What Is Your Favorite Parable And Why

[ldsgal6]

I once took a class in Chuch that discussed Gary Chapman's book "The five love language" and our teacher said the parable of the prodigal son had all five "love languages " present in that parable. The languages are 1. touch 2. gifts 3. affirmation 4. sevice 5. quality time. It has since beome my favorite parable because it has taken on new meaning for me. You can check out www.fivelovelanguages.com for more info. So my question to you is: are there any parables that are your favorite and why is it so? Have any brought you new meaning to your life or brought you to a deeper understaning of the Gospel of Christ?

[Maureen]

I do like the Prodigal son!

M.

[Dr T]

That is a really hard question to answer for me. I don't think I have a favorite one yet.

Dr. T

[Traveler]

With out question my favorite is the “Good Samaritan”. The symbolism used by the “Son of G-d” flies in the face of conventional wisdom and doctrines taught by many traditional Christians. The Samaritans were considered to be the most corrupt religion to have ever existed on earth and the most righteous individuals within the most correct religion were considered the Levites and Priests. Jesus leaves no doubt that G-d is least impressed with those that believe correct doctrine but act without compassion and most pleased with those that regardless of religion and belief – act with kindness and compassion.

But even in light of such great wisdom – most discussions concerning the followers of Christ continue to be centered mostly on doctrine.

The Traveler

[ldsgal6]

With out question my favorite is the “Good Samaritan”. The symbolism used by the “Son of G-d” flies in the face of conventional wisdom and doctrines taught by many traditional Christians. The Samaritans were considered to be the most corrupt religion to have ever existed on earth and the most righteous individuals within the most correct religion were considered the Levites and Priests. Jesus leaves no doubt that G-d is least impressed with those that believe correct doctrine but act without compassion and most pleased with those that regardless of religion and belief – act with kindness and compassion.

But even in light of such great wisdom – most discussions concerning the followers of Christ continue to be centered mostly on doctrine.

The Traveler

Ok, Traveler. This is completely off topic on my part, but I just have to know. Forgive me. But why do you always type the word God as "G-d". Not a relevent question, I know. Just curiosity.

Now back to topic. I, to like that parable. I read in a post somewhere that the Samaritan represented Jesus due to the fact that a Samaritan was a mixed religion and Jesus was also "mixed" (for lack of word) as he was part human and part God.

[Dr T]

LDSGal,

Christian belief was not that he was part God and part man but fully God and fully man.

[Traveler]

Ok, Traveler. This is completely off topic on my part, but I just have to know. Forgive me. But why do you always type the word God as "G-d". Not a relevent question, I know. Just curiosity.

Two reasons:

1. To remind me that the name of G-d is sacred and should be treated with respect on the internet that tends to have a culture of its own.

2. So that my friends in foreign countries and cultures (whose only access to Christian ideas are on the internet) can copy my post without violating their culture standards. Often I receive e-mails or notes of thanks for keeping their standards in mind.

Now back to topic. I, to like that parable. I read in a post somewhere that the Samaritan represented Jesus due to the fact that a Samaritanwas a mixed religion and Jesus was also "mixed" (for lack of word) as he was part human and part God.

I believe Jesus uses the Samaritansymbolically for many reasons. The concept that he uses the Samaritan as symbolic of the Christ - I believe he is demonstrating how many tradionalist (claim relation to G-d based on tradition rather than obedience to teachings of compassion) will in reality reject the Christ even though they have every "outward" appearance of a "believer".

The Traveler

LDSGal,

Christian belief was not that he was part God and part man but fully God and fully man.

Dr. T: I appriciate you trying to correct doctrine (which is my point about Christians more concerned with doctrine than compassion)). But the concept of "fully G-d" and "fully man" means nothing to me. I see no sense at all in such a statement and I think the idea is missleading - unless it is ment to imply that the "fulness" of what is G-d and the "fullness" of what is man is the same thing.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Dr. T: I appriciate you trying to correct doctrine (which is my point about Christians more concerned with doctrine than compassion)). But the concept of "fully G-d" and "fully man" means nothing to me. I see no sense at all in such a statement and I think the idea is missleading - unless it is ment to imply that the "fulness" of what is G-d and the "fullness" of what is man is the same thing.

