Parables 101

So Jesus knew something the rest of the audience did not. Kinda like one of those old Perry Mason dramas.If so then why wasn't this explained in the narrative? Instead of punishing the young man for being duplicitous the narrative punishes him for being rich and not giving it all. Wrong message sent. Or wrong interpretation.

I fail to see where this response has anything to do with the issue presented. The issue, Phat, is the criteria used to judge the victim. The text written in the parable condemns the kid for being rich and not giving it ALL away.Your apologist says, no, that's not the reason (which is killer harsh on ALL rich people trying to be christian). It was because the kid was being duplicitous, dishonest in his inquiry about what it takes to be saved.Nowhere in the narrative is this theme expressed. It’s bogus.Your apologist was trying to finesse away the harsh criticism of the parable showing that to be saved, one (and by one it is implied everyone) has to give up everything to preach and perform good works to be saved.That is harsh. So to soften it a bit your apologist adds elements not in the original. The kid is condemned for his unstated, un-evidenced, duplicity of mind and not for being miserly. Rich folks get another break from the requirements of the creed.What I’m doing, Phat, is calling your apologist out for being duplicitous himself.What the parable says on its face is too harsh a judgement, say some, for just being a rich person so change the story to make the punishment for something else. Make the punishment for ANYTHING other than just being rich. Condemned as "rich" sends a bad vibe through the mega-churches and their pastors.With your apologist's interpretation the rich can keep their wealth and can now throw a few coins at the poor feeling truly delighted and religiously fulfilled knowing they are doing good works. I should think god, holding the keys to the kingdom, would be very consistent in his messages and the requirements for entry. Specifics may very by individual story but a consistent theme across the canvass should be expected.Rich man who refuses to give it all - condemned.
Rich man willingly gives half and corrects his errors - salvation granted.
Poor old widow donates 2 coins which represent her entire worth - salvation granted.
(would the judgement be the same if she had donated only one?)
A couple sell their property and donate all but a portion - condemned.[aside]WTF!?I sell my house for $100 and donate $90 to the church.Who is this jew to tell me I'm condemned to hell? Just kill me right in my tracks, fall down dead because I gave generously but not all?! More than the guy who gave only half and was saved? And you kill my wife, too!Consistent much, christianity? No wonder you're lost to this world.[/aside] Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Yeah, those early christians didn't have anything over Chicago mob bosses."You make the donation to our church?"
"Yes, I will. I have property out east I can sell."
"We accept. And when you sell this property we will take ALL the proceeds. Every mite ... or you and wifey here git made dead. Capisce?"And now Peter has god-like zap'em-dead powers?You christians got more gods than the Hindus.

Regardless of your apologist's contortions with the syntax of scripture, that is precisely what your god commands you to do ... in multiple places throughout the gospels. So often is this command given to those who would follow him it is rather dishonest to try to twist it into some kind of suggestion. It is a direct command.