many other fields. Adjustments may well be made to the hypthesized age of the earth, but it is definately a lot closer to 4.54 billion years than it is to 6000 years.
I would be curious as to what errors/innacuracies you have discovered in the god delusion... Perhaps there are some mis-interpretations of biblical texts, (although can you mis-interpret something that is open for interpretation?). Certainly the book has almost no scientific errors, (at least none that I could pick up).
Carbon dating is a method that is only applicable to fossils less than 60 000 years old. Wherever you read about the 100 million year error margin needs a fairly basic lesson in both science and maths.
Maybe it was another method I was thinking of or maybe I was just off on the figure. I was in over my head making that statement because it has been about four years or more since I did any studying on the methods. I'm guessing the two links I posted were some that I read back then. I scanned over those links again last night. Those authors seem to have a bone to pick about carbon dating and other methods for some reason. That's all I know about the subject other than what you've explained.
I would be curious as to what errors/innacuracies you have discovered in the god delusion... Perhaps there are some mis-interpretations of biblical texts, (although can you mis-interpret something that is open for interpretation?). Certainly the book has almost no scientific errors, (at least none that I could pick up).[/quote]
You could probably find more thorough answers to that at equip.org than I could give. I will say that he had no basis at all for labeling Jesus as a false prophet. I hinted as to why in a previous post but it would take hours of typing for a full explanation. In short, he can't rightfully focus on one method of eschalogical interpretation and claim Jesus errored, when there are multiple eschalogical methods of interpretation which use Jesus' statement in multiple ways.
Whilst I have read the bible, I would be in no position to argue the interpretation of it. As an atheist I am interested in the history of the bible, but don't see it as infallible and therefore don't have much of an opinion on the correct interpretation of it.
I was more interested in any supposed scientific errors. Dawkins may stir controversy with his interpretation of the bible, but as a scientist and a scientific writer he is excellent... especially in the area of evolutionary biology.
In the end a scientist is probably not going to convince belivers that their is no god by criticizing the bible/koran etc... Just as a believer is unlikely to convince an atheist that there is a god by discounting scientific theories just because they contradict the bible.
Thanx... but, no thanx. I tried Christianity... a couple of times... it's an acquired taste that I never was able to acquire. Too much of that "I have the answers... I know the Truth" stuff, but never answer any of my questions. I have found that I'm better off on my own... because no one else knows.
Hail, Hail!!!
I bet all or most of your questions could be answered after reading two short and cheap books by Hank Hanagraaf, found at http://www.equip.org : The Bible Answer Book Vol. 1, The Bible Answer Book Vol. 2. Just throwing that out there.
I think you're right.
While it isn't obvious to some, it's obvious to others that a belief in god is not required to be moral, humble, and to endeavor towards self-improvement.
So, why is it that some people believe they can only achieve those states of mind with the help of hocus pocus magic cookbooks? And why is it that they never realize that they aren't actually achieving those states of mind?
Those are the questions that need to be answered, and as society progresses, I can only hope that they will be answered before it's too late -before the inherent immorality of religion consumes any hope for mankind to realize that they themselves, without the aid of make-believe magic fairytales, are capable of existing on a universal plain alongside with infinite wisdom, understanding, and the progression of species.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Oh boy... someone else who has all the answers... knows the truth.
And it was in a book the whole time.
Hail, Hail!!!
Religion divides people, some of us will go to heaven, others will be sent to hell. Believers want to save me, and therein lies the catch. They want to save my life, or rather life-after-death. I don't want to be put in the roll of a victim, a poor fool who can be saved by someone with superior knowledge.
It's an insult.
naděje umírá poslední
The Prodigal Son - Luke 15. 11-32
And he said, A certain man had two sons:
And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants
And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
And bring hither the fatted calf, 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 elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing.
And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and entreated him.
And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
There are some creationism scientists worth checking out, as well as some highly respected cross over scientists. Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" could be a starting point, but finding the names of cross overs would require a seperate search.
Not sure what this has to do with Creationism versus Evolution... but...
That story of the Prodigal Son... I've heard it before and I've had it explained to me... but, i still have questions that remain unanswered.
