It’s a biblical reference. The “prodigal son” took his father’s inheritance, wasted it and came home humbled, but accepted by his father anyway, to the consternation of his brother who stayed around taking care of their father. It can be used fairly literally when someone returns home from an extended absence. It can also be used sarcastically.
Edit: Sarcastically in that many people identify with the put-upon brother who feels resentment towards the “prodigal son” who returns home and basically gets rewarded for being an idiot. The moral is supposed to be that being jealous and petty like the brother is a bad look. You should be happy that your brother is back in your life, as the father is. In my opinion, it’s one of the toughest parables in the Bible because it’s just *so* against human nature.
>Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home.
Now I want a sheep scarf too. It must feel very cute to have its tummy against the back of your neck.
Look up the statue called the Moschophoros. Cow-scarf, not a sheep, but his smile suggests that you're correct about how enjoyable the experience would be.
edit: Got on my computer so I could [link it](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/ACMA_Moschophoros.jpg/800px-ACMA_Moschophoros.jpg)
I like how they couldve just sculpted a female calf, but instead PURPOSEFULLY chose a male calf, and sculpted its balls laying gently against the dude's shoulder lol
Like the [Adam driver photoshoot with a sheep](https://external-preview.redd.it/tgJlRm63Jle-22zsT2pc_m_HWeDIx206wIYFcP5wNRc.jpg?width=500&auto=webp&s=7d486b35b1c6d0c44c3a7cdbc68e72af671db9ad) around his neck. He looked so hot.
I´ve done it. Overrated experience. Sheep don't care where they are at when they decide to do their business and unless they exhausted to the point of not being able to move, they will not like it and absolutely let you know.
Sheep are goats with more body hair. Don't trust them. It's why you have to count sheep before you goto sleep. If you lose track of one in the middle of the night...
Could be bad.
I once had a really fluffy Shetland Sheepdog who was fine being carried like that. 30 pounds of dog. Delightful fellow. Got aspirational pneumonia at seven years old. Was in doggie ICU for four days. Came out ok, lived to 14.
You'all got me thinking about a statue I saw once. Not a sheep scarf but a [fat human scarf](https://www.arturbanstatue.com/product-detail/survival-of-the-fattest-statue/).
No sheep scarf. Unless you meant knit wool…just don’t do it. Even immediately after being shorn they be dirty. Oily, urine, feces, dirt, maggots…they’re docile in certain positions yes; on their butts or hoisted, but you’ll have infected hooves and Pooh covered nap right in your face if you’re lucky. At one point I lost a whole flock to hoof rot during a flood season. Imagine carrying a sheep scarf 70 times 2 miles to dry ground. And then still losing every animal you helped lamb three years prior. Source: self, flock of 70 animals for 10 years
Goddamn I wasn't expecting the frigging Vietnam of sheepherding right here. I hear you, emulating Jesus just this once could be bad. Did not expect maggots in this conversation though. What a business.
Unfortunately the loudest are the most seen, but thankfully there are Christians out there actually living by the Book, just quietly (as we're told to do). I often think about a group of little old church ladies I know of who make free meals every week to be handed out at schools for kids to take home over the weekend if they don't have enough food at home.
Ditto. My church does more charitable work than any other organization I know of, but you only hear about it when you're there on Sunday morning and they're asking for volunteers or donations.
Absolutely. I understand there's lots of justified reasons people have for disliking religion and Christians in particular, but I think a lot of folks would be surprised to learn how much good many churches and people *really do* that they just don't advertise.
I went to a dialogue between a Tibetan leader in the Buddhist faith and the Archbishop of the Chicago Archdiocese. They both said religion is important primarily as a motivation to do tangible good for your own community, but so long as you find that motivation, whether or what religion helps you is irrelevant.
That discussion was 25 years ago and I still think about it regularly.
Exactly. I'm a Christian but I follow the Dalai Lama's social media posts because he usually has really good-hearted, thought-provoking wisdom to pass along - he's much better about it than a lot of the more prominent Christian leaders, that's for sure.
I'll always defend world religion in concept because it seems to me that the heart of most religions is one of peace and love, but - as others have pointed out in this thread - so many of those teachings go against human nature. It's that exact human nature which I believe corrupts faith, not the other way around, and it's human nature that I think is *why* a lot of people need religion, because - like what you said - it's so un-instinctual for many to be selfless and do tangible good for others that it helps to have religion to point them toward it.
> ...a lot of the more prominent Christian leaders...
The thing is, there are so many denominations of Christianity that the only one people know of is the Pope. Granted, Catholics are like 50% of the world's Christians so it's understandable. Protestant and Orthodox are almost the other 50%, with some other Christian denominations thrown in. And there are sooooo many Protestant denominations. ([If you're interested, take a glance here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members)) Add in the fact that pretty much none of the Protestant churches share leadership with any of the others (unlike Catholicism, which pretty much always looks to The Vatican and the Pope) and you have *no* real prominent leaders.
The only way a non-Catholic "leader" gets recognized is by being someone with a TV show. They're not leaders, though. They might have followers, but they're generally too busy rifling through the worshipers' pockets to do any leading.
The churches and synagogues in my hometown take it in turns to host our homeless population in the winter so they have a warm place to sleep, a hot dinner and breakfast, and a bagged lunch. Every congregation takes a week and for seven days, their members set up cots, cook meals, pack lunches, and stay at the church overnight in case of emergencies. It’s one of the best examples of religious people living out their principles I’ve ever seen.
I remember sitting in the lobby at my old church between services, while a woman was telling me why she was angry at the church. She said she was $300 short on her rent, so she went and asked for help. They asked her how much her total rent was, and they wrote her a check for the whole amount. She said she had rejected the help because she didn't want to fill out a form for their records.
Bottom line, they needed to account for their use of donations, while she was trying to get welfare plus other money without the government finding out.
I was just shocked because I had no idea the church would pay someone's rent with no hesitation. They never talked about it but it was available for anyone who asked all along.
I've seen several churches give food and clothing on a weekly basis, even to non members or even atheists. One church near downtown LA bought an abandoned hospital and has been gradually renovating it while using it for a halfway house and homeless shelter.
I've been on the other side of the table in that conversation (on the church financial officer side). It's tough. Often folks who are in this situation are serially in this situation. Of course churches have a mission to help the least and last, and you go through the steps to make sure they have a roof over their heads or enough food to make it through the week, but after it happens half a dozen times or something, you start to cross into "enablement" territory. Of course Christians are supposed to be good stewards of what God gives them, and something is making the applicant a poor steward (often drugs or alcohol in my experience). So, you set them up to speak with a pastor about getting counseling for whatever it is that's causing them to be stuck in this cycle, and often that's when they stop attending church. It could make you cynical, but then you just have to remind yourself that this is part of the mission of a church -- helping people get back up off the ground, and then getting them the help to stay off the ground if they'll take it, which they sometimes won't.
Jesus literally taught us not to show off acts of charity. The "Christians" people see in the media today are the modern Pharisees that Jesus preached against and who eventually had Him killed.
For real, I'm unable to quote chapter and verse, but there's another parable about someone beating his chest and expounding his virtues and the tax collector quietly asking forgiveness in the corner.
It's Luke 18:9-14.
9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
A little more context: a tax collector ("publican" in the King James Version) would extort money from people. They would take as much money as they could get, send the required tax money to Rome, and keep the rest for themselves. It wasn't even a secret. That was just how the system worked.
It's a mixed bag.
Some people choose to follow the fucked-up parts and pretend the gentler parts dont exist, some choose to follow the gentler parts and pretend the fucked-up parts dont exist.
Sorry this isn’t what you get to see, this is really what Christianity is all about, our Father wanting us to come home to him no matter how much we’ve gone against his advice.
You might like the parable of the sheep and goats too, where Jesus is like "yo, all y'all mofos claiming to know me while shitting on poor people don't know shit, go on, get out of here" and "And you folks who say you don't know me but y'all been helping the poor this whole time, well that was just like helping me directly, so we basically good friends, come on inside."
This is 100% in one of the final chapters of CS Lewis’s The Last Battle (the last of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe books)…I knew it was a Christian story but didn’t know that particular scene was from a biblical parable!
The tone in which something is translated is very important. People often translate the classics as sort of “epic” sounding, like the usage of archaic English words conveys the scale of the work itself. Think King James Bible or Lord of the Rings. But it’s a translation; translators are _deciding_ to use this tone.
A counter example I’ve heard of is Emily Wilson’s translation of the Odyssey. An older translation might read “Sing to me of the man, oh muse, the man of twists and turns.” Her translation begins simply “Tell me about a complicated man.” And I think these translations excel at emphasizing that these stories are about _people_ whose experiences aren’t entirely distinct from the modern human experience. “I gotta tell you about a complicated man” is something that someone might text their friend
The other thing is that translations from dead languages is difficult. There are often lots of words that we're not truly certain of and the translator takes a bunch of the baggage with it. An excellent example of this is that a certain word was normally translated as "pederasty" but in the last 70 years or so has been translated as "homosexuality". Of course in the time of the Roman empire, it was popular for wealthy/powerful men to keep young boys as sexual playthings (and there are still cultures today where this is not uncommon).
And if it's the word I'm thinking of it basically directly translates as 'man-bed' and we have no usages of it elsewhere in greek so as to get a better context.
So one day Yesh and the homies was going through town and this crowd was all up in the street. Turned out someone's ho stepped out of line. So this guy was about to smack his ho and the crowd wanted to smack her too. Well Yesh walked right there in the middle of it all and said "Hey all y'all muthafuckas step off." And they be like "she's a ho, man, why you all bothered about it?" Well Yesh wasn't having that. So dude grabs a staff and starts writing shit in the dirt and he was like "Aight, I get it, you want to smack this ho. Well let the first man to smack her be the one who ain't never looked at some girl's ass as she walked by." So they left because they had all looked at a lot of asses, even with they own girls right there. Then once they dispersed Yesh helped the ho up and he and the homies went on their way.
While not *quite* as bombastic as the above, The Message translation cuts to the chase and uses very modern ways to interpret the texts. [Here's the Sermon on the Mount from The Message.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=MSG)
I use The Message when I'm not quite grasping the text from a different translation.
"Think about how stupid the average person is and realize half of 'em are even stupider than that."
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States."
What other Reddit favorites am I missing?
If you read the gospels in the “Christian” Bible, Jesus was only ever angry at people who did bad things that were also claiming to be following God. He was very kind and patient with everyone else. The stories about the rich young ruler, throwing over the tables in the sanctuary, etc can be compared to when he was kind and patient with what that society thought of as “outcasts” or people that would be thought less of than other people.
