TOTALLY GEEKED!

Let's say that you (general you) have 2 sons. One stays in the parents' small hometown and becomes a banker, living only a couple of blocks form the parents...checking on them, making sure their yard is mowed, getting them to and from Dr appts....

The other son joins the military right out of high school and is sent to war for 3-4 years.

Should there not be a welcome home party for the son that had been gone? The other brother has been the primary support. Should the "gone" son not have a party?

flan327 wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Growing up Catholic, I heard dozens of different sermons on this story.


Intellectually, I get it...but on an emotional level, no.


flan

---

 

What bothers you about it flan? In particular?

---

 The son who is loyal should be celebrated as well.

flan

---

But the son who is loyal IS celebrated every day, just quietly. The loyal son was jealous and he had no reason to be jealous. That is also part of the moral of the story.

---

 And that's where we disagree.

flan

---

So, exhibiting selfishness is okay? I don't get it.  

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Let's say that you (general you) have 2 sons. One stays in the small hometown and becomes a banker, living only a couple of blocks form the parents...checking on them, making sure they yard is mowed, getting them to and from Dr appts....

The other son joins the military right out of high school and is sent to war for 3-4 years.

Should there not be a welcome home party for the son that had been gone? The other brother has been the primary support. Should the "gone" son not have a party?

---

 Not the same. He took his inheritance & squandered it.

flan

---

AND..

Now finish it. 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

 

Ohfour wrote:

---

Let's say that you (general you) have 2 sons. One stays in the small hometown and becomes a banker, living only a couple of blocks form the parents...checking on them, making sure they yard is mowed, getting them to and from Dr appts....

The other son joins the military right out of high school and is sent to war for 3-4 years.

Should there not be a welcome home party for the son that had been gone? The other brother has been the primary support. Should the "gone" son not have a party?

---

 Not the same. He took his inheritance & squandered it.

flan

---

 

Yes. He did squander it. But, no repercussions.

---

Yes, he did suffer repercussions before he returned to his father, he ate with pigs! THEN he was forgiven when he TURNED from his sins and returned to his father. The whole story is about forgiveness and how our heavenly father wants us to return to him.

Gosh, I thought that was obvious. 

just Czech wrote:

---

I must be odd, but I have always been able to separate my intellectual thinking from my emotions. Unless it is something extremely personal.

Anyone else out there able to do that?

---

 I can. 

I have been told many times I am cold hearted because of it.

Truth is, I learned a long time ago the reacting and making decisions emotionally almost never turn out well.

chef wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Yes, it IS obvious.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

flan

---

 What's not to like about forgiveness?

---

Yeah, I'm confused on that one as well.  

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The prodigal son is about unconditional love. About forgiveness when it is not deserved. And about acceptance.

---

It's about what God does for us, period. 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

I dislike it too, flan.
It isn't about how the young son is treated. No one is disputing that he should be welcomed home.
It's that the son that stayed was taken for granted and his loyalty trivialized.

---

 That's what always struck me.

Maybe the other son wanted to travel & party, but he didn't.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

But the father has TWO sons.

flan

---

Yes, he has TWO sons, and he loves both of them. Not just one, but BOTH of them. 

flan327 wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

You know what always bothered me the most? That it didn't occur to the father or anyone else to tell the elder son that the brother was home and they were going to have a party. Seriously?

---

 That does send a message, Dona.

flan

---

In what way? The older son was not home when his brother returned. Did they have cell phones? Come on, that is not the message. 

flan327 wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

I dislike it too, flan.
It isn't about how the young son is treated. No one is disputing that he should be welcomed home.
It's that the son that stayed was taken for granted and his loyalty trivialized.

---

 That's what always struck me.

Maybe the other son wanted to travel & party, but he didn't.

flan

---

Good grief, the loyal son was not trivialized!

Where does it say that he was? It doesn't. 

Feelings verses reality? Good grief. 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

He was in the fields, working. Father had plenty of servants to throw a party, but not one to throw on a donkey to fetch brother in from the fields tottell him there was a party.