The thing is... you MUST return to the Father... you must be FOUND... in order to recieve the Father's love. He does not care if you've been alley catting around with whores and doing lines of cocaine off their asses... as long as you come home. But, shouldn't the Father's love be unconditional? Shouldn't he love us, no matter how screwed up we are? or does it mean we all get to Heaven... no matter what? You... me... Ghandi... Ted Bundy... Hitler?
Okay. But, in your absense, you are DEAD to Him. Doesn't quite make sense to me. I mean, when your kid runs off to male prostitute camp where he shoots heroin with junkies and robs and steals to get more smack... is he dead to you? Isn't he still your son? Or do you only love him when he returns home and goes to rehab, straightens up his act and marries Emmy Lou from across the street? In this story... what if the Prodigal Son returns home as a pimp with a bunch of whores and a years supply of canned hams? No merriment for him? What happens if he leaves again? I know, he stays by his Father's side having seen the error of his ways... and they lived happily ever after. But, come on... you don't think he's replaying those nights of doing 3 whores at a time in his head.
And I do get the gist of the story... the son HAS to confess his sins and ask forgiveness... but, shouldn't the Father love him... regardless of his major fuck-ups? Like the person who 'sins' by converting to Islam (or worse, Mormonism)... does God only accept him if he forsakes his Muslim religion and accepts Christianity? That line of reasoning allows a son to go out and commit horrible acts against Mankind... such as murdering 6 million people in death camps... and confesses his sins in his bunker and asks for forgiveness and the Father accepts him. See? It doesn't make sense to me.
And what about the older son? This guy is loyal to the Father... and does not know the Father loves him? Does the sone take his Father's love for granted? Was his younger brother dead to him?
They are nice stories with good messages, but trying to apply them to explain the nature of God... especially in today's times... well, they just don't equate. It's like the guy who murders a prostitute gets a free 'Get out of Hell' card if he finds Jesus during his stay in prison. The 23 year old prostitute that was murdered before she was given the chance to confess her sins... not so lucky.
So, you see... the story probably makes perfect sense to you... and I hope you are inspired by it as it relates to your beliefs. Just as I'm sure the Qoran has similar stories of inspiration.
...
That's why I'm out here on my own... because I don't know. I WANT to know... but, I don't. I also know that I will probably never know... and neither will anyone else. All we can do is live our lives as best we can... and we should treat everyone... Christians, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Aetheists and yes... even Mormons with respect regarding their beliefs.
Hail, Hail!!!
this is why athiests are cynical towards religions....Christianity for the most part....
Honestly, I really dont like putting down people's beliefs.....I really dont....but its the bible quoting that REALLY makes my skin crawl.
Why not just quote Aesop's fables. those have good "Morals of the Story", too.
Bottom line, whatever makes you sleep better at night....go with that.
Nuclear fission
Nuclear fission
I have known several aetheists... who are the kindest, most caring and giving people I know. Religion does not corner the market on positive human traits.
and if you look at it from this perspective... Christians (religious folk) do good thing in this life because God and Jesus sees what they are doing. Aetheists do good thing in this life... just because.
If God and Jesus are watching... do they note a difference?
...
peace... love... surf... that's all you need.
Hail, Hail!!!
That story of the Prodigal Son... I've heard it before and I've had it explained to me... but, i still have questions that remain unanswered.
The thing is... you MUST return to the Father... you must be FOUND... in order to recieve the Father's love.
I feel kinda overwhelmed cuz I just lost a long post. Anyway, let's look at this for a minute. The Bible contains the following statements and many others similar to them:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him"
"But God demonstrates His own love toward
us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift
by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God
displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith."
Also notice that the parable didn't mention the father loving the son only when he returned home.
He does not care if you've been alley catting around with whores and doing lines of cocaine off their asses... as long as you come home.
He does care. He knows that wild living can be detrimental to peoples' lives and that consequences often linger long past conversion.
But, shouldn't the Father's love be unconditional? Shouldn't he love us, no matter how screwed up we are?