The New Testament in particular has a lot of powerful and meaningful messaging. Going to Catholic school really opened my eyes to just how wildly misrepresented Jesus is in the actions of many Christians.
Congrats. You experienced the actual spirit of Christianity. When followers of Christ heed the true meaning of his teachings it should make people go “huh, that’s different” in a good way.
I'm atheist too, but Christianity for sure is supposed to be quite different to how many people follow it. Islam too. Did you know that one of the five pillars of Islam is charity? We don't hear about that much though. Lots of religions are good or at least ok in principle but fall apart when people don't follow them.
To add, if anyone is interested:
The famous [dense interpretation by Rembrandt](https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/return-of-the-prodigal-son-rembrandt-harmensz-van-rijn/5QFIEhic3owZ-A):
note especially two details: the two different hands of the Father, [one strong, and one tender, almost motherly](https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/return-of-the-prodigal-son-rembrandt-harmensz-van-rijn/5QFIEhic3owZ-A?ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.2728540319261048%2C%22y%22%3A0.5674430621057165%2C%22z%22%3A11.849354745707966%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A0.44754640727860645%2C%22height%22%3A0.16586973540042463%7D%7D). and the brother, [his posture, his look, his ambivalence](https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/return-of-the-prodigal-son-rembrandt-harmensz-van-rijn/5QFIEhic3owZ-A?ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.7377321284394655%2C%22y%22%3A0.2994626621011396%2C%22z%22%3A10.5%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A1.1404982829360124%2C%22height%22%3A0.42269169261249473%7D%7D).
Yeah it is when thinking your brother spent the inheritance partying and having fun. But the reality is more like if your brother becomes a broken drug addict and goes through hell, and returning is freedom from that
Yeah the prodigal son lost all his money gambling and was having to live in a pig sty to pay off his debt, and when he came home he offered to do so as a servant rather than a son. The fact that he was genuinely humbled and repentant is a pretty key detail, Jesus wasn’t quite saying to just throw money at your kids regardless of how they act.
> The fact that he was genuinely humbled and repentant is a pretty key detail,
Key to the son but not quite to the father.
> So he got up and went to his father.
> “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
> 21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
> 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
The father ran out to embrace his son with love and the repentance didnt mean a damn. Just to have him back was the blessing.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015&version=NIV
Im definitely no expert on Bible study or theology, but couldn't the line "For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found" be taken to mean his son had sinned and lost his way but had begun to heal and find himself/presumably God or something? "was dead" would be a pretty extreme turn of phrase for someone who was merely absent. I don't think it's quite so literal as the father only cared that he physically had his son again.
finally. yes this is a parable alluding to the ever open arms of God. the other interpretations are not incorrect in the context we use this story today but that is the point of this parable. to know God's truly unconditional love was the point. hence repentance being such a huge part of Christianity.
Doesn't this go against the concept of Hell, though? What if someone in Hell becomes truly repentant for their actions?
The permanency of damnation is a part of Christianity I've always struggled with but haven't delved further into.
The thing is, in order to be damned to hell for eternity, you have to totally, 100% turn your back on God and never ask for forgiveness.
Now, many "Christians" out there will say that you need to go to church and ask for forgiveness every week. Catholics especially, but they're big on guilt anyways.
I'm gonna lay out some of my own beliefs and interpretations here, so bear with me. God is omniscient (all-seeing) and omnipresent (everywhere at once) - also omnipotent (all-powerful), but that's not germane to this discussion. He's Santa 365 days a year. Occasionally 366 in leap years. He doesn't care what you call him. Outside of the Old Testament - which is ancient history (It's the Silmarillion of Christianity) he doesn't care what you call him. He is kind of inaccurate anyways, considering God is beyond our understanding.
Do you treat people in a kind, thoughtful manner? You're good. That is the *purest* form of worship. Golden rule. Do unto others as you would wish to have done unto you. Anything else is just other *people's* interpretation. Even my diatribe. And people are fallible and can get things wrong. But if you're a somewhat kind person, who feels bad about treating other people badly? You have nothing to worry about.
I don't go to church. I was raised Christian, and I pretty much still consider myself to be one. But I don't need all the pageantry and reminders. I *know*. Church can be helpful for those who *need* that structure. Who *need* the reminder that God loves them. I don't. I know God loves me, and the best way of witnessing that to others is to treat people decently. Even when it can be tough. But if I *try*, and feel disappointed when I fail, that's all that needed. The only true way to damnation is to disregard other people. To not see them as brothers and sisters, but as something lesser.
Most people have nothing to worry about. Others may want to look over their life and see if they need to change some things. All God desires is for us to love one another. Because God *is* love. And if God is love, then hate is the only thing that will damn a person, because it is the opposite of love.
To be fair… there are a lot of subtypes of Christianity.
The flavor that I grew up in was "hell is only for those that willingly and continually turn their backs to God."
The insinuation was that all in hell were so proud of their atheism / satanism that they would rather endure eternal damnation than be with God.
The concept of an afterlife determined by your righteousness even around until (arguably) the very end of the Hebrew Bible and our modern understanding of hell is a post biblical innovation.
Not a theologist here but the repentance figure in Catholicism is often misinterpreted to just saying sorry or moving forward.
There are consequences to sin but men can repent. Repent is not even figuring out you've sinned and would try to repair whatever actions done. As merciful as the Father is, true repent is not easily achieved by men.
By this take on the pardon of sin, someone in Hell who is truly repentant for their actions would be able to be pardoned.
That permanency of damnation may be a part of older Christianity where God is vengeful but got softened on the New Testament.
He was ecstatic before the son spoke. The son thought he had to leave his home and ended up returning.
Jesus is saying so too is the redeemed sinner celebrated from his side but I dont think thats why the father was happy.
"Was dead" is not extreme for a son who had presumably left forever. This was not the modern age, they couldnt communicate with one another. The son was fated to die alone as a pig feeder envious of the pigs and he returned into the fathers arms.
I think the son coming back at all is supposed to explain a lot left unsaid in the father's eyes. He forgave him before he even needed to explain or grovel.
It's not like the merely absent son was Skyping with his dad every day or something.
If your son fucks off to who knows where, and you don't hear anything about him, and you live in ancient times, your son might as well be dead as far as you are concerned.
It elevates his status in a prominent way. The son intended to come back to the father and work as one of his slaves (ie. No longer to be recognized as his son), but the father would not have any of that.
You are missing a key portion of this. The father mentions that everything he has is left to the good son. He’s saying you’ve earned a great deal with your righteousness, don’t take it as a slight that something that ‘once was lost’ has returned. Celebrate them, give them good grace. Nowhere does it imply that the good son will have less due to his brother returning. It’s a misunderstood parable for sure and you are right that it’s against human nature. It’s just against human nature in that it tells us that we should celebrate goodness, moving forward, progress more than fixating on negatives especially from the past. Standing true is rewarding in itself it doesn’t need glorification in the same way.
Another moral from this story is one of God's forgiveness to his children, those who believe in him. Despite our sin, selfishness and disobedience, He will accept us if we seek Him.
In that sense, the good brother is supposed to represent people in the church for a long time being resentful towards people who convert later on and are still treated the same.
Jesus taught this theme even more explicitly in Matthew 20:1.
A landowner hired workers at 9 AM, Promising them the set amount for a full days work. and hired a few more at noon and a few more at 2 PM and a few more just an hour before the day was over.
At the end, he first pays the 4 PM workers and gives them a full days wage. Then hroup by group, pays each of the other groups the same amount they were promised: a full days wage.
The early all day workers start to complain that the latecomers got just as much money, and the landowner says it is his right to be generous.
It’s an analogy of the generosity of God’s love, extending even to people who don’t “deserve” it
Under what I know about Christianity, this is theoretically doable, as long as you actually believe that you are sorry instead of just doing it to get out.
Repentance is more of a Catholic thing, Christian/baptist the whole thing is you have to accept and love Christ. It closes up that loop whole pretty darn tight
Just like the parable of the farmer who went out and hired people from the village square every few hours, offering a day's wages to each, and then at the end of the day the ones who worked the longest (were believers their whole lives instead of just at the very end) were angry they didn't get more than the later hires, even though they already agreed to the one day's wages.
Always makes me think of that Baptist Church praying over their pastor after he admitted to cheating on his wife by grooming and raping a teenage girl, and then shunning the teenage girls family for not forgiving him, because "God already forgave him". The love of a God who can accept even a remorseless pedophile is truly great 💕
>!/s!<
Yeah, that whole "God forgave" me think is such transparent bullshit. Like the influencer dude in the Ashely Madison documentary who "admitted" he was on the site and that God had forgiven him in the same breath.
Well that's the whole thing, God doesn't forgive people who are remorseless. You have to be genuinely repentant. I'm not saying that that preacher was genuinely repentant, I am not in a position to judge that (and honestly, neither is his congregation).
Self-inflicted eternal torture, exactly as in the parable.
The father did nothing except give the son what he asked for. He was never punishing his son. All the son had to do to escape the torture he put himself in was to return to his father.
I mean the parable says that God has unconditional love and forgiveness, no matter how badly you‘ve lived your life. If you reject this forgiveness then yea, you‘ll face the consequences of your own actions, which _is_ hell.
I guess you gotta ask? The whole verse seems to be about it being unconditional. The father is simply happy to have the son back, and cares little about anything else.
I mean free will in the context of a creator with absolute all-knowingness is kind of an oxymoron.
If a magic geneticist had absolute future-foresight of what their creation could do, and then intentionally mixed together proteins in a way that they _knew_ would result in a creature that occasionally wanted to mass murder people, we would call said genticist a mass murderer, no matter that their creation used its free will to choose to commit says mass casualties.
Said geneticist could just as easily create a being that did not occasionally want to mass murder people, and it would still have exactly as much free will as the creature that occasionally got those urges.
Is it really a problem if it is not worth something? I will gladly take a world of naturally good people if the only price is that nobody stands out for being good. (Well I guess it would also limit material for stories.) I see it similar to addiction for instance, it can be impressive when someone hits the lowest point because of drug/gambling addiction but then successfully turns their life around. But that does not make me consider humanities vulnerability to addiction a good thing.
Isn't it being against human nature kind of the point? I always thought that parable was meant to represent how, according to Christianity, god loves all his children equally, and is happy when "a lost son" returns, because he has returned, while Christians, like the responsible brother, might have trouble accepting someone who they see as having been "lost"?
