|
|
Post by Monster Man on Mar 27, 2023 13:21:38 GMT
I already explained this before. The reason is because that in our culture the value of individual responsibility trumps the other values. So we don’t even see the other reasons when they’re right in front of us. Remember that you implied earlier that those reasons were not in the text. I made no such implication. You may have chose to read into that. I focused on the point of the story. As I already explained, had he not squandered his money away partying, he had nothing to sustain himself through the hard time of famine. When he came home he didn't apologize to his father for not being able to survive a famine. Like, gee wiz dad, I just couldn't make it out there on my own even though I gave it my all! No, he came to his father as a sinner, someone who did wrong (The squandering and wild living). They celebrated... not because his son couldn't survive a famine on his own and had to come crawling back... but because he was lost. The whole story is a big "parable" of forgiveness like that of what Jesus does for us sinners. Do we need to apologize to Jesus and seek forgiveness because we just couldn't make it through a famine? Golly gee wiz Lord, sorry I couldn't survive this famine, even though I gave it my all. Circumstances out of my control and none of my good preparations or hard work and faithfulness to you paid off in the end. Please forgive me for all that. This story doesn't make nearly the same point. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 27, 2023 13:30:14 GMT
The reason is because that in our culture the value of individual responsibility trumps the other values. So we don’t even see the other reasons when they’re right in front of us. Remember that you implied earlier that those reasons were not in the text. I made no such implication. You may have chose to read into that. I focused on the point of the story. As I already explained, had he not squandered his money away partying, he had nothing to sustain himself through the hard time of famine. When he came home he didn't apologize to his father for not being able to survive a famine. Like, gee wiz dad, I just couldn't make it out there on my own even though I gave it my all! No, he came to his father as a sinner, someone who did wrong (The squandering and wild living). No,no, no. That’s not what he did wrong. What he did wrong was treat his father with extreme disrespect: “I want my inheritance now; I wish you were already dead.” We don’t live in a culture with high familial loyalty (individualism again). He was also rejecting his land and his God (since his inheritance was almost inevitably not cash…it was land. He sold and left the land (the Covenant land)) and went to a foreign country where YHWH was not worshipped. For that matter we don’t live in a world where famine is a real threat. This is not just about “bad financial choices.” Like…oops, I made a mistake. By the way, when I said that people in other cultures might understand different reasons for why the son was starving, you countered with: “Well, regardless of what people say... we are talking about what the scripture says, no?” That…kind of implies that those reasons are not in the text. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Mar 27, 2023 13:57:14 GMT
I made no such implication. You may have chose to read into that. I focused on the point of the story. As I already explained, had he not squandered his money away partying, he had nothing to sustain himself through the hard time of famine. When he came home he didn't apologize to his father for not being able to survive a famine. Like, gee wiz dad, I just couldn't make it out there on my own even though I gave it my all! No, he came to his father as a sinner, someone who did wrong (The squandering and wild living). No,no, no. That’s not what he did wrong. What he did wrong was treat his father with extreme disrespect: “I want my inheritance now; I wish you were already dead.” We don’t live in a culture with high familial loyalty (individualism again). He was also rejecting his land and his God (since his inheritance was almost inevitably not cash…it was land. He sold and left the land (the Covenant land)) and went to a foreign country where YHWH was not worshipped. For that matter we don’t live in a world where famine is a real threat. This is not just about “bad financial choices.” Like…oops, I made a mistake. By the way, when I said that people in other cultures might understand different reasons for why the son was starving, you countered with: “Well, regardless of what people say... we are talking about what the scripture says, no?” That…kind of implies that those reasons are not in the text. Which Bible version are you using that you get: “I want my inheritance now; I wish you were already dead.” You might want to say he did more wrong, but are you trying to say that squandering his inheritance was not a wrong? That wild living was not a wrong? And if your focus this entire time was on his treatment of his father when he took the inheritance you are only bringing this up now. Why? No, I meant exactly what I said, that I am focused on what the scripture says, not what other people say. That if you have an argument to make, make it on the scripture, not saying other people say. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 27, 2023 14:02:38 GMT
No,no, no. That’s not what he did wrong. What he did wrong was treat his father with extreme disrespect: “I want my inheritance now; I wish you were already dead.” We don’t live in a culture with high familial loyalty (individualism again). He was also rejecting his land and his God (since his inheritance was almost inevitably not cash…it was land. He sold and left the land (the Covenant land)) and went to a foreign country where YHWH was not worshipped. For that matter we don’t live in a world where famine is a real threat. This is not just about “bad financial choices.” Like…oops, I made a mistake. By the way, when I said that people in other cultures might understand different reasons for why the son was starving, you countered with: “Well, regardless of what people say... we are talking about what the scripture says, no?” That…kind of implies that those reasons are not in the text. Which Bible version are you using that you get: “I want my inheritance now; I wish you were already dead.” You might want to say he did more wrong, but are you trying to say that squandering his inheritance was not a wrong? That wild living was not a wrong? And if your focus this entire time was on his treatment of his father when he took the inheritance you are only bringing this up now. Why? No, I meant exactly what I said, that I am focused on what the scripture says, not what other people say. That if you have an argument to make, make it on the scripture, not saying other people say. What you see as “reading into the text” is completely obvious to those not culturally removed. That’s the point. We can tend to read and preach the text to reinforce our cultural assumptions…assumptions which would be alien to the original audiences. It’s a benefit of a culturally diverse church—we have a better chance of getting a more well-rounded reading, especially if some of those reading with us are from the Middle East. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Mar 27, 2023 14:23:33 GMT