It is. He does. I have heard Hank Hanagraaf explain it this way, "God isn't going to drag someone kicking and screaming against his/her will to eternity with Him.
or does it mean we all get to Heaven... no matter what? You... me... Ghandi... Ted Bundy... Hitler?
No, the Bible doesn't teach universalism.
Okay. But, in your absense, you are DEAD to Him. Doesn't quite make sense to me. I mean, when your kid runs off to male prostitute camp where he shoots heroin with junkies and robs and steals to get more smack... is he dead to you?
The focus here is on 'spiritual' death (spiritual death is eternal seperation from God but not a cessation of existance) and spiritual rebirth. Remember, this is a parable. Anyway, the Bible teaches that everyone is born with a need for spiritual rebirth through faith in Christ.
In this story... what if the Prodigal Son returns home as a pimp with a bunch of whores and a years supply of canned hams?
canned hams, huh?
What happens if he leaves again?
---
If a person has genuine faith, God will bring him/her back again.
I know, he stays by his Father's side having seen the error of his ways... and they lived happily ever after. But, come on... you don't think he's replaying those nights of doing 3 whores at a time in his head.
Change of heart can be a process. Certain experiences would make the process more difficult.
----
And I do get the gist of the story... the son HAS to confess his sins and ask forgiveness... but, shouldn't the Father love him... regardless of his major fuck-ups? Like the person who 'sins' by converting to Islam (or worse, Mormonism)... does God only accept him if he forsakes his Muslim religion and accepts Christianity?
Faith in Christ is how a person's sin problem is dealt with. Islam offers no savior and therefore no solution. Contrary to Islam and the other religions, throughout the Bible it's taught that we can't earn salvation. Here's one example from the Old Testament:
4 For since the beginning of the world
Men have not heard nor perceived by the ear,
Nor has the eye seen any God besides You,
Who acts for the one who waits for Him.
5 You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways.
You are indeed angry, for we have sinned—
In these ways we continue;
And we need to be saved.
6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.
7 And there is no one who calls on Your name,
Who stirs himself up to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us
That line of reasoning allows a son to go out and commit horrible acts against Mankind... such as murdering 6 million people in death camps... and confesses his sins in his bunker and asks for forgiveness and the Father accepts him.
Are you refering to the Catholic crusades? It's true what one person in this thread mentioned, that man's erroring ways can't be blamed on God. But I'm an advocate of Christianity, anyway, not Catholicism.
And what about the older son? This guy is loyal to the Father... and does not know the Father loves him? Does the sone take his Father's love for granted? Was his younger brother dead to him?
I took some paragraphs from http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/91-3 to help give you an understanding of legalism, false religions, and how the two relate to the older brother in this parable. I'll post them.
The 23 year old prostitute that was murdered before she was given the chance to confess her sins... not so lucky.
God draws people and knows the end of each person's days. He has good timing. People have plenty of oppurtunities. And remember, today there's a church on about every street corner, Bibles on many store shelves, the internet, sermons on radio and t.v., Christians who witness, etc.
"And he says to him, verse 27, "Oh, your brother has come." Oh-oh, that should have filled his heart with joy. That should have been enough that after that was said he rushed in because he knew how his brother's life had started out when he left. He must have been so anxious and excited to find out how that whole thing had ended up. He knew his father's heart had been broken when his brother left. He knew how he regularly looked for him and longed for him. If he loved his father at that point, he would have immediately run in. But it really was fear that his brother would come back. "Your brother has come and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound." His worst fears, his brother came back, oh, and his father...what?...received him."