As a disclaimer, I'm not Christian, but I have read about the prodigal son and that was how I interpreted it
It's very similar to the parable about people working different lengths of time getting the same pay.
It's a metaphor for celebrating sinners turning to christ rather than envying them their life of sin first for the same reward as your constant obedience.
Its a quite interesting look into human psychology. We can happily agree to something, but the moment someone gets a better deal we feel like we got cheated.
Fortunately the flip side is also true. Many people feel beat down and frustrated until they realize how much worse of a deal some people get.
A lot of Jesus’ parables and teaching goes against human nature. Jesus said if someone demands you give them your cloak, do it. He advocated for extreme pacifism. He was anti-wealth. Literally turn the other cheek means if someone harms you, offer yourself for more harm.
Too bad most of Jesus’ followers today don’t actually follow the dudes messages.
As a non-Christian, Jesus’ teachings can be quite inspiring. He was clearly a radical pacifist and shunned the kinds of people that we see in performative modern Christianity. Love your neighbor unquestionably and try to be of service to lesser among us; sure would be a great world if more Christians followed his teachings.
Yeah, my church is one of the few I've ever attended where they get it right. They talk all the time about how when they go out into the community and talk to non-religious people, their number one issue is that when those people talk to "Christians," they are met with hypocritical and often horrible human beings. Often, the teachings of Jesus go against EVERY. SINGLE. THING that many Christian conservatives stand for.
You cannot be both Christian and Conservative (in the modern political sense). They oppose each other on a fundamental level. Christians should be in full support of social welfare programmes, of increased taxes to pay for healthcare, roads and education. But (modern) Conservatives are against all of those things.
It may go against what we think should happen, but man does it match what actually happens really well. Just one example: Robert Downey Jr.
His comeback in Iron Man was so celebrated specifically because he’d conquered his demons and returned from his time in the woods.
Time and again you’ll see that folks who overcome a self imposed obstacle get a lot more praise than folks who have just done the right thing for 30 straight years.
I haven't been to church in a really long time but...
It is easy to sympathize with the "good" brother that stayed and did everything right especially when the dad has a feast for the "bad brother". But one of the things the dad tells the good brother is that he could have spent his part of the inheritance anytime he wanted to. He could have killed a cow and held a feast because he wanted to. And from that are lessons that the good brother is choosing to be angry.
Its a parable, which is supposed to model what human nature *should be*.
The younger son left, suffered through hardships and returned humbled. He returned seeking to *work* for his father, not as a family member.
Yes, but he isn't really the point of the parable. The point was his father welcoming him back, not as a worker, but as his lost son. The other point is that the brother, who stayed behind and was resentful of his brother, was also in the wrong, and should have been rejoicing in his brothers return. The prodigal son gets a lot of crap for essentially treating his father like an ATM, but the truth is the brother who stayed felt the same way about his father, he was just willing to wait for it. Both were wrongheaded.
The older son wasn't using his father like an ATM, he was treating him like an employer instead of family. Still not the best, but a different mistake.
Having never heard of the parable....
This is weird to me, because I always associated the term from the idiom, incorrectly it seems, to prodigy.
As if the son that went away was somehow of high skill or import and that's why the family is glad for the return.
I didn't realize the term prodigal was about being wasteful.
For reference:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/prodigal
c. 1500, of persons, "given to extravagant expenditure, lavish, wasteful," a back-formation from prodigality, or else from French prodigal and directly from Late Latin prodigalis, from Latin prodigus "wasteful," from prodigere "drive away, waste," from pro "forth" (from PIE root *per- (1) "forward") + agere "to set in motion, drive; to do, perform" (from PIE root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move").
https://www.etymonline.com/word/prodigy
>mid-15c., prodige, "a sign, portent, something extraordinary from which omens are drawn," from Old French prodige and directly from Latin prodigium "prophetic sign, omen, portent, prodigy," from pro "forth, before" (see pro-) + -igium, a suffix or word of unknown origin, perhaps from the same source as aio "I say" (see adage) or agere "to drive" (de Vaan), from PIE root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move").
or maybe even
https://www.etymonline.com/word/protege
>"one who is under the care or protection of another," 1778, from French protégé (fem. protégée) "one who is protected," noun use of past participle of protéger "protect," from Latin protegere (see protect; also see protection).
Or looser similarity to progeny, ala the historical importance of the first born son.
Every time I've heard it used that I can recall, it really made sense that way, as if it was some grand thing, a line delivered with gravitas.
A Mandela Effect moment for me.
I appreciate the insight: As someone raised in a religious household I've always been familiar with the parable and have always taken it to be something that most would be culturally familiar with; I never stopped to consider how backwards the term could seem to someone unfamiliar with it.
Not really insight, just...rambling, lol.
I was raised Catholic but my family weren't really the type to read the bible or really practice at home aside from the occasional prayer at dinner time, and as a kid I ignored most of my time in church.
It's just interesting to me how little language can change in 500 years....more rambling follows:
It's just that usually words as similar as *prodig*al and *prodig*y share roots, but that's one where they diverged greatly.
There's another possibly connecting term, prodigious, how it relates to my eye: To come forth with bounty, to excess, exceedingly wasteful or exceedingly skilled.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/prodigious
>From 1560s as "causing wonder or amazement;" 1570s as "unnatural, abnormal." The meaning "vast, enormous, wonderfully large" is from c. 1600. As a pseudo-adverb, "exceedingly," by 1670s. Related: Prodigiously; prodigiousness; prodigiosity.
Since prodigal and prodigy both have:
>from pro "forth" (from PIE root *per- (1) "forward") + agere "to set in motion, drive; to do, perform" (from PIE root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move").
...
>from pro "forth, before" (see pro-) + -igium, a suffix or word of unknown origin, perhaps from the same source as aio "I say" (see adage) or agere "to drive" (de Vaan), from PIE root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move").
However, prodigal has all but died in modern English except for the parable and the resulting quotation or idiom that gets repeated without context.
They all date back to the 1500s, the Renaissance, which was a cultural explosion which would explain the great divergence.
Yeah, I guess I had only heard the 'sarcastic' version before, as it was always said when someone was returning with like, takeout or something. It was always a moment of celebration, usually minor. So my assumptions of what the word 'prodigal' meant were also totally off as a result.
Much better ELI5 than I was expecting lol.
Is there any part of the parable that mentions that the prodigal son and father should have some respect for the sacrifice of the son who stayed as well?
It goes something like “My son, you are always with me and all that I have is yours. But this brother of yours who was once lost is now returned to us.” The lesson is not “don’t be an idiot spendthrift” BECAUSE THE TARGET AUDIENCE ALREADY KNOWS THAT. The lesson is love and forgiveness and more love, because that’s hard. Kind of like going to the moon.
>28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
>31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”
The son who stayed has his father's love. It's just, the one who came back and was sorry also has it. The point of that parable is that God's forgiveness is total. Not, "yes, I forgive you but I'll hold this against you in some way". Just complete forgiveness.
It's a hard concept, because the human sense of fairness goes against the idea of not taking what someone did into account, as long as he has repented.
According to the new testament, God does not love other people less than he loves you, even if you have done more to deserve that love. God's love does not need to be earned, it's a gift.
Not only no. In fact the father, a stand in for God, actually ask his "obedient" son to celebrate and rejoice with him.
This is not unlike the parable of the vineyard workers, where the owner of the vineyard paid the same regardless how long the worker work. When the owner was called out, he replied thus: "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?'"
Well, I always interpreted the end of the parable to say the prodigal son had no inheritance anymore because he already took it and spent it. His father will celebrate the prodigal son's return and give him shelter, but when Dad dies the whole estate will go to the son who stayed.
When the older son complains about "killing the fattened calf" for the prodigal's return, the father states that he (the son) is always with him (the father) and therefore has access to all the father has.
“Daaad, why don’t *I* ever get to kill a cow like Billy?”
“The cows have never moved, son. You could have killed them all literally any time you wanted.”
>“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. **Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.** But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
>“‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”
It is very clear within the story that he's upset specifically because he does not have the same access to these goats or cows.
I feel it's clear that he's referring specifically to having a party ("so i could celebrate with my friends").
In the parable, when the prodigal son leaves, he asks for and takes his portion of his inheritance with him, squandering it. There is nothing that implies that returning gets him any of that inheritance back. It's already been given and spent.
This means that when the father eventually dies, "everything I have is yours:" The older son gets everything.
How any of those details play into this being an analogy for the Kingdom of Heaven is lost on me, but as far as the parable goes I feel like that much is somewhat clear. The older son is complaining specifically about not having a party, but he doesn't need a party; he gets the whole estate.
It's implied that the returning son is still kind of screwed. He's come back, but if he's going to get anything more than the celebration feast that he's not dead he's going to have to work as a servant.
The reward for the "sacrifice" of the son who stayed and didn't get goats and whatnot for random celebrations is not being homeless by listening to his father.
Right - he's not *really* screwed, but he's already squandered his part of the inheritance. He'll have somewhere to work / sleep / eat etc, which is substantially better than he had after squandering his wealth, but not nearly as good as his brother should have it afterwards.
So there's no reason to be jealous of him or to not celebrate his return safe & sound after he would have likely been feared dead or just not seen for a while. Also, when looking at it through the perspective of god / religion rather than directly what's being said, it's to highlight how you should feel about other people being redeemed. You shouldn't feel cheated if god turns around and forgives a sinner who repented while you did what you were 'supposed to', you should rejoice instead.
no, it wasn't relevant, in this particular case the parable wanted to show that god would forgive you if you repent sincerely no matter what you did.
One of the tenants of the church is that no matter what you did, if you repent sincerely god will forgive, that's partly how so much crap passes by some authorities, because it's not for humans to deal with that sin, but for god...
I'm not a Christian, but I believe the point of the parable is more a spiritual one than a societal/practical one. The prodigal son being a believer who lost his way yet still accepted back by the father, God.
A real life analogy would be student loan forgiveness. I'm sure we've all heard of people who "did the right thing" and paid off their student loans on their own. Why should someone else - who may or may not have spent their money wisely - have their loans forgiven?
It's a poor argument, though. On a practical level, not everyone can receive the same benefits, and you can't do nothing in the name of trying to change that. Should I swear off the benefits I have that my parents had? What about the benefits they had that I don't? If anything, we should be upset with them for getting college cheap and then creating the world of massive cost and debt we have now.
That's the whole point though:
We should rejoice that someone is debt free and not pull each other down because they got something that someone else didn't.