If you are suggesting that doctrine and compassion are enemies/opposed, I’d have to disagree with you. That is a false dichotomy, Traveler. Correcting false perceptions about doctrine comes from compassion. I understand that fully God and fully man is meaningless to you. I am not saying that the fullness of God is the same as the fullness of man. That is more of an LDS belief/doctrine. From what I’m gathering in Christian belief, man is not God and God is not man/created. When Jesus is talked about as part man, and part God, that is not consistent with Christian belief because Jesus was always God and became incarnate when he became a Man. Being fully God and fully man. An issue I see as a difficulty, something that was holding me back from Christianity but something that is vital to the Christian belief.

[CrimsonKairos]

The Samaritans were considered to be the most corrupt religion to have ever existed on earth

This is a trifling point, but you really think the Jews saw the Samaritans as more corrupt than the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Canaanites, Amorites, Philistines, et al?

At least the Samaritans claimed to worship the same God as Israel, albeit with an unauthorized temple and false high priest. I do agree though that culturally and socially at the time the Samaritans were probably considered worse than any other people around the Jews.

Sorry, had to argue meaninglessly there. B)

[Traveler]

Dr. T: I appriciate you trying to correct doctrine (which is my point about Christians more concerned with doctrine than compassion)). But the concept of "fully G-d" and "fully man" means nothing to me. I see no sense at all in such a statement and I think the idea is missleading - unless it is ment to imply that the "fulness" of what is G-d and the "fullness" of what is man is the same thing.

If you are suggesting that doctrine and compassion are enemies/opposed, I’d have to disagree with you. That is a false dichotomy, Traveler. Correcting false perceptions about doctrine comes from compassion. I understand that fully God and fully man is meaningless to you. I am not saying that the fullness of God is the same as the fullness of man. That is more of an LDS belief/doctrine. From what I’m gathering in Christian belief, man is not God and God is not man/created. When Jesus is talked about as part man, and part God, that is not consistent with Christian belief because Jesus was always God and became incarnate when he became a Man. Being fully God and fully man. An issue I see as a difficulty, something that was holding me back from Christianity but something that is vital to the Christian belief.

There is a problem with many Christians and doctrine. Like the Pharisees they think that a connection or belief to correct doctrine gives them excuse or privilege for not respecting G-d and his covenants, commandments, ordinances, appointed servants and will. Jesus pointed out that there is no doctrine or idea greater than the love of G-d and compassion for your fellow man for indeed all things come from the very love and compassion of G-d. The more that a true believer is associated with G-d the more love and compassion will fill their hearts.

It is simple and very much apart of truth that the more truth and light (G-d’s spirit) a person has the more compassionate and loving they will be. It does not matter what doctrine a person teaches – if they are not loyal to G-d and compassionate and loving of others their doctrine is false and not of G-d. The opposite is also very true – if a person is compassionate and loving of others, regardless of the doctrine they teach, it is true and of G-d. Jesus tried to get this point across talking about trees the produce either good or evil fruit. Even his warning concerning false teachers was not concerning their doctrine but their fruits.

Contrary to scripture and the very teachings of Christ many religionist of modern Christianity turn around the truth and as modern day Pharisees they emphasize “tradition” and doctrine over love and compassion – condemning those with flaws of doctrine regardless of their love of G-d and compassion of others and honoring doctrine and those that favor their view - excusing evil flaws of not loving G-d (obedience to his laws) and having compassion for others.

One last point about the “fully” G-d and “fully” man concepts – Again modern Pharisees define G-d through his work (usually creation). But creation does not define G-d for G-d was G-d before creation (according to scripture). What defines G-d is his love and sacrifice. And it is his love and sacrifice; that G-d wants man to understand, emulate, and define ourselves by. G-d wants man have and possess his greatest power which is to love and sacrifice. This is why I do not like the separation many Christians make concerning with the concept of fully G-d and fully man. It is why I do not believe it.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

The Samaritans were considered to be the most corrupt religion to have ever existed on earth

This is a trifling point, but you really think the Jews saw the Samaritans as more corrupt than the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Canaanites, Amorites, Philistines, et al?

At least the Samaritans claimed to worship the same God as Israel, albeit with an unauthorized temple and false high priest. I do agree though that culturally and socially at the time the Samaritans were probably considered worse than any other people around the Jews.

Sorry, had to argue meaninglessly there. B)

One needs to understand the Samaritans in order to understand why the Jews hated them more than any other religion. When the northern 10 tribes of Israel were taken into captivity by the Assyrians they were replaced by other foreigners that the Assyrians had conquered. This is because anciently it was believed that both people and their g-ds drew power from a given geographical area. Therefore by moving a people away from the “inherited” lands and g-ds they would not be able to have power to rebel.

