The Prodigal Son for debate

[Divine Insight]

I just watched the video posted by Otseng in the Holy Huddle forum. It's a story I'm well familiar with.

However there appears to be a grave contradiction in this story. The obedient son who had become jealous at the end of the story was supposedly upset that his father had killed the fatted calf to celebrate the return of the prodigal son.

Buy then the father turns to is righteous son and says, "Everything I have is yours".

How is this not a contradiction? According to the story the righteous son was upset because his father wouldn't even give him a goat to share with his friends. (see video 3:15) But now the father is claiming that everything he has also belongs to his righteous son.

Is the son only just now being told that everything his father has is also his free for the taking? If that's true then what's up with him complaining that his father never gave him so much as a young goat?

These are the kinds of self-contradictions that tend to always plague the Biblical stories.

Sure, from a purely moral perspective, we can make some kind of moral justification for this tale as being nothing more than a moral parable. However, that doesn't change the fact that the parable contains serious contradictions.

The righteous Son in this story apparently felt that his father would not permit him to take a young goat and share it with his friends. In fact, the mere fact that the righteous son was so upset about this implies that the son had actually requested this in the past only to have his father deny him.

So the story appears to me to have some serious self-contradictions associated with it.

Question for debate: How is this parable not self-contradictory?

Note to Otseng: Great video production by the way. It's not your fault that the original story contains these contradictory inconsistencies. If what the father claimed was true (that he would deny nothing from the righteous son), then why would the righteous son have any reason to be jealous of the prodigal son?

The story shoots itself in its own foot with this extreme contradiction concerning the righteous Son. He was upset about something that supposedly didn't even exist. Supposedly he could have had a young goat to share with his friends anytime he wanted and apparently just didn't know. This seems a bit problematic to me.

[1213]

.
Okay. The Bible actually says, You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.

Perhaps some Apologists wish to make that into something OTHER than what it says.

Also, I think it is not even true that the consistency is that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him.

That is exactly what the biblical statement says " verbatim quote. Do you wish to change it into something else?

No, I dont need to change it to anything. Interesting thig is, it doesnt say worship God.

[1213]

You are basically claiming that this God has failed to communicate to me clearly via the Bible. You are claiming that I have a wrong view of what this God is about.
.

I hope all understand that I dont claim God has failed in anything. If you dont accept God and His will, I think it doesnt mean God has failed. God gave freedom and if some want to choose something else than Gods will, it is not Gods fail.

[1213]

I am just answering to your questions. Form my point of view it seems you are the one who needs this, not God.

Needs what?

Answers and explanations. Or are you just making rhetorical questions so that it would not look like you are preaching your own message here?

[Divine Insight]

I am just answering to your questions. Form my point of view it seems you are the one who needs this, not God.

Needs what?

Answers and explanations. Or are you just making rhetorical questions so that it would not look like you are preaching your own message here?

I know that Hebrew mythology is false. I've proven it beyond any reasonable doubt many times over. I know that apologists for this religion cannot give meaningful answers to the questions I ask. That's a given. The idea is to ask the questions so the readers can see that theists cannot answer them with rational answers.

I claim that I don't believe in this religion because it makes no sense and is filled with self contradictions.

You claim that this is because I don't understand the theology.

I point out that if your claim were true then two things would also need to be true.

1. I wouldn't be rejecting the true God, instead I would be rejecting a false picture of God.

And/or

2. God himself has failed to make himself clear.

Instead of recognizing the truth of the above, you simply use the standard Christian rhetoric of accusing me of willfully rejecting God.

But that doesn't hold water. In order for that to be true I would need to have a correct picture of God and reject that correct picture.

But at least you agree that I don't have a correct picture of what you believe God is like. Therefore either I am rejecting a false picture of God (which should be a good thing) or God has failed to make his true character known to me. In which case God is the failure, not me.

So your arguments for this failed theology don't hold water, and any readers who are capable of reasoning clearly should be able to see that.

To just claim that anyone who doesn't believe in the religion is rejecting God is to do nothing more than just regurgitate the failed apologies of this failed theology.

[otseng]

.

I would contend that the elder brother whose life looked righteous was in fact self righteous depending on religious observance and exactitude to gain favour with GOD who demands mercy not sacrifice.

Perhaps true.

It seems as though modern Christians are not immune to (or may be prone to) self-righteousness and claims of piety.

Opinions in Christendom seem to vary concerning what "God demands".

Yes, I would agree that modern Christians are prone to self-righteousness and claims of piety. I would also add churches are filled with people like the older brother.

[Replying to post 9 by otseng]

Actually, I don't believe the parable would have been made up by a typical mortal human.

Please give us the name of your implied non-mortal source.

Im not claiming it can only come from a non-mortal source. My point is that most peoples reactions would be what you described:

I thought the righteous son had every right to be miffed. I thought the prodigal son should have been accepted back at a much lower status.

The concept of Hell is one of the many unmarketable, embarrassingly unbelievable religious concepts that has been recently swept under the altar in the severely diluted quasi-belief system that passes for Christianity in certain circles.

Hell is definitely not an easy topic to understand. As far I know, even the apostle Paul never mentions it in any of his writings. So, its doubtful he fully understood it either.

I think most of our conceptions of hell (as well as heaven) come from outside the Bible. Or its a huge extrapolation of passages (such as the concept of purgatory).