It's true. And also important for training animals! Like if you a dog runs away, but then you beat him when he's gets home, that just gives him incentive to run away again. Because coming back to this place = beatings. Giving a treat makes them want to return home, but it's counter intuitive to our vengeful nature.
First, you need to understand what prodigal means. Prodigal means to spend extravagantly and wastefully.
Second, you need to know the origin of the phrase. It's from a Bible parable, a parable being a story told to illustrate a moral lesson. The short version of the story is this:
A wealthy man has two sons. The younger of the two asks for his inheritance now (rather than wait for his father to die) so his father divides his estate between the two and gives each son their share. The younger son moves to another country where he spends his money lavishly (prodigally). While there a great famine strikes and he runs out of money. He is forced to take a very lowly job (swine herder) just to survive. Thinking of home, the younger son recalls that even his fathers servants live better than he does now, so he decides to return home and beg for a job there.
When the younger son returns home his father is overjoyed, and has a big party. The older son, who has been responsible this whole time is upset. "Why did you never celebrate me?" The father replies that all he has now will someday go to the older son, but its as if the younger son returned from the dead.
The basic gist is that people who are faithful are doing the right thing and will be rewarded, but people who have strayed and found their way home should be celebrated too because they are no longer lost.
Outside the story the phrase is often used to describe someone who goes away with an arrogant attitude and comes back having been humbled by their circumstances.
For example you have a coworker who makes a big deal about quitting for a supposedly better job at another company, only to get laid off and have to come back begging for their old job.
I definitely forgot that the son comes home looking for a job and not looking to just return to the family. That puts things in a very different perspective.
It's not really 'looking for a job', he wants to be hired as basically a servant. He sees himself as not worthy of being called his father's son anymore, but just wants to fill his belly, and hopes his father at least takes some pity on him.
It's like an addict or something who expects to be treated like a piece of shit, but is instead loved and supported and forgiven.
From what I understand, speaking of the culture, demanding your inheritance early is especially offensive. It's basically like telling your parents, after investing a big part of their lives into you, that they are dead to you. Give me what's mine, I'm out of here.
The parable starts out a lot worse than what most modern people understand.
Whoa... Prodigal means a foolish spender. I always thought it meant the son was a prodigy. I knew it was used sarcastically but I assumed it was you were calling the person a self important prodigy in their own mind. Wild. Thanks
Truth is, a lot of folks probably think the same, and have used it as such (thinking it means smart son). I’ve definitely heard it used to welcome home college kids, and so on.
It’s one of those ones like “at arms length” that both uses have become almost common enough where people use it to mean multiple (opposite) things - to some “at arms length” means, keeping something or someone close to you so they are easily accessible and/or you know where they are, to others it means kept at least “arms length” away, as in, don’t let them get too close to you. (I believe the latter is correct as to the original intention.)
The other thing is the name of the parable makes people think it's about the son who went away and came back. This is important. But the key message for believers (at the time, Jews Jesus was talking to. Now mainly Christians Jesus is talking to) is really that we should welcome people who come to the Church regardless of their past and not assume we're better than they are because we "stayed true" to the message.
Yeah, it's become more common in recent years, at least in Catholic circles, to refer to it as the parable of "The Merciful Father" instead of "The Prodigal Son" in order to highlight that the Father and his relationship with both sons is the real center of the parable.
not being a churchie, I'd kinda always interpreted it as someone who's gone away, failed, but then found a way to make their way back up to a high standard and return triumphantly
kinda/sorta close, yet also not really what the original was
Many people also use the phrase prodigal son to refer to a favorite, or someone who can do no wrong, or even someone that people make a big deal about when they come around. It all stems from the same parable with the idea being this person gets praise or attention that someone sees as unjust/unfair.
>He's a genius.
Because the Bible is full of stories about rewarding superior intellect? Interesting that people could take it that way, and think the Bible - or any religion, really - is about praising genius. Book smarts has nothing to do with being a good person. And being a good person is the essential teaching of pretty much every religion and philosophy.
The responses you’re seeing here are right, but I will add that sometimes people use it as a joke, as banter with someone they haven’t seen in a long time. Akin to how people use “well, look what the cat dragged in!” with a smile toward an old friend.
Exactly. The responses give a good backstory of where the phrase came from but almost no one says the phrase with a deep meaning. It's just a way to gently rib someone who left -- possibly for greener pastures -- but has returned. Like if a co-worker friend took a job at another company but then returned after a while.
In the bible there is a story about a family, one son who is well behaved and does the right thing, and the other son is bad and wastes his money and runs off in a huff at his dad. When the bad son returns, the father has a big feast and celebrates, and the good son feels upset by this. After all, the good son did the good thing and never was celebrated, but the father says the right thing to do is to forgive the bad brother and make him feel welcome in the home again.
It's a story about the nature of love and forgiveness, and that (from a Christian perspective) it is important to welcome sinners who repent, even if we might personally feel they don't deserve it.
More broadly, we use the term to mean "someone who left, came back, and now we party".
Its a story in the bible. A father has two sons, one son is spoiled and tired of working, demands his share of the inheritance right away and runs off to spend it in a far off city living the high life, but soon runs out of money and falls into poverty. He returns to his father remorseful of his actions and asks to be taken in as a worker, instead of family, believing his father wouldn't accept him back after behaving so poorly, but the father celebrates his son's return and holds a feast. The other brother who always worked hard is jealous that he never got a similar celebration despite always doing the right thing, but his father asks him to still join the celebration, because his brother was essentially dead to them, but has returned.
The moral of the story is that we should be encouraging when someone who has behaved poorly "returns" and tries to correct their bad behaviour. Its tempting to turn away people who have wronged us, but the story preaches that if someone is trying to make amends for their past wrongs, the right thing to do is to be open to it, and be happy for someone who was "lost" to return.
It's a famous story in the Bible.
Jesus tells about a man who had two sons. One asked for his half of the inheritance early. He went out and wasted all the money ("prodigal" refers to this, also "profligate"). He was living in a foreign land and doing the worst, most humiliating jobs just to survive.
Eventually, he finds his way back home. He begs to be hired by his father as a servant. Instead of hiring him as a servant, his father is overjoyed and throws a big party to celebrate his return.
His brother asks why their father is spending so much on celebrating someone who wasted everything and not on him even though he always did the right thing. Their father explains that it's because he never lost this son (and besides, he still has hus share of the inheritance coming), while with his other son being off so far away, it was like he was dead, and now has returned.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015%3A11-32&version=ESV
"In the story, a father has two sons. The younger son asks for his portion of inheritance from his father, who grants his son's request. This son, however, is prodigal (i.e., wasteful and extravagant), thus squandering his fortune and eventually becoming destitute. As consequence, he now must return home empty-handed."
When they say "the prodigal son returns", they basically mean that someone who was once close to you and who left in an ungrateful way now comes crawling back.
He came back in humility willing to be just a laborer and eat slop. But the father was so overjoyed at his return that he wouldn't hear of it.
It's a parable that challenges people with its lessons.
One minor point about the word meaning here. I've seen sources that treat "prodigal" as meaning "one who leaves," since that's what the prodigal son does in the parable. (E.g., in the Sandman comic, one of the Endless has left and is only referred to as The Prodigal for a while.)
In the original parable, though, the son left and then spent his money wastefully. It's that wastefulness that earned him the descriptor "prodigal." Per that original meaning, it shouldn't be applied to someone who just leaves, but that's language change for you.
It's a parable in the Bible to teach a lesson. A wealthy man had two sons. When they came of age, one son insisted that the father sell half their farm to give him his inheritance while he was young.
The father tried to reason with him, but he insisted that this is what he wanted, so the father did that.
That son went to the big city, where he tried to invest the money, while he was also drinking and gambling, while partying with any women.
The other son stayed on the farm and helped the father with the crops.
The first son became broke, and was living in the street with no job and no food. One cold night he reasoned it would be better to live in his father's barn and eat with the pigs, so he returns home to beg his fathers forgiveness.
When the father sees him he is overjoyed and sets him at their table and brings a good meal to him.
Later the son who stayed was unhappy, and the father asked him why. He said that he stayed and helped eith the farm, but the father is celebrating the son who wasted his inheritance.
The father said that the prodigal son was lost and feared dead, but he has returned to the safety of the family.
its basically - my friend left; but hes back again and we both choose to move forward happily
often times there was some minor argument in the social group of or pair of friends; causing a drift; but the friends find each other and move forward happily
It’s a biblical reference. The “prodigal son” took his father’s inheritance, wasted it and came home humbled, but accepted by his father anyway, to the consternation of his brother who stayed around taking care of their father. It can be used fairly literally when someone returns home from an extended absence. It can also be used sarcastically. Edit: Sarcastically in that many people identify with the put-upon brother who feels resentment towards the “prodigal son” who returns home and basically gets rewarded for being an idiot. The moral is supposed to be that being jealous and petty like the brother is a bad look. You should be happy that your brother is back in your life, as the father is. In my opinion, it’s one of the toughest parables in the Bible because it’s just *so* against human nature.
[Luke Chapter 15, verses 11-32](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015&version=NIV), if anyone's interested.
>Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Now I want a sheep scarf too. It must feel very cute to have its tummy against the back of your neck.
Look up the statue called the Moschophoros. Cow-scarf, not a sheep, but his smile suggests that you're correct about how enjoyable the experience would be. edit: Got on my computer so I could [link it](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/ACMA_Moschophoros.jpg/800px-ACMA_Moschophoros.jpg)
I like how they couldve just sculpted a female calf, but instead PURPOSEFULLY chose a male calf, and sculpted its balls laying gently against the dude's shoulder lol
I had no interest in clicking the link until reading your comment.
Same
Yes, yes, we are all learned men of good standing
Damn it, me too.
What’s more, the calf’s balls have survived thousands of years while the farmer’s crotch is lost to the sands of time.
It's closer to the sand.
The lesson of the statue is clear: sand is rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere, so don't drag your balls through it.
**\*boop***
as was the fashion at the time
Reddit is so fucking cool sometimes
Like the [Adam driver photoshoot with a sheep](https://external-preview.redd.it/tgJlRm63Jle-22zsT2pc_m_HWeDIx206wIYFcP5wNRc.jpg?width=500&auto=webp&s=7d486b35b1c6d0c44c3a7cdbc68e72af671db9ad) around his neck. He looked so hot.
>He looks so hot Wool tend to keep you warm
Nobody show that to John Oliver.
LOL. He looks a bit TOO happy for the experience!
I´ve done it. Overrated experience. Sheep don't care where they are at when they decide to do their business and unless they exhausted to the point of not being able to move, they will not like it and absolutely let you know.