This outrageous conduct is more than this older brother can bear. Look at the phrase "safe and sound," that's a funny thing, isn't it? An Old English colloquialism that seems to last in our modern translations. It's actually hugiaino in the Greek from which we get hygiene and it basically means wholeness, well-being. But in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, that word is almost always connected to Shalom which means...what?...peace. That's really what he's saying. It's not that he's not physically hurt, it's not limited to that. He's received him back in peace. This is not just good health, this is Shalom, this is peace of a full reconciliation between a father and son. It isn't his son came back and the father told him to sit at the edge of town for a week and think about what he had done until he gained a right to talk to his father and then he'd give him the things he needed to do to earn back his reconciliation. Not that. The father received him and he received him in Shalom, he's made peace. Shalom forever. That's why there's a party. There wouldn't be a party if he had come back and had to work for the next twenty years. This...this is the worst possible scenario because now the father is using his resources on this party. The son has already depleted the whole family treasury by taking his half, selling cheaply and leaving which meant that that whole thing couldn't grow so that the older son when the father did die would have more. Now he's back depleting more of our family resources. And the foolish father is using those resources on him. The son is the favorite guest at the banquet but the banquet is really in honor of the father. The town is there to celebrate a father who's that merciful and gracious and kind and loving in reconciling. You see, that's the picture of heaven's joy. And a legalist who thinks you earn your way to heaven doesn't understand that God's joy is found in justifying the ungodly, that God's joy is found in forgiving the sinner who is bankrupt and has nothing. The older son, that's why his worst fears have come true. His brother's back, his father has embraced him, this is outrageous. And for the first time in the story the Pharisees are saying, "Yep, that's exactly the right attitude, that's exactly what he should feel. He should be outraged. We are outraged. This whole story is just one outrage after another."
And so he can't be a part of a shameful event. His son has shamed himself. His father has continually shamed himself. He's gotten the whole community involved in this shameful celebration. And he's not going to be a part of it, verse 28, "He became angry and was not willing to go in."
Of course not. Boy, I'm reminded of Matthew 23, "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the Kingdom of Heaven from men and you do not enter in yourselves or do you allow those who are entering to go in." You don't have any way into that Kingdom because your understanding of salvation is so warped. That was perhaps the most significant indictment in the Matthew 23 diatribe against them, that they did not enter the Kingdom and nor where they leading anyone else into it. Later in that same chapter He said, "Outwardly you appear righteous to men, inwardly you're full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Hypocrites are all sinners on the inside because hypocrisy has no way to constrain the flesh internally.
Of course he wouldn't go in. He hated the idea of grace. He resented this mercy and this instant reconciliation.
It's amazing. It says in verse 28, "And his father came out and began entreating him." Here we see God the initiator again. Here we see God in Christ the seeker, just as in the case of the younger son, the father came down out of his house and ran right down to the middle of town for all to see, bearing the scorn and the shame of the embarrassment of violating public common conventional behavior. And he did it to embrace the sinner and protect him from the shame. Here the father leaves the festival, goes out and does what you would never expect God to do, beg a sinner, beg a hypocrite. But He is the one who seeks to save the lost.
When the information, obviously, about the older son reaches the father, the word comes to him that his son is on the outside and he's not going to come in. He now knows he has his second rebel son and we're now going to find out how God feels about religious hypocrites. What they would have expected...what they would have expected was that the father would be absolutely insulted by this. It is a blatant insult. It is an utter disregard for the father's honor, the father's joy, the brother's well-being. He shows himself as having no love for either of them. And the traditional Middle Eastern response would be to take the son and give him a public beating for such dishonor. But nothing goes the way you'd think it's going to go in this story. It's just one breach of perceived honor after another after another, after another, after another. But instead of the father ordering him to be beaten and locked in a room somewhere until he can be dealt with, the insulted dishonored father comes out. And he starts begging him. Here he shows up again in condescension. Here he shows up again in mercy. Here he shows up again in compassion and love and humility and kindness, leaves the party, comes out, goes into the night with everybody watching and the buzz sure is going to go through and they know what's going on. Another act of selfless love kindly toward this son in the same way that he ran to embrace the younger son. He goes out in mercy and he reaches to the hypocrite the same way he reached to the rebel.
I want you to notice the word "entreating" there. It says that he began entreating him, parakaleo, that's a very, very common word, it's actually a word that comes in a noun form. The paraclete meaning the Holy Spirit, the one who comes alongside, entreating is to come alongside to speak to, to come right alongside someone. That is he comes right out and goes alongside his son. And he pleads with him, and he calls him to come to the kingdom, to come to his house, to come to the celebration. And this son with whom the Pharisees and scribes are so clearly identified should have brought them face-to-face with themselves and their complete ignorance of the father whom they said they served. Oh, they were in the house, they were around, they were the religious ones, they were the dutiful ones, they were the moral ones. But they didn't know God, they didn't know the heart of God. They had no understanding of the joy of God. They had no interest in the recovery of lost sinners. They refused to honor God for saving grace which has always been the way God saved. They see Jesus, in fact, as satanic. And as Jesus said in John 5:23, "If they honored the Father, they would honor Me." They refused to go in.
