. . . because Adam rejects the very notion of God's grace.

Atheist Adam doesn't believe in God, he says. But if he did believe in God, what he would really want to be true is that he could work hard, and do "good," and show God that he, Adam, really, really measures up, and that God should except Adam's sincere efforts to make himself acceptable to God. And if God doesn't find Adam acceptable, well, pffftt, then who needs God anyway, right?

Man despises the cross of Christ Jesus because the cross tells man that he can never be "good" enough to be acceptable to God, can never live "right enough" to measure up to God's standard of righteousness, which is absolute sinless perfection. Now, of course, God offers that perfection -- the sinless life lived out by Jesus of Nazareth -- to man as a free gift, not because any man has, or ever could, do anything to deserve it or earn it, but simply because God, in His merciful graceful, imputes it to those who will receive it in faith. But the natural man, in his self-centered pride, cannot accept that. And so, the natural man, in his self-centered pride, will choose separation from God rather than accept the truth of his condition. "I'm going to live a good life as I see fit, and God better be satisfied with that, or else . . . ."

* * * *

“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

John 3:14-18 (NASB).

The most beloved passage from the Bible, John 3:16, is also one of its most misunderstood, as it so often taken out of context. The "so loved the world" language does not speak to the "quantity" or "magnitude" of God's love for the world but, rather, to the manner in which God expressed His love for the world. Indeed, here, the Greek word that is translated "so" can be rendered "in this way."

In what way? In the way referenced in verse 14: ". . . even so must the Son of Man be lifted up" -- i.e., on the cross, as with the bronze serpent from Numbers 21, verse 9, so that any one who looks upon the cross, and believes, will live.

God does "love" atheist Adam, but not in the way Adam possibly imagines. God loved atheist Adam once and for all, and for one time only, at the cross of Christ Jesus. Not because there is anything whatsoever "good" in atheist Adam, or ever could be, but because the perfectly just and perfectly righteous God is also perfectly merciful.

One's child is one of the most enduring bonds we have, no matter.

-- that's an idea we would never come up with: that's for sure. You know that better than anybody. So, on behalf of all of us, thank you very much, and we really mean it. Amen."

Father Guido Sarducci

1. The parables point out some truth. They are not "truthful" in every way. Would a father rejoice if his son, long thought dead, returned? Yes. And he's naturally be more happy at the kid's return at that moment than during the years of slogging with the son that remained.

This is in parallel with the one lost sheep versus the 99 that weren't lost. It doesn't say what will happen to the wastrel, but does show that the father is happy to have a lost son return. Period. Provided that he's repentant and sorry, even if it's at the end. Hope springs eternal, and if you do wrong and then do right you can be forgiven. If you do good and then turn bad, what good you've done is usually forgotten.

2. It's not for the son to debate this. He's the son, and under authority. If somebody comes along and contracts for higher pay to do the same job I do with my boss, I'm not my boss' boss. I may think it unfair; but it's not up to me to decide what another can or should do with his stuff. This was in an advanced agrarian society, where I wouldn't be able to say, "I think rug isn't using her resources wisely, I will be a good citizen and make sure she acts wisely." It's always a good idea, we think, until somebody does it to us.

This is in parallel with some parable where a field owner hires men for the same pay but later and later in the day. The one who worked all day got the same pay as the one who worked a part-day.

No, it may not be fair. But if you're going to be humble and true to your word, there you go. People like to cite "blessed are the poor", but they are all ready to make war, be arrogant, and ignore all the rest of the good things. (As well as the synoptic passages where it's "poor in spirit"; but even in the stripped down "blessed are the poor, for ..." passage it's clear that the reason is that the poor are needy, know their needy, and are humble and grateful for what they receive. A lot of people that call themselves Xians really feel like they're entitled to what others have and to control what others have, while rejecting anybody telling them what to do with what they're given. They're entitled. But not Xian.

3. The eldest son would get 2/3 of the inheritance upon his father's death. That was the tradition at the time. While his brother was off partying and spending his inheritance, presumably more wealth was accrued. None of it, old or new, would go to the younger brother--he's cut out of the will at this point. "All that I have is thine"--it's not been reapportioned. The wastrel may be robed and get a ring and shoes and food, but his future is grim. He may do a bit better than eat carob pods (the pig food, according to at least some commentators) but he's not going to be wealthy. He'll have no money, no land, no livestock. Most likely he'd be his brother's retainee or hired hand: Allowed to live there, perhaps with his family, as long as he obeys and works. He'd be allowed to accrue money and might be able to prosper, but his life's going to be grim for a long time. He might learn a manual skill, but that was dog's work at the time and very low status.

If the older brother had wanted to, he could have done the same with much of his inheritance. He's pissed because he's been responsible and didn't screw things up. Not a pretty sight.