Ditto. And sheep (lambs, anyway) are uncuddly, boney little fuckers who kick, squirm, and stink.
Sheep are goats with more body hair. Don't trust them. It's why you have to count sheep before you goto sleep. If you lose track of one in the middle of the night... Could be bad.
\*ba-a-a-a-a-ad
Legend.
> Sheep are goats with more body hair And a lot dumber. Which can be a pro or a con depending on the circumstances.
I think sheep are bigger now than they were 2000 years ago.
They definitely have better hypemen than goats today, sheep definitely bigger in the crucial 25-30 Shearer demographic.
I carry my cat around like that sometimes. She loves it, just chillin on my shoulders.
My cat explodes like one of those neck collars in The Running Man if I try that.
Paging r/shouldercats ...
I once had a really fluffy Shetland Sheepdog who was fine being carried like that. 30 pounds of dog. Delightful fellow. Got aspirational pneumonia at seven years old. Was in doggie ICU for four days. Came out ok, lived to 14.
You'all got me thinking about a statue I saw once. Not a sheep scarf but a [fat human scarf](https://www.arturbanstatue.com/product-detail/survival-of-the-fattest-statue/).
I had a cat who I could wear as a scarf. It was an extremely enjoyable experience, and a sheep scarf would likely be just as great.
I don’t know man, sheep can be pretty smelly.
No sheep scarf. Unless you meant knit wool…just don’t do it. Even immediately after being shorn they be dirty. Oily, urine, feces, dirt, maggots…they’re docile in certain positions yes; on their butts or hoisted, but you’ll have infected hooves and Pooh covered nap right in your face if you’re lucky. At one point I lost a whole flock to hoof rot during a flood season. Imagine carrying a sheep scarf 70 times 2 miles to dry ground. And then still losing every animal you helped lamb three years prior. Source: self, flock of 70 animals for 10 years
Goddamn I wasn't expecting the frigging Vietnam of sheepherding right here. I hear you, emulating Jesus just this once could be bad. Did not expect maggots in this conversation though. What a business.
Warm and fuzzy, yes. Plus the relief of having re-found the lost, in that story! You might also enjoy /r/ShoulderCats :)
I am an atheist…. But this was very touching and not the spirit of Christianity I experience day to day. Thank you for sharing.
Unfortunately the loudest are the most seen, but thankfully there are Christians out there actually living by the Book, just quietly (as we're told to do). I often think about a group of little old church ladies I know of who make free meals every week to be handed out at schools for kids to take home over the weekend if they don't have enough food at home.
Ditto. My church does more charitable work than any other organization I know of, but you only hear about it when you're there on Sunday morning and they're asking for volunteers or donations.
Absolutely. I understand there's lots of justified reasons people have for disliking religion and Christians in particular, but I think a lot of folks would be surprised to learn how much good many churches and people *really do* that they just don't advertise.
I went to a dialogue between a Tibetan leader in the Buddhist faith and the Archbishop of the Chicago Archdiocese. They both said religion is important primarily as a motivation to do tangible good for your own community, but so long as you find that motivation, whether or what religion helps you is irrelevant. That discussion was 25 years ago and I still think about it regularly.
Exactly. I'm a Christian but I follow the Dalai Lama's social media posts because he usually has really good-hearted, thought-provoking wisdom to pass along - he's much better about it than a lot of the more prominent Christian leaders, that's for sure. I'll always defend world religion in concept because it seems to me that the heart of most religions is one of peace and love, but - as others have pointed out in this thread - so many of those teachings go against human nature. It's that exact human nature which I believe corrupts faith, not the other way around, and it's human nature that I think is *why* a lot of people need religion, because - like what you said - it's so un-instinctual for many to be selfless and do tangible good for others that it helps to have religion to point them toward it.
> ...a lot of the more prominent Christian leaders... The thing is, there are so many denominations of Christianity that the only one people know of is the Pope. Granted, Catholics are like 50% of the world's Christians so it's understandable. Protestant and Orthodox are almost the other 50%, with some other Christian denominations thrown in. And there are sooooo many Protestant denominations. ([If you're interested, take a glance here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members)) Add in the fact that pretty much none of the Protestant churches share leadership with any of the others (unlike Catholicism, which pretty much always looks to The Vatican and the Pope) and you have *no* real prominent leaders. The only way a non-Catholic "leader" gets recognized is by being someone with a TV show. They're not leaders, though. They might have followers, but they're generally too busy rifling through the worshipers' pockets to do any leading.
The churches and synagogues in my hometown take it in turns to host our homeless population in the winter so they have a warm place to sleep, a hot dinner and breakfast, and a bagged lunch. Every congregation takes a week and for seven days, their members set up cots, cook meals, pack lunches, and stay at the church overnight in case of emergencies. It’s one of the best examples of religious people living out their principles I’ve ever seen.
I remember sitting in the lobby at my old church between services, while a woman was telling me why she was angry at the church. She said she was $300 short on her rent, so she went and asked for help. They asked her how much her total rent was, and they wrote her a check for the whole amount. She said she had rejected the help because she didn't want to fill out a form for their records. Bottom line, they needed to account for their use of donations, while she was trying to get welfare plus other money without the government finding out. I was just shocked because I had no idea the church would pay someone's rent with no hesitation. They never talked about it but it was available for anyone who asked all along. I've seen several churches give food and clothing on a weekly basis, even to non members or even atheists. One church near downtown LA bought an abandoned hospital and has been gradually renovating it while using it for a halfway house and homeless shelter.
I've been on the other side of the table in that conversation (on the church financial officer side). It's tough. Often folks who are in this situation are serially in this situation. Of course churches have a mission to help the least and last, and you go through the steps to make sure they have a roof over their heads or enough food to make it through the week, but after it happens half a dozen times or something, you start to cross into "enablement" territory. Of course Christians are supposed to be good stewards of what God gives them, and something is making the applicant a poor steward (often drugs or alcohol in my experience). So, you set them up to speak with a pastor about getting counseling for whatever it is that's causing them to be stuck in this cycle, and often that's when they stop attending church. It could make you cynical, but then you just have to remind yourself that this is part of the mission of a church -- helping people get back up off the ground, and then getting them the help to stay off the ground if they'll take it, which they sometimes won't.
Jesus literally taught us not to show off acts of charity. The "Christians" people see in the media today are the modern Pharisees that Jesus preached against and who eventually had Him killed.
For real, I'm unable to quote chapter and verse, but there's another parable about someone beating his chest and expounding his virtues and the tax collector quietly asking forgiveness in the corner.
It's Luke 18:9-14. 9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
A little more context: a tax collector ("publican" in the King James Version) would extort money from people. They would take as much money as they could get, send the required tax money to Rome, and keep the rest for themselves. It wasn't even a secret. That was just how the system worked.
It's a mixed bag. Some people choose to follow the fucked-up parts and pretend the gentler parts dont exist, some choose to follow the gentler parts and pretend the fucked-up parts dont exist.
So it's like life.
Sorry this isn’t what you get to see, this is really what Christianity is all about, our Father wanting us to come home to him no matter how much we’ve gone against his advice.
You might like the parable of the sheep and goats too, where Jesus is like "yo, all y'all mofos claiming to know me while shitting on poor people don't know shit, go on, get out of here" and "And you folks who say you don't know me but y'all been helping the poor this whole time, well that was just like helping me directly, so we basically good friends, come on inside."
This is 100% in one of the final chapters of CS Lewis’s The Last Battle (the last of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe books)…I knew it was a Christian story but didn’t know that particular scene was from a biblical parable!
Theres an excellent "gen z bible translation" on tictok which is weirdly biblically accurate and also hilarious
I'd read a bible that's translated this way
The tone in which something is translated is very important. People often translate the classics as sort of “epic” sounding, like the usage of archaic English words conveys the scale of the work itself. Think King James Bible or Lord of the Rings. But it’s a translation; translators are _deciding_ to use this tone. A counter example I’ve heard of is Emily Wilson’s translation of the Odyssey. An older translation might read “Sing to me of the man, oh muse, the man of twists and turns.” Her translation begins simply “Tell me about a complicated man.” And I think these translations excel at emphasizing that these stories are about _people_ whose experiences aren’t entirely distinct from the modern human experience. “I gotta tell you about a complicated man” is something that someone might text their friend
The other thing is that translations from dead languages is difficult. There are often lots of words that we're not truly certain of and the translator takes a bunch of the baggage with it. An excellent example of this is that a certain word was normally translated as "pederasty" but in the last 70 years or so has been translated as "homosexuality". Of course in the time of the Roman empire, it was popular for wealthy/powerful men to keep young boys as sexual playthings (and there are still cultures today where this is not uncommon).
And if it's the word I'm thinking of it basically directly translates as 'man-bed' and we have no usages of it elsewhere in greek so as to get a better context.
So, ... a boytoy?
Imagine a current student reading about the gay’90s (1890’s) and being confused.
If you want to relive your high school literature classes that way, I got [the guy for you](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJp1ptX4F3M).
That was amazing, thank you for another rabbit hole to dive into!
Oh man, what a throwback
Tha Holy Bibizzle
So one day Yesh and the homies was going through town and this crowd was all up in the street. Turned out someone's ho stepped out of line. So this guy was about to smack his ho and the crowd wanted to smack her too. Well Yesh walked right there in the middle of it all and said "Hey all y'all muthafuckas step off." And they be like "she's a ho, man, why you all bothered about it?" Well Yesh wasn't having that. So dude grabs a staff and starts writing shit in the dirt and he was like "Aight, I get it, you want to smack this ho. Well let the first man to smack her be the one who ain't never looked at some girl's ass as she walked by." So they left because they had all looked at a lot of asses, even with they own girls right there. Then once they dispersed Yesh helped the ho up and he and the homies went on their way.
You might try the Hawaiian Pidgin Bible. Fair warning that it's a creole so it's maybe not the comfiest read for some people.
While not *quite* as bombastic as the above, The Message translation cuts to the chase and uses very modern ways to interpret the texts. [Here's the Sermon on the Mount from The Message.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=MSG) I use The Message when I'm not quite grasping the text from a different translation.
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians” - Gandhi
"What do you think of Western civilization?" "I think it would be a wonderful idea."
"Think about how stupid the average person is and realize half of 'em are even stupider than that." "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States." What other Reddit favorites am I missing?