Everybody would take a breath there. Ahhhh! I mean, even the prodigal came back and said, "Father, father," just as he had said father at the beginning when he asked him for his estate. You don't address your father, "Look..." There's no title. There's no respect. And then he says, "For so many years I have been serving you," douleuo, slave language, doulos.
"For so many years I have been your slave." Now there's a legalist mentality. That's a no-fun posture, no joy. And what it indicates is that in the heart of this guy he has seen this as a horrible, grit-your-teeth, grind your way through these years and years of slugging out your slavery to this guy so that when he finally dies you can get what you're after. He was no different than the younger son. He wanted what he wanted, he just had a different way to get it. He didn't have the courage of his younger brother. He didn't have, you might say, the shootsbah(??), moxie. Now he decided the safe ground was to hang around and wait till the father dies and then get it. It's all nothing but slavery to him...bitter, resentful, angry for so many years. And he piles on the descriptives.
And then if you want to know the self-image of a hypocrite, here it is. "And I have never neglected a command of yours." Wow! Now if that isn't the language of a self-righteous hypocrite, I don't know what is. Who does that sound like? It sounds like the rich young ruler, doesn't it? It sounds exactly like the rich young ruler. Matthew 19, Luke 18 where Jesus says, "Here are the commandments," and he responds by saying, "I've kept all those. I've kept all those." Here is the proud hypocrite. Here is the guy who because he has done good is under the illusion that he is good, because he has done good for self-satisfaction and pride he has buried the truth of who he is deep, because he has done good for satisfaction and pride as a way to earn salvation, he has pushed it so far down that he can't even touch it any longer, it's completely buried in his subconscious. And he lives with this illusion that he has never ever neglected a command that his father had given him. There is the amazing self-deception of a hypocrite. He's perfect. I'm perfect, which is to say to the father, "And look, buddy, you're not. I am perfect. I understand what perfection is. I understand what perfect righteousness is and perfect justice and I know what perfect honor is and I know how you're supposed to behave and you're in violation of it. Again and again you're in violation of it. You took him back, you ran, you shamed yourself. You protected him from shame. You forgave him. You embraced him. You kissed him. You gave him full sonship. You gave him honor. You gave him authority. You gave him responsibility. You hold this massive celebration for an absolutely unworthy sinner. I'm perfect and you're not."
By the way, this is why Paul went around killing Christians because he hated grace. It was Paul, you remember, in Philippians 3 who says, "Blameless according to the law, that's how I live my life, under the illusion that I was absolutely blameless and these Christians with their message of grace were violators of God's holy law." And he went everywhere he could breathing threatening and slaughter and imprisoning and killing them.
He has no love for the father. He has no interest in the father's love for his younger brother. He has no desire to share in his father's joy. He has no joy period in anything. But he's still perfect and needs no repentance. How about that? What a classic illustration of a hypocrite. Angry, bitter, slave mentality, I've done all this to get what I expect to get, but he sees himself as perfect and needing no repentance. You want to know something? Nobody goes into the Kingdom of God without repentance. This is classic hypocrisy. His heart is wretched. His heart is wicked. His heart is alienated. His heart is selfish and he's blind to spiritual reality. And again, here are the Pharisees and the scribes, here's the religious sinner in the home of God, in the house of God, if you will, making a public display of affection for God, wearing clerical garb, or attending a certain kind of ritual, certain religious activities, moral on the public front, outwardly good, outwardly obeying the law, keeping all the rules. But no relationship to God. No concern for the honor of God. No joy. No understanding of grace.
The son isn't finished. He's going to dig his claws deeper into his father whom he sees as a sinner. He sees his father as a violator of righteous standards of which he is the source and says to him this. "I have never neglected a command of yours and yet you have never given me a kid, or a goat, that I might be merry with my friends. I've been the worker and I don't even get a goat. He's done nothing for you and he gets the fattened calf. This is not fair. This is not equitable. This is not just. This is not righteous."