Which Bible version are you using that you get: “I want my inheritance now; I wish you were already dead.” You might want to say he did more wrong, but are you trying to say that squandering his inheritance was not a wrong? That wild living was not a wrong? And if your focus this entire time was on his treatment of his father when he took the inheritance you are only bringing this up now. Why? No, I meant exactly what I said, that I am focused on what the scripture says, not what other people say. That if you have an argument to make, make it on the scripture, not saying other people say. What you see as “reading into the text” is completely obvious to those not culturally removed. That’s the point. We can tend to read and preach the text to reinforce our cultural assumptions…assumptions which would be alien to the original audiences. It’s a benefit of a culturally diverse church—we have a better chance of getting a more well-rounded reading, especially if some of those reading with us are from the Middle East. So... not going to answer my questions? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 27, 2023 14:28:51 GMT
What you see as “reading into the text” is completely obvious to those not culturally removed. That’s the point. We can tend to read and preach the text to reinforce our cultural assumptions…assumptions which would be alien to the original audiences. It’s a benefit of a culturally diverse church—we have a better chance of getting a more well-rounded reading, especially if some of those reading with us are from the Middle East. So... not going to answer my questions? I’m saying all the reasons are valid because they’re all in the text. It isn’t that “one reason is more important than the other.” I don’t use “just one translation or version.” And again, the point from the beginning wasn’t that “the real thing he did wrong was disrespect of his father” (although in an honour culture (which most of the non-western world is) this is far more significant than we notice). The point is that we tend to read the text from the perspective of our own values sometimes to the exclusion of what the text might be saying. I think I’ve demonstrated that. We miss a lot because we are culturally removed. It’s not like “we’re lost in confusion,” but we lean towards a one-dimensional interpretation. Case in point: do you know the significance of the father running towards the son? |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Mar 27, 2023 14:55:33 GMT
So... not going to answer my questions? I’m saying all the reasons are valid because they’re all in the text. It isn’t that “one reason is more important than the other.” I don’t use “just one translation or version.” And again, the point from the beginning wasn’t that “the real thing he did wrong was disrespect of his father” (although in an honour culture (which most of the non-western world is) this is far more significant than we notice). The point is that we tend to read the text from the perspective of our own values sometimes to the exclusion of what the text might be saying. I think I’ve demonstrated that. We miss a lot because we are culturally removed. It’s not like “we’re lost in confusion,” but we lean towards a one-dimensional interpretation. Case in point: do you know the significance of the father running towards the son? If your whole point is that, there are cultural considerations to take when reading scripture. I agree 100%. Yes, these are often missed today because we were not in the culture of that time. I think we still miss some details because of the translations to English, because even words have different root meanings and cultural implications. It is why it is so important to build doctrine off of these deeper understandings, not whatever surface level deep a first reading in English might give us. Its partly why you end up with so many denominations today I think too, splitting over varying interpretations and significances placed on different components. It is why arguing with bigots on forums like this who just hate Christians or religion in general can be so tedious because they don't care to read in good faith or understand culture or language, they just take some verse and throw it in your face. To my question though, you put this in quotes: Which Bible version are you using that you get: “I want my inheritance now; I wish you were already dead.” I asked, because I use the NASB primarily and KJV sometimes, and no where do I get "I wish you were already dead" That is not in the text. However, your point repeatedly throughout this was not just to merely say, hey you should consider the culture things here, it has been to question the entire crux of the parable being about squandering wealth and living wild, as if it was really just a famine... Now, if you want to say hey, you should consider those things to and not forget about them... fine, but that was not really the angle you were taking here. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 27, 2023 15:35:29 GMT
I’m saying all the reasons are valid because they’re all in the text. It isn’t that “one reason is more important than the other.” I don’t use “just one translation or version.” And again, the point from the beginning wasn’t that “the real thing he did wrong was disrespect of his father” (although in an honour culture (which most of the non-western world is) this is far more significant than we notice). The point is that we tend to read the text from the perspective of our own values sometimes to the exclusion of what the text might be saying. I think I’ve demonstrated that. We miss a lot because we are culturally removed. It’s not like “we’re lost in confusion,” but we lean towards a one-dimensional interpretation. Case in point: do you know the significance of the father running towards the son? If your whole point is that, there are cultural considerations to take when reading scripture. I agree 100%. Yes, these are often missed today because we were not in the culture of that time. I think we still miss some details because of the translations to English, because even words have different root meanings and cultural implications. It is why it is so important to build doctrine off of these deeper understandings, not whatever surface level deep a first reading in English might give us. Its partly why you end up with so many denominations today I think too, splitting over varying interpretations and significances placed on different components. It is why arguing with bigots on forums like this who just hate Christians or religion in general can be so tedious because they don't care to read in good faith or understand culture or language, they just take some verse and throw it in your face. To my question though, you put this in quotes: Which Bible version are you using that you get: “I want my inheritance now; I wish you were already dead.” I asked, because I use the NASB primarily and KJV sometimes, and no where do I get "I wish you were already dead" That is not in the text. However, your point repeatedly throughout this was not just to merely say, hey you should consider the culture things here, it has been to question the entire crux of the parable being about squandering wealth and living wild, as if it was really just a famine... Now, if you want to say hey, you should consider those things to and not forget about them... fine, but that was not really the angle you were taking here. No, the whole point was to reveal how our cultural assumptions inform how we read the text and what we perceive in it. |
|