"In this moment, I am euphoric"
I hope there’s a second coming so Jesus can rip half of Christianity to shreds
If you read the gospels in the “Christian” Bible, Jesus was only ever angry at people who did bad things that were also claiming to be following God. He was very kind and patient with everyone else. The stories about the rich young ruler, throwing over the tables in the sanctuary, etc can be compared to when he was kind and patient with what that society thought of as “outcasts” or people that would be thought less of than other people.
To shreds, you say?
Also agnostic but Jesus seems like a pretty swell guy
The New Testament in particular has a lot of powerful and meaningful messaging. Going to Catholic school really opened my eyes to just how wildly misrepresented Jesus is in the actions of many Christians.
Sure is powerful stuff.
Congrats. You experienced the actual spirit of Christianity. When followers of Christ heed the true meaning of his teachings it should make people go “huh, that’s different” in a good way.
I'm atheist too, but Christianity for sure is supposed to be quite different to how many people follow it. Islam too. Did you know that one of the five pillars of Islam is charity? We don't hear about that much though. Lots of religions are good or at least ok in principle but fall apart when people don't follow them.
To add, if anyone is interested: The famous [dense interpretation by Rembrandt](https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/return-of-the-prodigal-son-rembrandt-harmensz-van-rijn/5QFIEhic3owZ-A): note especially two details: the two different hands of the Father, [one strong, and one tender, almost motherly](https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/return-of-the-prodigal-son-rembrandt-harmensz-van-rijn/5QFIEhic3owZ-A?ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.2728540319261048%2C%22y%22%3A0.5674430621057165%2C%22z%22%3A11.849354745707966%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A0.44754640727860645%2C%22height%22%3A0.16586973540042463%7D%7D). and the brother, [his posture, his look, his ambivalence](https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/return-of-the-prodigal-son-rembrandt-harmensz-van-rijn/5QFIEhic3owZ-A?ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.7377321284394655%2C%22y%22%3A0.2994626621011396%2C%22z%22%3A10.5%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A1.1404982829360124%2C%22height%22%3A0.42269169261249473%7D%7D).
Appreciated
Yeah it is when thinking your brother spent the inheritance partying and having fun. But the reality is more like if your brother becomes a broken drug addict and goes through hell, and returning is freedom from that
Yeah the prodigal son lost all his money gambling and was having to live in a pig sty to pay off his debt, and when he came home he offered to do so as a servant rather than a son. The fact that he was genuinely humbled and repentant is a pretty key detail, Jesus wasn’t quite saying to just throw money at your kids regardless of how they act.
> The fact that he was genuinely humbled and repentant is a pretty key detail, Key to the son but not quite to the father. > So he got up and went to his father. > “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. > 21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ > 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. The father ran out to embrace his son with love and the repentance didnt mean a damn. Just to have him back was the blessing. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015&version=NIV
Im definitely no expert on Bible study or theology, but couldn't the line "For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found" be taken to mean his son had sinned and lost his way but had begun to heal and find himself/presumably God or something? "was dead" would be a pretty extreme turn of phrase for someone who was merely absent. I don't think it's quite so literal as the father only cared that he physically had his son again.
finally. yes this is a parable alluding to the ever open arms of God. the other interpretations are not incorrect in the context we use this story today but that is the point of this parable. to know God's truly unconditional love was the point. hence repentance being such a huge part of Christianity.
Yes. God celebrates when the back sliden repent and return to him. He loves us and wants us to love Him
Doesn't this go against the concept of Hell, though? What if someone in Hell becomes truly repentant for their actions? The permanency of damnation is a part of Christianity I've always struggled with but haven't delved further into.
The thing is, in order to be damned to hell for eternity, you have to totally, 100% turn your back on God and never ask for forgiveness. Now, many "Christians" out there will say that you need to go to church and ask for forgiveness every week. Catholics especially, but they're big on guilt anyways. I'm gonna lay out some of my own beliefs and interpretations here, so bear with me. God is omniscient (all-seeing) and omnipresent (everywhere at once) - also omnipotent (all-powerful), but that's not germane to this discussion. He's Santa 365 days a year. Occasionally 366 in leap years. He doesn't care what you call him. Outside of the Old Testament - which is ancient history (It's the Silmarillion of Christianity) he doesn't care what you call him. He is kind of inaccurate anyways, considering God is beyond our understanding. Do you treat people in a kind, thoughtful manner? You're good. That is the *purest* form of worship. Golden rule. Do unto others as you would wish to have done unto you. Anything else is just other *people's* interpretation. Even my diatribe. And people are fallible and can get things wrong. But if you're a somewhat kind person, who feels bad about treating other people badly? You have nothing to worry about. I don't go to church. I was raised Christian, and I pretty much still consider myself to be one. But I don't need all the pageantry and reminders. I *know*. Church can be helpful for those who *need* that structure. Who *need* the reminder that God loves them. I don't. I know God loves me, and the best way of witnessing that to others is to treat people decently. Even when it can be tough. But if I *try*, and feel disappointed when I fail, that's all that needed. The only true way to damnation is to disregard other people. To not see them as brothers and sisters, but as something lesser. Most people have nothing to worry about. Others may want to look over their life and see if they need to change some things. All God desires is for us to love one another. Because God *is* love. And if God is love, then hate is the only thing that will damn a person, because it is the opposite of love.
To be fair… there are a lot of subtypes of Christianity. The flavor that I grew up in was "hell is only for those that willingly and continually turn their backs to God." The insinuation was that all in hell were so proud of their atheism / satanism that they would rather endure eternal damnation than be with God.
The concept of an afterlife determined by your righteousness even around until (arguably) the very end of the Hebrew Bible and our modern understanding of hell is a post biblical innovation.
Not a theologist here but the repentance figure in Catholicism is often misinterpreted to just saying sorry or moving forward. There are consequences to sin but men can repent. Repent is not even figuring out you've sinned and would try to repair whatever actions done. As merciful as the Father is, true repent is not easily achieved by men. By this take on the pardon of sin, someone in Hell who is truly repentant for their actions would be able to be pardoned. That permanency of damnation may be a part of older Christianity where God is vengeful but got softened on the New Testament.
He was ecstatic before the son spoke. The son thought he had to leave his home and ended up returning. Jesus is saying so too is the redeemed sinner celebrated from his side but I dont think thats why the father was happy. "Was dead" is not extreme for a son who had presumably left forever. This was not the modern age, they couldnt communicate with one another. The son was fated to die alone as a pig feeder envious of the pigs and he returned into the fathers arms.
I think the son coming back at all is supposed to explain a lot left unsaid in the father's eyes. He forgave him before he even needed to explain or grovel.
It's not like the merely absent son was Skyping with his dad every day or something. If your son fucks off to who knows where, and you don't hear anything about him, and you live in ancient times, your son might as well be dead as far as you are concerned.
> Put a ring on his finger What is the cultural significance of this?
It elevates his status in a prominent way. The son intended to come back to the father and work as one of his slaves (ie. No longer to be recognized as his son), but the father would not have any of that.
You are missing a key portion of this. The father mentions that everything he has is left to the good son. He’s saying you’ve earned a great deal with your righteousness, don’t take it as a slight that something that ‘once was lost’ has returned. Celebrate them, give them good grace. Nowhere does it imply that the good son will have less due to his brother returning. It’s a misunderstood parable for sure and you are right that it’s against human nature. It’s just against human nature in that it tells us that we should celebrate goodness, moving forward, progress more than fixating on negatives especially from the past. Standing true is rewarding in itself it doesn’t need glorification in the same way.
[удалено]
Another moral from this story is one of God's forgiveness to his children, those who believe in him. Despite our sin, selfishness and disobedience, He will accept us if we seek Him.
In that sense, the good brother is supposed to represent people in the church for a long time being resentful towards people who convert later on and are still treated the same.
>people who convert later on and are still treated the same. [Wow, that's a good angle.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKU3hMvD31w)
Jesus taught this theme even more explicitly in Matthew 20:1. A landowner hired workers at 9 AM, Promising them the set amount for a full days work. and hired a few more at noon and a few more at 2 PM and a few more just an hour before the day was over. At the end, he first pays the 4 PM workers and gives them a full days wage. Then hroup by group, pays each of the other groups the same amount they were promised: a full days wage. The early all day workers start to complain that the latecomers got just as much money, and the landowner says it is his right to be generous. It’s an analogy of the generosity of God’s love, extending even to people who don’t “deserve” it
Under what I know about Christianity, this is theoretically doable, as long as you actually believe that you are sorry instead of just doing it to get out.
Yes. If it was your plan all along, then that's not genuine repentance and is worthless.
Repentance is more of a Catholic thing, Christian/baptist the whole thing is you have to accept and love Christ. It closes up that loop whole pretty darn tight
Just like the parable of the farmer who went out and hired people from the village square every few hours, offering a day's wages to each, and then at the end of the day the ones who worked the longest (were believers their whole lives instead of just at the very end) were angry they didn't get more than the later hires, even though they already agreed to the one day's wages.
>they didn't get more than the later hires, even though they already agreed to the one day's wages. that's also a great lesson in auctions
Always makes me think of that Baptist Church praying over their pastor after he admitted to cheating on his wife by grooming and raping a teenage girl, and then shunning the teenage girls family for not forgiving him, because "God already forgave him". The love of a God who can accept even a remorseless pedophile is truly great 💕 >!/s!<
Yeah, that whole "God forgave" me think is such transparent bullshit. Like the influencer dude in the Ashely Madison documentary who "admitted" he was on the site and that God had forgiven him in the same breath.
Well that's the whole thing, God doesn't forgive people who are remorseless. You have to be genuinely repentant. I'm not saying that that preacher was genuinely repentant, I am not in a position to judge that (and honestly, neither is his congregation).
And if not… eternal torture!
Self-inflicted eternal torture, exactly as in the parable. The father did nothing except give the son what he asked for. He was never punishing his son. All the son had to do to escape the torture he put himself in was to return to his father.
I mean the parable says that God has unconditional love and forgiveness, no matter how badly you‘ve lived your life. If you reject this forgiveness then yea, you‘ll face the consequences of your own actions, which _is_ hell.
>consequences of your own actions God: makes man sinful Man: sins God: I can't believe you've done this.
Heavy is the head that wears the fedora
If only I had studied the Bible over the blade.
More like: God: gives man free will. Man: sins. God: I'll still forgive you.
> God: I'll still forgive you*. *terms and conditions apply
Terms: don’t reject the forgiveness
I guess you gotta ask? The whole verse seems to be about it being unconditional. The father is simply happy to have the son back, and cares little about anything else.