You know what the son is really saying? "Father, I don't need to ask you for forgiveness, I haven't done anything. But I'll tell you something, you need to ask me for forgiveness for what you've done." That is the outrage of hypocrisy. That is the outrage of legalism. It demands that God forgive us for a violation of our understanding. He thinks the father needs to ask him for forgiveness.
And the Pharisees are going to identify with him. Yeah, this is right, this is the right posture. This is outrageous conduct by the father. The father is the culprit. The father is the bad guy here,. The son is a bad guy, son number one, sure he's a bad guy, the younger son, but the father's really the bad one, he's the one who has completely violated all conventional standards of respect and honor.
The son gives himself away a little bit here, he says...because he says, "You've never given me a kid that I might be merry with my friends." MY friends. He's accusing the father of favoritism and he's accusing the father of an unjust favoritism. But he's also pointing out the fact that when he has a party, it's not going to include his brother, it's not going to include his father. He lives in a completely different world. He has a completely different group of friends. He's at home but he has no relationship to the family. All his friends are outside the family. He parties with those who thinks the way he thinks. He parties with those who have no connection to the father. He doesn't understand the father's love, compassion, kindness, mercy, forgiveness and joy. He has no fellowship with the father. He is angry, resentful, jealous, envious, impenitent, and greedy. He thinks he's worked as a slave so long and what has he gotten? Nothing. And when he does get what he wants, it's not going to be a celebration with the family because he has no relationship to them. His father is nothing more than a slave master. He's going to have his party with his buddies. So classic in his description of the Pharisees who associated only with themselves, as we have seen in other texts.
This is the time when the older brother wishes the father were dead, probably wished it a lot if this were a real person. But in the story it comes out. "I haven't had my party. I haven't had anybody kill a kid for me so that I could have a party with my friends." He doesn't care about his father and now his father is wasting assets on this other son, a wicked son who by his own admission is unworthy. If his father was just dead, all of this would be over. If his father was just dead, then he would possess everything and he could start the party with his own buddies. Get the father out of the picture and everything is good, everything is as it should be, everything is honorable again. Let's get back to an honorable world here. We've got to get rid of all this shameful stuff.
How did he know...how did he know that he had used all that money with harlots? Because Jesus said he knew in the story. Just a little insight that tells us more about the behavior of the first son in the story and there, of course, characters that Jesus has fabricated. And so this is part of the story. This is to emphasize again that this man has lived as low as low gets. Add that to all the rest of the horror of his behavior. Some people have suggested that he made this up just out of scorn. But there's nothing in the text that says that. We assume that if Jesus puts it in his mouth, it was a reflection of what Jesus wanted us to know about the behavior of the younger son.
So here is something juxtaposed against a celebration that's pretty stark. You've got a celebration going on with music and dancing and the younger son and the feast and it's just a high time of joy. And out in the dark of the night you've got this horrific assault going on and the older brother is attacking the virtue, the integrity, the character of his father. All that he had kept in for all those years explodes out of him, all that fake respect and honor is gone. The facade is off. The cover is blown. And while they're all inside honoring that father, he's on the outside heaping contempt on him. This is the Pharisees. They saw themselves as righteous. They saw themselves as just. They therefore sat in judgment on God in Christ and they condemned Jesus for His mercy, compassion, love, and the gospel of grace. And the Pharisees would see this older brother, yeah, and this is righteous indignation, this is for finally in the story we have somebody who holds up honor.
You know, in his mind a Pharisee would think that son should be dead. If you spend your money on harlots, you get killed. Deuteronomy 21:18 to 21, you get stoned to death. He should be dead. Instead of dead, look at the party. This is incongruous. This is outrageous. This is shameful, everything about it. It's a shameful reaction by the son who is looking at the whole thing as shameful.