Often the new people in the land would have difficulty with their old g-ds and would therefore seek out the g-ds that dominated their new geographical area. Samaria became a mixture of three peoples. Corrupt Israelites that had rejected G-d an assortment of pagans brought in by the Assyrians and later an additional assortment of pagans brought in by the Babylonians. These became the Samaritans who adopted worship of Jehovah based on pagan mixture of concepts of worship.

When the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity they put off the impure mixtures of paganism and sought a return to purity. Even among the Jews there was a rejection of many mixed Jew and Babylonian race and culture. The Samaritans at first were excited about the return of the Jews but soon turned bitter when not allowed to participate in the rebuilding of the temple and the use of the temple. The Samaritans were successful in halting the work on the temple and bringing suspicion and condemnation upon the Jews from the Babylonians.

The Jews came to hate the Samaritans far more than any other religion or group. It became “unlawful” for a Jew to talk directly to or have even direct business associations with Samaritans. (no other group were treated so bitterly by the Jews). It was not just that their religion was false but that the religion of the Samaritans was considered a filthy counterfeit of their pure religion. A Levite or Priest that even came into inadvertent contact with a Samaritan (even just to look upon) was considered “unclean” and not allowed to perform their called duties until they have been “cleansed” through special ritual.

The insinuation of Jesus that the Pharisees and Scribes had done more to corrupt the purity of Judaism and worship of Jehovah than the Samaritans (because of their lack of compassion as emphasized in the parable of the Good Samaritan) was one of the primary reasons that they sought the life of Jesus.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Thanks for your thoughts Traveler. I think you are saying that some of the key aspects that God wants passed along are those of compassion and love. I agree with that premise. I take issue with carrying that out to its logical conclusion. As you said,

It does not matter what doctrine a person teaches – if they are not loyal to G-d and compassionate and loving of others their doctrine is false and not of G-d. The opposite is also very true – if a person is compassionate and loving of others, regardless of the doctrine they teach, it is true and of G-d.

Reflect on the second part of this quote. Do you really think that if it is loving and compassionate, that makes it “true”? For example, the “All paths lead to God” idea cannot substantiated by the Bible. Coming to the Father through Jesus is the only way, according to the Bible. Another example would be to both teach opposing/conflict doctrine in a loving and compassionate way. In the end, they both cannot be true in the same way at the same time.

Secondly,

What defines G-d is his love and sacrifice.

I would say that love and sacrifice is only a part of what God is and would have to say that God is God because of his existence/essence not because of what he does. Again, his essence defines him and because of this essence, his actions would be consistent with his nature. His nature dictates his behavior while his behavior does not dictate his essence.

Dr. T

[Maureen]

It is simple and very much apart of truth that the more truth and light (G-d’s spirit) a person has the more compassionate and loving they will be. It does not matter what doctrine a person teaches – if they are not loyal to G-d and compassionate and loving of others their doctrine is false and not of G-d. The opposite is also very true – if a person is compassionate and loving of others, regardless of the doctrine they teach, it is true and of G-d. Jesus tried to get this point across talking about trees the produce either good or evil fruit. Even his warning concerning false teachers was not concerning their doctrine but their fruits.

I must respectfully disagree with this idea. You're saying I can be the most compassionate and loving person and teach blasphemous things about God and that would make it true? Now that makes no sense to me.

M.

[Blessed]

I will echo Maureen's opinion and say that the Prodigal Son is my favorite. It has so many elements to it. Of course, like most, can relate to being the Prodigal son, but I can also see myself in the father and his excitement in love for the return of something lost. I can also relate to the elder brother being jealous that his brother is getting so much attention. There is something about that story that really has a profound effect on my soul and has made me think about so many things.

[CrimsonKairos]

Here's what Elder McConkie says about parables in his book, "The Mortal Messiah Vol. II"

Strong and deep doctrine, spoken to rebellious people, drives them further away and widens the gulf between them and the saints of God. [...] Jesus told [the apostles] that the world could not receive that which they themselves were scarcely able to bear, and that if they gave gospel pearls to the wicked and ungodly, such unbelieving and rebellious people would first reject the message, and then use the very truths they had heard to rend and destory and wreak havoc among those whose faith was weak.

I like the parable of the Sower (Mark 4). The applications of the truths in it range beyond missionary work and the gospel. When applied to romance, one's profession, et al, various wonderful things can be gleaned.