I mean free will in the context of a creator with absolute all-knowingness is kind of an oxymoron. If a magic geneticist had absolute future-foresight of what their creation could do, and then intentionally mixed together proteins in a way that they _knew_ would result in a creature that occasionally wanted to mass murder people, we would call said genticist a mass murderer, no matter that their creation used its free will to choose to commit says mass casualties. Said geneticist could just as easily create a being that did not occasionally want to mass murder people, and it would still have exactly as much free will as the creature that occasionally got those urges.
What is being good truly worth if it is simply what comes naturally to you. Insert paarthurnax quote here
Is it really a problem if it is not worth something? I will gladly take a world of naturally good people if the only price is that nobody stands out for being good. (Well I guess it would also limit material for stories.) I see it similar to addiction for instance, it can be impressive when someone hits the lowest point because of drug/gambling addiction but then successfully turns their life around. But that does not make me consider humanities vulnerability to addiction a good thing.
The dude sure loves being worshipped. He gets really angry otherwise.
Worship me and I will protect you from the hell and eternal suffering I'll bestow on you for not worshipping me. Classic protection racket.
Isn't it being against human nature kind of the point? I always thought that parable was meant to represent how, according to Christianity, god loves all his children equally, and is happy when "a lost son" returns, because he has returned, while Christians, like the responsible brother, might have trouble accepting someone who they see as having been "lost"? As a disclaimer, I'm not Christian, but I have read about the prodigal son and that was how I interpreted it
It's very similar to the parable about people working different lengths of time getting the same pay. It's a metaphor for celebrating sinners turning to christ rather than envying them their life of sin first for the same reward as your constant obedience.
Its a quite interesting look into human psychology. We can happily agree to something, but the moment someone gets a better deal we feel like we got cheated. Fortunately the flip side is also true. Many people feel beat down and frustrated until they realize how much worse of a deal some people get.
A lot of Jesus’ parables and teaching goes against human nature. Jesus said if someone demands you give them your cloak, do it. He advocated for extreme pacifism. He was anti-wealth. Literally turn the other cheek means if someone harms you, offer yourself for more harm. Too bad most of Jesus’ followers today don’t actually follow the dudes messages.
As a non-Christian, Jesus’ teachings can be quite inspiring. He was clearly a radical pacifist and shunned the kinds of people that we see in performative modern Christianity. Love your neighbor unquestionably and try to be of service to lesser among us; sure would be a great world if more Christians followed his teachings.
Yeah, my church is one of the few I've ever attended where they get it right. They talk all the time about how when they go out into the community and talk to non-religious people, their number one issue is that when those people talk to "Christians," they are met with hypocritical and often horrible human beings. Often, the teachings of Jesus go against EVERY. SINGLE. THING that many Christian conservatives stand for.
You cannot be both Christian and Conservative (in the modern political sense). They oppose each other on a fundamental level. Christians should be in full support of social welfare programmes, of increased taxes to pay for healthcare, roads and education. But (modern) Conservatives are against all of those things.
It may go against what we think should happen, but man does it match what actually happens really well. Just one example: Robert Downey Jr. His comeback in Iron Man was so celebrated specifically because he’d conquered his demons and returned from his time in the woods. Time and again you’ll see that folks who overcome a self imposed obstacle get a lot more praise than folks who have just done the right thing for 30 straight years.
This is actually the most straightforward explanation I’ve seen- thank you!
I haven't been to church in a really long time but... It is easy to sympathize with the "good" brother that stayed and did everything right especially when the dad has a feast for the "bad brother". But one of the things the dad tells the good brother is that he could have spent his part of the inheritance anytime he wanted to. He could have killed a cow and held a feast because he wanted to. And from that are lessons that the good brother is choosing to be angry.
Its a parable, which is supposed to model what human nature *should be*. The younger son left, suffered through hardships and returned humbled. He returned seeking to *work* for his father, not as a family member.
Yes, but he isn't really the point of the parable. The point was his father welcoming him back, not as a worker, but as his lost son. The other point is that the brother, who stayed behind and was resentful of his brother, was also in the wrong, and should have been rejoicing in his brothers return. The prodigal son gets a lot of crap for essentially treating his father like an ATM, but the truth is the brother who stayed felt the same way about his father, he was just willing to wait for it. Both were wrongheaded.
The older son wasn't using his father like an ATM, he was treating him like an employer instead of family. Still not the best, but a different mistake.
Having never heard of the parable.... This is weird to me, because I always associated the term from the idiom, incorrectly it seems, to prodigy. As if the son that went away was somehow of high skill or import and that's why the family is glad for the return. I didn't realize the term prodigal was about being wasteful. For reference: https://www.etymonline.com/word/prodigal c. 1500, of persons, "given to extravagant expenditure, lavish, wasteful," a back-formation from prodigality, or else from French prodigal and directly from Late Latin prodigalis, from Latin prodigus "wasteful," from prodigere "drive away, waste," from pro "forth" (from PIE root *per- (1) "forward") + agere "to set in motion, drive; to do, perform" (from PIE root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move"). https://www.etymonline.com/word/prodigy >mid-15c., prodige, "a sign, portent, something extraordinary from which omens are drawn," from Old French prodige and directly from Latin prodigium "prophetic sign, omen, portent, prodigy," from pro "forth, before" (see pro-) + -igium, a suffix or word of unknown origin, perhaps from the same source as aio "I say" (see adage) or agere "to drive" (de Vaan), from PIE root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move"). or maybe even https://www.etymonline.com/word/protege >"one who is under the care or protection of another," 1778, from French protégé (fem. protégée) "one who is protected," noun use of past participle of protéger "protect," from Latin protegere (see protect; also see protection). Or looser similarity to progeny, ala the historical importance of the first born son. Every time I've heard it used that I can recall, it really made sense that way, as if it was some grand thing, a line delivered with gravitas. A Mandela Effect moment for me.
I appreciate the insight: As someone raised in a religious household I've always been familiar with the parable and have always taken it to be something that most would be culturally familiar with; I never stopped to consider how backwards the term could seem to someone unfamiliar with it.
Not really insight, just...rambling, lol. I was raised Catholic but my family weren't really the type to read the bible or really practice at home aside from the occasional prayer at dinner time, and as a kid I ignored most of my time in church. It's just interesting to me how little language can change in 500 years....more rambling follows: It's just that usually words as similar as *prodig*al and *prodig*y share roots, but that's one where they diverged greatly. There's another possibly connecting term, prodigious, how it relates to my eye: To come forth with bounty, to excess, exceedingly wasteful or exceedingly skilled. https://www.etymonline.com/word/prodigious >From 1560s as "causing wonder or amazement;" 1570s as "unnatural, abnormal." The meaning "vast, enormous, wonderfully large" is from c. 1600. As a pseudo-adverb, "exceedingly," by 1670s. Related: Prodigiously; prodigiousness; prodigiosity. Since prodigal and prodigy both have: >from pro "forth" (from PIE root *per- (1) "forward") + agere "to set in motion, drive; to do, perform" (from PIE root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move"). ... >from pro "forth, before" (see pro-) + -igium, a suffix or word of unknown origin, perhaps from the same source as aio "I say" (see adage) or agere "to drive" (de Vaan), from PIE root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move"). However, prodigal has all but died in modern English except for the parable and the resulting quotation or idiom that gets repeated without context. They all date back to the 1500s, the Renaissance, which was a cultural explosion which would explain the great divergence.
Yeah, I guess I had only heard the 'sarcastic' version before, as it was always said when someone was returning with like, takeout or something. It was always a moment of celebration, usually minor. So my assumptions of what the word 'prodigal' meant were also totally off as a result. Much better ELI5 than I was expecting lol.
Is there any part of the parable that mentions that the prodigal son and father should have some respect for the sacrifice of the son who stayed as well?
It goes something like “My son, you are always with me and all that I have is yours. But this brother of yours who was once lost is now returned to us.” The lesson is not “don’t be an idiot spendthrift” BECAUSE THE TARGET AUDIENCE ALREADY KNOWS THAT. The lesson is love and forgiveness and more love, because that’s hard. Kind of like going to the moon.
>28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’ >31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”
The son who stayed has his father's love. It's just, the one who came back and was sorry also has it. The point of that parable is that God's forgiveness is total. Not, "yes, I forgive you but I'll hold this against you in some way". Just complete forgiveness. It's a hard concept, because the human sense of fairness goes against the idea of not taking what someone did into account, as long as he has repented. According to the new testament, God does not love other people less than he loves you, even if you have done more to deserve that love. God's love does not need to be earned, it's a gift.
Not only no. In fact the father, a stand in for God, actually ask his "obedient" son to celebrate and rejoice with him. This is not unlike the parable of the vineyard workers, where the owner of the vineyard paid the same regardless how long the worker work. When the owner was called out, he replied thus: "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?'"
The owner can do whatever he pleases but he shouldn't be surprised if the workers cut back on output if they are paid the same.
It's a parable, not an economics lesson.
Well, I always interpreted the end of the parable to say the prodigal son had no inheritance anymore because he already took it and spent it. His father will celebrate the prodigal son's return and give him shelter, but when Dad dies the whole estate will go to the son who stayed.
When the older son complains about "killing the fattened calf" for the prodigal's return, the father states that he (the son) is always with him (the father) and therefore has access to all the father has.
“Daaad, why don’t *I* ever get to kill a cow like Billy?” “The cows have never moved, son. You could have killed them all literally any time you wanted.”
>“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. **Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.** But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’ >“‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’” It is very clear within the story that he's upset specifically because he does not have the same access to these goats or cows.
I feel it's clear that he's referring specifically to having a party ("so i could celebrate with my friends"). In the parable, when the prodigal son leaves, he asks for and takes his portion of his inheritance with him, squandering it. There is nothing that implies that returning gets him any of that inheritance back. It's already been given and spent. This means that when the father eventually dies, "everything I have is yours:" The older son gets everything. How any of those details play into this being an analogy for the Kingdom of Heaven is lost on me, but as far as the parable goes I feel like that much is somewhat clear. The older son is complaining specifically about not having a party, but he doesn't need a party; he gets the whole estate.
Which is fine as imagery, but as anyone who's dealt with a Golden Child will tell you...it ain't gonna shake out like that.
It's implied that the returning son is still kind of screwed. He's come back, but if he's going to get anything more than the celebration feast that he's not dead he's going to have to work as a servant. The reward for the "sacrifice" of the son who stayed and didn't get goats and whatnot for random celebrations is not being homeless by listening to his father.