---

Does it say they knew what field he was working in? No, it doesn't. A servant may have been sent for him and had not found him yet. We don't know, because it doesn't say.

Before mass communication, how did people find out about events?

Yeah, it took days or weeks to send messages.

Again, feelings verses logic. 

just Czech wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

He was in the fields, working. Father had plenty of servants to throw a party, but not one to throw on a donkey to fetch brother in from the fields tottell him there was a party.

---

Does it say they knew what field he was working in? No, it doesn't. A servant may have been sent for him and had not found him yet. We don't know, because it doesn't say.

Before mass communication, how did people find out about events?

Yeah, it took days or weeks to send messages.

Again, feelings verses logic. 

---

 Feelings aren't important?

flan

chef wrote:

---

The idea that the older son should've been rewarded too just because the younger son was rewarded smacks of the attitude in today's society that squashes success and achievement just because someone else might get their feelings hurt.

---

 So LOYALTY is not important?

The younger son is rewarded for screwing up?!

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

The idea that the older son should've been rewarded too just because the younger son was rewarded smacks of the attitude in today's society that squashes success and achievement just because someone else might get their feelings hurt.

---

 So LOYALTY is not important?

The younger son is rewarded for screwing up?!

flan

---

 Did I say loyalty isn't important? No.

No. The younger son was rewarded for coming home, admitting his mistakes, and asking for forgiveness. This has been pointed out to you multiple times in this thread.

Ohfour wrote:

---

He got some...he obviously didnt get everything. The other son got the lions share...

---

 Nope:

The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ So he divided his wealth between them.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

He was in the fields, working. Father had plenty of servants to throw a party, but not one to throw on a donkey to fetch brother in from the fields tottell him there was a party.

---

Does it say they knew what field he was working in? No, it doesn't. A servant may have been sent for him and had not found him yet. We don't know, because it doesn't say.

Before mass communication, how did people find out about events?

Yeah, it took days or weeks to send messages.

Again, feelings verses logic. 

---

 Feelings aren't important?

flan

---

Feeling lead to victimhood. Logic does not.

So, IMHO, no. Especially when all the feelings are is a "woe is me attitude". The good son had nothing to be "woe is me" about. He was with his father and receiving his inheritance. So, he missed a party, that's a woe is me? Good grief.. 

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

He got some...he obviously didnt get everything. The other son got the lions share...

---

 Nope:

The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ So he divided his wealth between them.

flan

---

 He divided his current wealth at the time. The other brother got his share, plus the house, the land, and the servants. Wealth is not stagnant. Property and bounty are worth far more than money. Do you really not understand that?

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

He got some...he obviously didnt get everything. The other son got the lions share...

---

 Nope:

The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ So he divided his wealth between them.

flan

---

 He divided his current wealth at the time. The other brother got his share, plus the house, the land, and the servants. Wealth is not stagnant. Property and bounty are worth far more than money. Do you really not understand that?

---

 Are you assuming?

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lily:

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LARGE YOUR TEXT IS.

flan

---

 And yet, you capitalize your words, which is internet-ese for yelling. Lead by example.

---

 Guess what? I intended to yell.

flan

---

 Guess what? Maybe Lily used a larger font to make a point just as you used capitals to indicate yelling. You chastised Lily for using larger text yet you did the same thing. Pot, meet kettle.

---

 I am literally

flan

---

On another note, I find it interesting that you take exception with the Prodigal Son parable while being very much hypocritical in how you acted toward Lily on this thread. Does the Prodigal Son parable hit close to home for you?

chef wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lily:

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LARGE YOUR TEXT IS.

flan

---

 And yet, you capitalize your words, which is internet-ese for yelling. Lead by example.

---

 Guess what? I intended to yell.

flan

---

 Guess what? Maybe Lily used a larger font to make a point just as you used capitals to indicate yelling. You chastised Lily for using larger text yet you did the same thing. Pot, meet kettle.

---

 I C&P the scripture. 

When I typed my thoughts, the font carried.

There was absolutely no malicious intent.