But, Im not really qualified to speak much about it either and its not relevant to this thread.

Their only consistency is that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him.

Well, according to the story of the prodigal son, the father is exactly the opposite of what you just described.

I submit that it is not that the Bible is inconsistent, but your portrayal of God is what is incorrect.

Why we are even debating this religion in 2019 is beyond me.

Well, this is quite ironic coming from you. You are one of the most prolific posters here!

Exodus 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me"

Glad to help those who 'understand the Bible'

Yes, it does say that. But the next verse says:

Exodus 20:6
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

This is the only one in the 10 commandments that explicitly mentions some sort of discipline for disobedience. The Israelites were prone to worshipping idols since they were surrounded by them. And it was violating this that eventually led to their downfall.

I'm not an atheist. I'm a Christian who realized that I was being duped by a false religion that isn't even a model of morality.

You speak in the present tense. Do you mean you was a Christian?

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 35 by otseng]

Im not claiming it can only come from a non-mortal source.

I suggest we both know the non-mortal source you referenced.


You failed to nominate that non-mortal source.


I think I hear a cock about to crow .

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 35 by otseng]

Hell is definitely not an easy topic to understand.

Not so very long ago, Hell was a very easy topic for Christians to understand.


Some Christians still have no difficulty in understanding that very easy topic.


It's more that quasi-atheists who still call themselves Christians find it not an easy topic to sell ....

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 37 by SallyF]

Why is it easy to understand?

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight wrote:

I'm not an atheist. I'm a Christian who realized that I was being duped by a false religion that isn't even a model of morality.

You speak in the present tense. Do you mean you was a Christian?

What does it mean to be a Christian?

I was born and raised as a Christian. Doesn't that make me a Christian for the rest of eternity?

I think this actually addresses something that Richard Dawkins pointed out in his book The God Delusion. Children are labeled as Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Based on what their family is. They even treat the children of atheists as "atheists".

Dawkins points out the extreme tribalism of religious indoctrination.

So yes Otseng, I'm a Christian forever. I'm simply a Christian who finally woke up to the fact that religions are nothing more than man-made tribalism. They are designed specifically to be used to decide whether someone belongs to the tribe or not.

Religion is tribalism in it's most primal form.

This is why I prefer to be viewed as a human rather than one of these tribal labels.

When Christians use Christianity as a membership of tribe that only shows just how divorced they are from anything that Jesus taught.

Why we are even debating this religion in 2019 is beyond me.

Well, this is quite ironic coming from you. You are one of the most prolific posters here!

But we all know why I'm debating it. I'm debating it to try to show people why it's nothing more than indoctrinated tribalism that only serves to cause division in humanity.

Why are you debating for it? Obviously you must somehow believe that it's true.

This is what I have difficulty understanding. How can you continue to believe that it's true, especially after having seen and read all the obvious flaws this theology has via the posts in these forums over the years.

How can you not see that the constant apologies for the theology amount to nothing more than claiming that those who point out the flaws are simply "misunderstanding" what the theology is all about? That apology gets old real quick.

In fact, didn't you just use that on me in your post?

Yep, here it is,...

Divine Insight wrote:
Their only consistency is that this is a jealous God who will become angry with anyone who refuses to worship, love, and obey him

.

Well, according to the story of the prodigal son, the father is exactly the opposite of what you just described.

I submit that it is not that the Bible is inconsistent, but your portrayal of God is what is incorrect.

But how silly is that? Are you trying to tell me that the Bible doesn't have this God claiming to be a jealous God who will take out his wrath on those who don't believe in him and obey him?

You'd need to be in some serious denial about what's actually written in the Bible to take that position.

Besides, the apology that a non-believer is a non-believer because they have God all wrong actually vindicates the not-believer. This justifies their disbelief in God since they are being charged with rejecting a false image of God.

And why should they have a false image of God in the first place. There can only be two possible reasons for that.

1. The person is to stupid to understand God.

But that excuse can't work because God created the person who doesn't believe. Therefore if the person who doesn't believe is stupid, then God created a stupid person. No one can be blamed for that but the creator himself.

So that doesn't work.

2. God failed to convey his true nature with clarity.

But this then has God being an inept communicator who was incapable of correctly describing himself to all the objects of his creation.

So nothing works.

The only possible explanation left is that there simply is no God associated with this ancient dogma. And the reason the dogma is so self-contradictory and confused is precisely because it is nothing more than man-made rhetoric.

That explains everything.

There are no valid excuses for the theology if any actual God had anything to do with it. So recognizing it as the work of men is the only rational conclusion.

Continually accusing non-believers of misunderstanding God simply doesn't work.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 37 by SallyF]

Why is it easy to understand?

God has done everything necessary to rescue us from the penalty of our sins. We have the responsibility to respond to God's free offer of forgiveness by turning from our sin and relying on Jesus to forgive us and give us eternal life. The penalty for our sins must be paid. Those who do not accept Jesus and His work at the cross must pay this penalty themselves in hell for all eternity. http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/hell.html

They teach this simple concept in Sunday school.

And to help the indoctrination/brainwashing along, Christian kiddies can even colour in pictures of it



It's only difficult to understand (or see clearly) if certain folks are trying to hide it behind their backs.