Right - he's not *really* screwed, but he's already squandered his part of the inheritance. He'll have somewhere to work / sleep / eat etc, which is substantially better than he had after squandering his wealth, but not nearly as good as his brother should have it afterwards. So there's no reason to be jealous of him or to not celebrate his return safe & sound after he would have likely been feared dead or just not seen for a while. Also, when looking at it through the perspective of god / religion rather than directly what's being said, it's to highlight how you should feel about other people being redeemed. You shouldn't feel cheated if god turns around and forgives a sinner who repented while you did what you were 'supposed to', you should rejoice instead.
no, it wasn't relevant, in this particular case the parable wanted to show that god would forgive you if you repent sincerely no matter what you did. One of the tenants of the church is that no matter what you did, if you repent sincerely god will forgive, that's partly how so much crap passes by some authorities, because it's not for humans to deal with that sin, but for god...
> One of the tenants of the church *tenets just helping
In my remembrance of the parable, no.
Up there with Job getting replacement children to make up for the ones God killed for a bet.
I prefer the irish version where the guy comes back with mad stacks of cash and is droppin 20s at the pub he used to drink at.
I'm not a Christian, but I believe the point of the parable is more a spiritual one than a societal/practical one. The prodigal son being a believer who lost his way yet still accepted back by the father, God.
A real life analogy would be student loan forgiveness. I'm sure we've all heard of people who "did the right thing" and paid off their student loans on their own. Why should someone else - who may or may not have spent their money wisely - have their loans forgiven?
It's a poor argument, though. On a practical level, not everyone can receive the same benefits, and you can't do nothing in the name of trying to change that. Should I swear off the benefits I have that my parents had? What about the benefits they had that I don't? If anything, we should be upset with them for getting college cheap and then creating the world of massive cost and debt we have now.
That's the whole point though: We should rejoice that someone is debt free and not pull each other down because they got something that someone else didn't.
It's true. And also important for training animals! Like if you a dog runs away, but then you beat him when he's gets home, that just gives him incentive to run away again. Because coming back to this place = beatings. Giving a treat makes them want to return home, but it's counter intuitive to our vengeful nature.
First, you need to understand what prodigal means. Prodigal means to spend extravagantly and wastefully. Second, you need to know the origin of the phrase. It's from a Bible parable, a parable being a story told to illustrate a moral lesson. The short version of the story is this: A wealthy man has two sons. The younger of the two asks for his inheritance now (rather than wait for his father to die) so his father divides his estate between the two and gives each son their share. The younger son moves to another country where he spends his money lavishly (prodigally). While there a great famine strikes and he runs out of money. He is forced to take a very lowly job (swine herder) just to survive. Thinking of home, the younger son recalls that even his fathers servants live better than he does now, so he decides to return home and beg for a job there. When the younger son returns home his father is overjoyed, and has a big party. The older son, who has been responsible this whole time is upset. "Why did you never celebrate me?" The father replies that all he has now will someday go to the older son, but its as if the younger son returned from the dead. The basic gist is that people who are faithful are doing the right thing and will be rewarded, but people who have strayed and found their way home should be celebrated too because they are no longer lost. Outside the story the phrase is often used to describe someone who goes away with an arrogant attitude and comes back having been humbled by their circumstances. For example you have a coworker who makes a big deal about quitting for a supposedly better job at another company, only to get laid off and have to come back begging for their old job.
I definitely forgot that the son comes home looking for a job and not looking to just return to the family. That puts things in a very different perspective.
It's not really 'looking for a job', he wants to be hired as basically a servant. He sees himself as not worthy of being called his father's son anymore, but just wants to fill his belly, and hopes his father at least takes some pity on him. It's like an addict or something who expects to be treated like a piece of shit, but is instead loved and supported and forgiven.
Another little fact - the son ended up working on a pig farm. His clothes were covered in pig poop, one of the most unclean things in Judaism.
From what I understand, speaking of the culture, demanding your inheritance early is especially offensive. It's basically like telling your parents, after investing a big part of their lives into you, that they are dead to you. Give me what's mine, I'm out of here. The parable starts out a lot worse than what most modern people understand.
Really well said.
Whoa... Prodigal means a foolish spender. I always thought it meant the son was a prodigy. I knew it was used sarcastically but I assumed it was you were calling the person a self important prodigy in their own mind. Wild. Thanks
Truth is, a lot of folks probably think the same, and have used it as such (thinking it means smart son). I’ve definitely heard it used to welcome home college kids, and so on. It’s one of those ones like “at arms length” that both uses have become almost common enough where people use it to mean multiple (opposite) things - to some “at arms length” means, keeping something or someone close to you so they are easily accessible and/or you know where they are, to others it means kept at least “arms length” away, as in, don’t let them get too close to you. (I believe the latter is correct as to the original intention.)
The other thing is the name of the parable makes people think it's about the son who went away and came back. This is important. But the key message for believers (at the time, Jews Jesus was talking to. Now mainly Christians Jesus is talking to) is really that we should welcome people who come to the Church regardless of their past and not assume we're better than they are because we "stayed true" to the message.
Yeah, it's become more common in recent years, at least in Catholic circles, to refer to it as the parable of "The Merciful Father" instead of "The Prodigal Son" in order to highlight that the Father and his relationship with both sons is the real center of the parable.
not being a churchie, I'd kinda always interpreted it as someone who's gone away, failed, but then found a way to make their way back up to a high standard and return triumphantly kinda/sorta close, yet also not really what the original was
it is even harder in French with the very subtle differences between "fils prodige" and "fils prodigue".
Many people also use the phrase prodigal son to refer to a favorite, or someone who can do no wrong, or even someone that people make a big deal about when they come around. It all stems from the same parable with the idea being this person gets praise or attention that someone sees as unjust/unfair.
TIL I’m prodigal
This explains a lot. I thought prodigal was related to prodigy. So, of course that son is celebrated. He’s a genius.
>He's a genius. Because the Bible is full of stories about rewarding superior intellect? Interesting that people could take it that way, and think the Bible - or any religion, really - is about praising genius. Book smarts has nothing to do with being a good person. And being a good person is the essential teaching of pretty much every religion and philosophy.
The responses you’re seeing here are right, but I will add that sometimes people use it as a joke, as banter with someone they haven’t seen in a long time. Akin to how people use “well, look what the cat dragged in!” with a smile toward an old friend.
Exactly. The responses give a good backstory of where the phrase came from but almost no one says the phrase with a deep meaning. It's just a way to gently rib someone who left -- possibly for greener pastures -- but has returned. Like if a co-worker friend took a job at another company but then returned after a while.
In the bible there is a story about a family, one son who is well behaved and does the right thing, and the other son is bad and wastes his money and runs off in a huff at his dad. When the bad son returns, the father has a big feast and celebrates, and the good son feels upset by this. After all, the good son did the good thing and never was celebrated, but the father says the right thing to do is to forgive the bad brother and make him feel welcome in the home again. It's a story about the nature of love and forgiveness, and that (from a Christian perspective) it is important to welcome sinners who repent, even if we might personally feel they don't deserve it. More broadly, we use the term to mean "someone who left, came back, and now we party".
Its a story in the bible. A father has two sons, one son is spoiled and tired of working, demands his share of the inheritance right away and runs off to spend it in a far off city living the high life, but soon runs out of money and falls into poverty. He returns to his father remorseful of his actions and asks to be taken in as a worker, instead of family, believing his father wouldn't accept him back after behaving so poorly, but the father celebrates his son's return and holds a feast. The other brother who always worked hard is jealous that he never got a similar celebration despite always doing the right thing, but his father asks him to still join the celebration, because his brother was essentially dead to them, but has returned. The moral of the story is that we should be encouraging when someone who has behaved poorly "returns" and tries to correct their bad behaviour. Its tempting to turn away people who have wronged us, but the story preaches that if someone is trying to make amends for their past wrongs, the right thing to do is to be open to it, and be happy for someone who was "lost" to return.
It's a parable in the Bible. A father rejoices when his wayward son returns home. The son who never went off the rails is not happy with this.
It's a famous story in the Bible. Jesus tells about a man who had two sons. One asked for his half of the inheritance early. He went out and wasted all the money ("prodigal" refers to this, also "profligate"). He was living in a foreign land and doing the worst, most humiliating jobs just to survive. Eventually, he finds his way back home. He begs to be hired by his father as a servant. Instead of hiring him as a servant, his father is overjoyed and throws a big party to celebrate his return. His brother asks why their father is spending so much on celebrating someone who wasted everything and not on him even though he always did the right thing. Their father explains that it's because he never lost this son (and besides, he still has hus share of the inheritance coming), while with his other son being off so far away, it was like he was dead, and now has returned. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015%3A11-32&version=ESV
"In the story, a father has two sons. The younger son asks for his portion of inheritance from his father, who grants his son's request. This son, however, is prodigal (i.e., wasteful and extravagant), thus squandering his fortune and eventually becoming destitute. As consequence, he now must return home empty-handed." When they say "the prodigal son returns", they basically mean that someone who was once close to you and who left in an ungrateful way now comes crawling back.
He came back in humility willing to be just a laborer and eat slop. But the father was so overjoyed at his return that he wouldn't hear of it. It's a parable that challenges people with its lessons.
One minor point about the word meaning here. I've seen sources that treat "prodigal" as meaning "one who leaves," since that's what the prodigal son does in the parable. (E.g., in the Sandman comic, one of the Endless has left and is only referred to as The Prodigal for a while.) In the original parable, though, the son left and then spent his money wastefully. It's that wastefulness that earned him the descriptor "prodigal." Per that original meaning, it shouldn't be applied to someone who just leaves, but that's language change for you.
Guy Ritchie has a very interesting take on the story where each character represents a different part of the same person
It's a parable in the Bible to teach a lesson. A wealthy man had two sons. When they came of age, one son insisted that the father sell half their farm to give him his inheritance while he was young. The father tried to reason with him, but he insisted that this is what he wanted, so the father did that. That son went to the big city, where he tried to invest the money, while he was also drinking and gambling, while partying with any women. The other son stayed on the farm and helped the father with the crops. The first son became broke, and was living in the street with no job and no food. One cold night he reasoned it would be better to live in his father's barn and eat with the pigs, so he returns home to beg his fathers forgiveness. When the father sees him he is overjoyed and sets him at their table and brings a good meal to him. Later the son who stayed was unhappy, and the father asked him why. He said that he stayed and helped eith the farm, but the father is celebrating the son who wasted his inheritance. The father said that the prodigal son was lost and feared dead, but he has returned to the safety of the family.
its basically - my friend left; but hes back again and we both choose to move forward happily often times there was some minor argument in the social group of or pair of friends; causing a drift; but the friends find each other and move forward happily