[Dr T]

That is another great one CK. They are great messages.

[Traveler]

Secondly,

What defines G-d is his love and sacrifice.

I would say that love and sacrifice is only a part of what God is and would have to say that God is God because of his existence/essence not because of what he does. Again, his essence defines him and because of this essence, his actions would be consistent with his nature. His nature dictates his behavior while his behavior does not dictate his essence.

Dr. T

Maureen Posted Yesterday, 06:01 PM

QUOTE(Traveler @ Feb 19 2007, 09:57 AM)

It is simple and very much apart of truth that the more truth and light (G-d’s spirit) a person has the more compassionate and loving they will be. It does not matter what doctrine a person teaches – if they are not loyal to G-d and compassionate and loving of others their doctrine is false and not of G-d. The opposite is also very true – if a person is compassionate and loving of others, regardless of the doctrine they teach, it is true and of G-d. Jesus tried to get this point across talking about trees the produce either good or evil fruit. Even his warning concerning false teachers was not concerning their doctrine but their fruits.

I must respectfully disagree with this idea. You're saying I can be the most compassionate and loving person and teach blasphemous things about God and that would make it true? Now that makes no sense to me.

M.

Blessed Posted Yesterday, 07:18 PM

I will echo Maureen's opinion

I will respond to all these criticisms at once for it is quite evident that many do not understand G-d and his compassion and his doctrine of love.

1. The way that Jesus provides is the way of love and compassion. Only those that love and have compassion are on the way that Jesus taught.

2. Love and compassion includes love and compassion towards G-d and man. One cannot have love and compassion for G-d and not have love and compassion towards man. Likewise one cannot have love and compassion towards man and not have love and compassion towards G-d. Those that think love and compassion towards G-d and man can be separated are teaching false doctrine. To be in the service of mankind is the very meaning of being is the service of G-d. You cannot serve man without serving G-d. (This is the very essence of the parable of the Good Samaritan – It is what Jesus tried to teach and the light that most of the world cannot see because of false doctrine)

3. G-d is love. All other attributes, names and understandings of G-d are only and can only be defined, understood and believed within the context of his love.

4. If one can have love and compassion without it coming from G-d then G-d is not the source of all that is good because love and compassion is good and if it does not always come from G-d then there must be another source.

5. A good tree always brings forth good fruit and an evil tree always brings forth evil fruit. Contrary to the doctrines some teach on this forum – The Bible and Jesus taught that an evil tree NEVER brings forth good fruit and a good tree NEVER brings forth evil fruit. Therefore, it is by their fruits that every tree is known. NOT BY THE TREE’S DOCTRINE.

6. The first commandment is to love G-d and the second is just like it – to love mankind. Every commandment and all doctrines of G-d is directly dependent and linked to these two commandments. If anyone says they love G-d and do not keep the commandments (based on love and compassion) they are a liar and there is not truth in them. The only way that we can know if we or anyone else truly loves G-d is by obedience to his commandments.

Gandhi was once asked to preach a sermon and he declined. The more he was pressed to teach the more he declined. Finely he said, “I am what I preach”. There is also the saying, “What you do thunders so laude in my ears I cannot hear a word you are saying.”

If you or anyone else does not have G-d’s spirit (which is love and compassion) then you should not be teaching or listening to such a teacher and thinking it is of G-d

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

I agree with most of what you say Traveler.

One difference between us is that you define the "fruit" of a tree as actions alone. I believe teachings are also a fruit, if you will, and in that respect false doctrines are bad fruit, and true doctrines are good fruit.

It's not an either/or issue. A good tree (read: disciple) will both love as God loves, and teach what Jesus taught (true doctrine).

[Dr T]

I understand that God is love. I know the importance of love and characteristics of "good" vs. "evil." You are losing me with the tree analogy because a tree does not have doctrine. A tree just is. Still, the issue of teaching false doctrine compassionately and lovingly, does not make it true/good like you said. I'm must be missing your point because the conclusion to that premise is obvious. Yet that's what it seems you are saying. I'm ready for a lesson if you can phrase it another way. Maybe start with a simple yes or no answer to the question "Are you saying that false doctrine, when taught with love and compassion is always true"?

Thank you

[rosie321]

Much good stuff said already.

Pet peeve of mine is those who interpret the "by the fruits ye shall know them" to mean converts to a belief or number of baptisms done. This leads to a pride, which is fruit that belongs to a different kind of tree then they're hoping for.

