Comment by kinkrtyavimoodh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kinkrtyavimoodh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

kinkrtyavimoodh

Are you familiar with the story of the prodigal son from the Bible?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32...

Background: a man has two sons. He gives half of his wealth to each. The older son is a regular hardworking fellow who stuck around and helped and obeyed his father. The younger one squandered all of it away and after falling upon hard times, realized the folly of his ways and came back to his father, full of repentance. The father threw a large feast for him.

“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.’”

The father mentioned his reasons, but still did not do anything to make it just and fair for the older brother.

I think implicit in the story is that the eldest son is set to inherit everything in time.

He explains why it's just and fair.

The point of the story is that loyalty to authority is its own reward, and that to submit to authority is the only life choice that ultimately matters.

The context is a religion where faith in an ultimate authority- adopted at any point in life so long as it is judged sincere- is rewarded eternally after death. (And in less gentle interpretations, lack of faith is punished eternally after death.)

It's internally consistent as a tool of indoctrination, but a good example of how religious tracts are a questionable basis for systems of morality.

I don't get that at all from the story. It teaches that you should stop worrying so much about yourself and celebrate the success of others, even when you think you are "better" than those other people.

And it's a rather precient parable because jealosy of a sibling is a common thing.

When others overcome something difficult, like addiction, I try to celebrate with them. I don't sulk and complain that i'm not getting enough adulation for never getting addicted in the first place.

Most of the story, in fact, focuses on the disproportionate and unexpected response of a father welcoming back a son who left while saying "I wish you were dead."

The son came back out of desperation and didn't even get his pre-planned speech of apology out of his mouth, he just showed up.

Super cynical interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless.

A more positive view: The story is about celebrating the good (his brother/son came back!) and not focusing on perceived injustices. In other words, gratitude.

Here's my take: It's good to be good to others, we should all understand that.

So when someone who didn't understand that before sees the light it is a great reason to rejoice. Now we have one more person who sees the light.

The brother who stayed at home should feel the same, if indeed he too has seen the light too. But if he didn't he didn't. I think that part of the story is really simply saying yes there are people like that too who do things only to gain a reward without understanding the intrinsic value of co-operation and love.

> "everything I have is yours"

You must have missed that part of the story. The hardworking son who stayed home has been working on the family business, growing it, and is set to inherit everything including all the growth that has happened. He's still getting his half plus interest basically, which is worth far more than a single party. Meanwhile the son who wasted his half isn't going to get anything else now. The party is a one time thing. The hardworking son is set for life.

Yeah that's how I read into it. The son gets a one time pitty gift.

The older son has it made.

Significantly, the younger son asked for his inheritance before his father's death.

To the elder son's complaints,the father merely responds (in the present tense) "all that I have is yours." Has that son perhaps not understood what he was in possession of?

yeah a story to teach people obedience to the "authority"(i.e. father or religious leader) even if the authority is treating you like shit. Stop bitching about unfairness/inequality! Your reward is awaiting you in a parallel universe!

This story is why people celebrate when someone beats addiction but don't give a shit about your day job. Everyone loves a redemption story.

Don't you think throwing an epic/unaffordable party is a bit too much?

1. He came home empty handed. This doesn't really mean he won't leave again nor that he will make up for the damage he's done.

2. Why the other brother has to work like a slave with no reward? Not even a promise to change the current affairs. Just the old empty/vague encouragement "what i have is yours <but not now, later...>, we must all work <but actually you work and I watch.. >".

Let's make this a modern story about the financial crisis in 2008. The party guys get bailed out by the hard working people. Big Party?

Fast forward 2021: party guys will be rewarded even more.

You are taking the older son at his word but not the father. That's not the only way to read it.

Inheritance is central to the story. The older brother is working to increase the value of the estate, because he’ll inherit half one day. The younger brother asked for his half up front in cash and wasted it. The older brother is pissed because he cares about doing the right thing, and he’s not especially rewarded for doing it when others don’t.

There’s another story in the Bible about this, the vineyard workers. Workers are hired for the day with the promise of a day’s wage. Some are hired in the morning, others at noon, afternoon, and an hour before dark. The morning workers are angry because everyone got paid the same, and the vineyard owner reminds them that they were paid fairly, and that they should not let what others receive damage their contented-ness.

Christianity’s emphasis of forgiveness and full welcoming has been criticized by many austere and rigorously just religions and philosophies.

"A deal is a deal, no matter how raw you realize yours is."

Seems like a useful philosophy to keep your workers (or, by analogy, a populace) in line.

I didn’t downvote you, but think about whether that was actually being said.

No, it is a tale about our nature. Think about it, say you lost 20 bucks but later find it, aren't you happier that you found it than when your predictable paycheck arrives every month?

You might be so happy as to celebrate and use that money on something frivolous. Does that mean you should treat all your money this way all the time?

This parable has nothing to do with obedience to authority.

I think it would have been fairer if the father threw a party for the other son too.

You missed the entire point.

Could be because like most stories in the Bible (or religious texts more generally) that the lesson learnt is often vague or implicit, and therefore may not even exist.

Could be that the lesson is that the person who never picks up Twitter or works at Facebook in the first place is never celebrated because they were never lost to begin with (in this context). But the person who quits Twitter or resigns recognizes a sort of lack of direction, and that is what is celebrated. Not the person. The process

Good point. These stories were not designed to teach us something. Maybe they often do. But they are just stories which people like (to hear and tell) and therefore they have survived in the memic evolution.

No, the point is tediously clear, as with most religious parables. I merely disagree with it.

> this brother of yours was dead and is alive again

So don't bother trying to not die, since you can respawn and have a feast thrown for you.

Of course the father was happy to get his other son back. Which father wouldn't? It is his right then to throw a party. It is not to celebrate the son who came back, but to celebrate the fact that the father and more properly the whole family got one more (grown up) member. And think about the network effects. The whole is bigger than the sum of its parts. I think the other son just was a kind of grudgy person

Reply on news.ycombinator.com