By the way, a little note here. You killed the fattened calf for him...not really...not really. The fattened calf wasn't really killed for the son, he was killed for the father. The father is the one who gives the credit...gets the credit, I should say, he's the reconciler. He determines who is going to be reconciled and under what terms. He's the one who ran and embraced and kissed. It really was a celebration of the father. But his anger has completely blinded him. And he has no knowledge of his father. The father is the main figure at the feast. The father is the one they're all honoring for such loving forgiveness. And the people will accept the younger son because it's against convention to accept him. It would be against the norm to accept him back under those conditions. But they will because the father has. And so it's really the father who is being celebrated, just as in the end, in heaven, the joy of heaven, the eternal joy of the angels and all the redeemed that gather around the throne of God and even the joy of God is the joy that comes to God Himself for being the reconciler. When we go to heaven, the direction of our praise isn't going to be toward the sinners, it's going to be toward the Savior.
So here is this great feast and all the celebration honoring the father. And here at the same time is this son who heaps dishonor on the father simultaneously. It's the picture, the party symbolizes all the sinners who have collected around God to honor Him for their salvation. And outside are the Pharisees who are heaping scorn upon the Father God in Christ.
Then there's a shameful response. From another angle, verse 31, "He said to him, 'My child, you've always been with me, all that's mine is yours.'" What a tender response. That would be...that would be shameful in the eyes of the villagers. They would say, "Wait, you should finally somebody slap this guy. I mean, enough is enough, this mercy is getting a little over the top here. Please." But he says, "My child," teknon, eight times in this section huios, the more formal word for son. Tekna, my boy, my child, it's speaking in grieving, painful, agonizing, compassionate love and mercy. He speaks to him in endearing terms and that's the heart of God toward a wretched hypocrite. Wow, is there any question about God being a loving, compassionate Savior? The son uses no title, no respect. The son attacks the virtue, the integrity, the justice and the righteousness of the father. The son is saying in effect, "You need to be forgiven by me for the outrageous and unjust and dishonorable conduct that you have perpetrated." And here you see the patience of God with the sinners, even hypocrites. Sometimes, you know, it's easier to be patient with prodigals than it is with hypocrites. I will confess that. We all love a great story about a wicked, outrageous sinner who is converted, but we aren't nearly as excited about a hypocrite that's converted. And, of course, that's even more rare. People who are in false religion don't come as often. In fact, this is a footnote, it never say sin all four gospels that a Pharisee believed on Jesus and was saved. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and it implies that he came. Later on, Paul the Pharisee, was saved on the Damascus road, those are the only two. But he says to him, "Look, my child," endearing terms. "You've been around."
The father knows he's estranged. You've been around here superficially. Everything has always been available, it's all here. I always think of that when I think of people who misinterpret the Scripture. You know, cults, false religions, it's here. It's all here. You've always had it. If you ever wanted a relationship with Me, I was here and everything I have was here. And look what he says, "All that is mine is yours. I don't ever have to split it up." And here's the picture of the magnanimity of God and the endlessness of His grace and His resources, it's all for all who come to Him. It will never be yours with your attitude. It will never be yours by works. You'll never earn it. But it's here if you ever want to establish a relationship with Me.
And verse 32 goes back to the main theme. "We had to be merry and rejoice. We had to." It's not like we had an option. "For this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live and was lost and has been found." We had no choice...why? This is what causes joy to God. This is heaven's joy. It can't be restrained. It can't be delayed. It can't be postponed. It can't be subdued. It can't be mitigated. It can't be lessened. Divine joy is released when one sinner repents and is reconciled. And heaven's joy will be released not just for a prodigal, not just for someone who's immoral and irreligious and blatantly sinful, but for secret sinners, rebels, the religious, the moral, the hypocrites, the ones whose lawlessness is all on the inside. God is saying here, Christ is saying, "I go out into the street for the prodigal and I go out into the courtyard for you. I humble Myself and take on public shame for the prodigal. And I humble Myself and take on public shame for you. I come with compassion and love and forgiveness and I am ready to embrace you and to kiss you and to give you full sonship with all its privileges, not just if you're the prodigal, but even if you're the hypocrite." He's really inviting him to salvation. You can come to the party if you choose, if you recognize your true spiritual condition, if you come home you can take possession of everything that's always been there.