Tree-doctrines, gospel, teachings, ordinances and principles......

Fruit-galatians 5 fruits of the flesh and spirit.

"Are you saying that false doctrine, when taught with love and compassion is always true"?

Talk about a loaded question!

False doctrine means that somewhere down the line someone is going to get a learning experience :) And a time for choice.

Intent of heart would play a big part. Why is the person teaching it? Do they understand what they are doing? No matter what they gotta get some points for the love and compassion Something on a totally bad tree would not come across with a lot of love and compassion.

[Dr T]

:) It is only loaded because from this

It does not matter what doctrine a person teaches – if they are not loyal to G-d and compassionate and loving of others their doctrine is false and not of G-d. The opposite is also very true – if a person is compassionate and loving of others, regardless of the doctrine they teach, it is true and of G-d.

I wanted to know if he was saying that of if I am misunderstanding what he is saying Rosie. It's a direct question because it is obviously not true so I asked him if he is actually saying that or not.

[Traveler]

I'm ready for a lesson if you can phrase it another way. Maybe start with a simple yes or no answer to the question "Are you saying that false doctrine, when taught with love and compassion is always true"?

Thank you

To begin with I wonder and question why anyone believes or would suggest that it is possible to teach false doctrine out of love and compassion. Where does such an idea come from? I think I know and I do not think the idea came from G-d.

The question has no "true" answer in the same way that someone asks if an all powerful G-d can lie or sin? Is it possible for G-d to teach false doctrine? Such things do not happen – regardless of if someone can think such possible or not. Perhaps if you would supply a single incident or time that Satan has taught a false doctrine with love and compassion for others I might understand why you are so sure such a thing is true. Or perhaps one time when G-d has given, commanded or offered anything to man that was not out of his great love and compassion for man.

Shakespeare once said “To thin own self be true and it shall follow as the night the day; thou canst not be false to any man.”

Jesus also spoke in a similar essence when he said, “If you will do what I teach you will know if I teach from G-d or speak of myself.” So also in this matter I declare, “If anyone were to truly act out of love and compassion (seeking nothing for themselves) they would know if I teach such a principle from G-d or if I speak for my own honor.”

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Traveler,

You are sidestepping the question. I'm merely asking you, based on your proposition, is a false doctrine, that is given/taught in love and compassion then true? (like I think you said). I'm not suggesting that God would/could give false doctrine. That is not the issue. People on the other hand, can. They can, from a compassionate and sincere heart teach something that is not true as if it were. Would that make it true like you suggested? I'd say "no." That is my point. I'm trying to give you an opportunity to correct me if I misread what you are saying.

[Adomini22]

Well said , Dr. T.

Traveler, I think a little more explaining would help your case, given the notion that we may have all misread your post above. But if you dont really give an answer, then all we can do is reply according to what you have written. I mean, you dont really believe that, right?

[Traveler]

Traveler,

You are sidestepping the question. I'm merely asking you, based on your proposition, is a false doctrine, that is given/taught in love and compassion then true? (like I think you said). I'm not suggesting that God would/could give false doctrine. That is not the issue. People on the other hand, can. They can, from a compassionate and sincere heart teach something that is not true as if it were. Would that make it true like you suggested? I'd say "no." That is my point. I'm trying to give you an opportunity to correct me if I misread what you are saying.

Adomini Posted Today, 12:18 PM

Well said , Dr. T.

Traveler, I think a little more explaining would help your case, given the notion that we may have all misread your post above. But if you dont really give an answer, then all we can do is reply according to what you have written. I mean, you dont really believe that, right?

Please give me an example in scripture where a false doctrine is taught with love and compassion towards G-d and mankind. I keep saying the universe is not ordered that way - Those of you that say it is, please show me where you get this idea. Dr T. You say that there are teachers with love for G-d and man that teach false doctrine - Give me one real example. Why do you say such things?

It does not matter what we can imagine as possible - if it never happens or has never happened - I would not bet my salvation on it. We are not talking about a person being sincere. We are talking about some one acting out of the love of G-d and compassion for others that like the Samaritan belong to a religion of false teaching. The only question we need to ask our self is if the Samaritan in the parable of the Good Samaritan taught false doctrine.

I believe what Jesus taught - why? Because he loves G-d and had compassion for all mankind. These are the first two and great commandments. - yes if someone keeps these two great commandments I will believe what ever they say. What better criteria is there for truth? I suggest we read 1Cor. chapter 13

The Traveler