From: Randall Parker 

In , the sagacious
blucy{at}mediaone.net Bill Lucy perspicated:
> > No, I wouldn't roast the kid. After all, the kid didn't directly harm
> > me. I'd just not give him stuff so easily. He's spoiled and likely to
> > remain that way if he can get a free lunch.
>
> Don't ignore the hypothesis and jumpt to the conclusion. *If* you were
> God ...

Bill, we can't be God. But we can be real physical human fathers of real
physical human children in this world.

So is the point of the parable to explain what God is like in his dealings
with us? Or is the point of the parable to explain who parents here should
treat their real kids here in this world? Or both?

If you want to say "This is to explain what God is like" my
response is, okay, I get it. I don't know if it is true or not but I get
it.

But if you want to say it is to demonstrate how parents should treat their
kids then I say if that is a real Christian teaching it is bad advice.

> > The reason I think this is a bad parable is that a human being father is
> > used in a role that is supposed to symbolic of God. Whereas, while God
> > may be able to afford to give freely and completely a real father is
> > going to have to think about the hard facts of life (eg money doesn't
> > grow on trees) and a real father would be very unwise and impractical to
> > do what the father did in that story.
>
> Well, I must say I'm surprised you can't understand the symbolism.

Okay Bill, what part of the symbolism don't I get?

>How are you on rich fools?

They are like poor fools only they have more money. But there are a lot
more poor fools, both in numbers and in percentage of the poor vs the
percentage of the rich.

> Sometimes it's very difficult to think like God, as you have just shown.

Ah, and you have an inside line into how God thinks. I keep forgetting.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5