The younger son was overwhelmed with his father's grace. Immediately confessed his sin, confessed his unworthiness in the very most magnanimous ways and he received instantaneous forgiveness, reconciliation, sonship all the rights and privileges that the father had at his disposal to give. He entered into the celebration of the father's joy, that is eternal salvation. And as I've been saying, that joy goes on in heaven forever.
The older son, the same tenderness, the same kindness, the same mercy, offered the same grace, reacts with bitter resentment, attacks the virtue, the integrity of the father. And his father makes one final appeal. "My child, it's all here. We had to celebrate, implied, and we will celebrate for you too if you come."
And it stops in verse 32, isn't that strange? What do you have hanging in your mind right now? Do you have a question there? I do. This is not an ending. What happened? Right? What did he do. You don't end a story without an ending, it's...and I guess this is another one of a series of shocks. After all of this you're waiting, you're waiting, you're waiting and it stops. And, you know, if you had been listening to the whole thing you'd say, "Come on." It's like a joke with no punch line that lasts a long time. We're all saying the same thing, what did he do? What did the older son do? The guests are all there. They're waiting. They know what's going on outside because the word is going in. What did he do? The guests are waiting, they want to know if he comes in. Having embraced and kissed his older son who repented, they want to know if he humbled himself, if he fell down before his father and sought grace for his long hypocrisy and bitter service. They want to know if he was forgiven and reconciled and they would love to see the father come in with his arm around his son, bringing him to the head table and sitting him next to his brother. Wouldn't that be great?
Now that's...you know, there are a lot of stories like this, you just sort of write your own ending. By the way, just from a technical standpoint. The story is divided into two halves. The first half has eight stanzas and they feature the younger brother. The second half has eight stanzas and they...has seven stanzas, I should say, and they feature the older brother. It should be eight and eight, but it's eight and seven. And in the symmetry of the story there's a lot of technical things that show you the symmetry of the story that I haven't pointed out, but you have eight and then all of a sudden strangely you have seven. And so even in hearing the story, reading the story you would say it should be eight and eight, because that would be the symmetry that would be designed into that kind of Middle Eastern prose. The end isn't there. There's one section missing.
Now I would love to write one. I think maybe this would be good, "And the older son fell on his knees before his father saying, 'I repent for my loveless cold service, my pride and selfishness. Forgive me, father, make me a true son, take me to the feast.' At which point the father embraced and kissed him, took him in and seated him at his table by his brother and all rejoiced in the sons who had been reconciled to their loving father."
I like that. Or maybe another shorter one. "The son seeing his father's love, compassion and grace came to his senses about his wicked heart, was humbled, repented and reconciled."
But you know what? I don't get to write the end. Who wrote the end? The Pharisees wrote the end. Here's the end they wrote. "And the older son being outraged at his father, picked up a piece of wood and beat him to death in front of everyone." That's the ending they wrote. That's the cross and that's what they did just a few months after this. And, by the way, congratulated themselves on their righteous act that preserved the honor of Israel and Judaism and true religion and God. Let's pray.
What an ironic thing it is, God, that the father should have beaten the son, is beaten by the son to death in the greatest act of evil the world has ever seen. And yet, and yet, O God, out of that horrible ending of killing Your Son with wood came our redemption. The final shameful resolution of the story is the cross but out of that You have wrought our redemption for on that cross He died to bear our sins and what the leaders of Israel meant for evil, You meant for good. We thank You for this glorious salvation.
While your heads are bowed for just a moment. I don't know where you see yourself in this story, we're all there, either you're the open sinner or the hidden one, or some degree of that, or you're restored to the Father and you really do identify with the Father's heart. You're one of those folks at the party. You have gathered around Him as one of the redeemed to celebrate. I hope that's true. But if you're still estranged from God living in sin, or estranged from God living in secret lawlessness, corrupt on the inside, come to the Father who has borne shame for you, who has come down and run the gauntlet to embrace you and protect you from the shame you deserve, who has come out into the night, who's left his throne to plead with a hypocrite, this is our gracious and good God who delights in mercy and finds His joy in forgiveness."
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
That is a condition. God's love is not unconditional.
naděje umírá poslední