# I don't understand the parable of the Ten Minas. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998 "2009-11-02T00:21:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/61 "2009-11-02T18:09:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why is it evil not to worship God? > > What is this “Totalitarian Kingdom” thing? What “resources” are atheists draining, and why does God need obesience? Well since the Kingdom is not yet established the point is kind of moot right? But when/if its established then the resources would be the Earth’s resources. If God is real and the Kingdom is established then obeisance to God is just the sign of a healthy mind and as such the species should be purged of the insanely stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/62 "2009-11-02T18:13:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The King admits he’s an asshole who takes what he did not earn. That’s not how I read it. I read “You knew, did you, [that I’m an asshole]?” which doesn’t come across to me as an admission, but as a rhetorical question. That is, the servant accused the king of being an ass, and so being afraid of taking any risk, he did nothing. Then the king asks him, that if that is what he thought, why didn’t he at least put it in the bank and get some interest. The servant knew he was going to get judged harshly. Sure, he didn’t lose any of the money, but he was also commanded to make some. He could have at least been safe with the money and gotten him some interest. He knew better and completely squandered the opportunity. > [@](#): > > He also orders his servants to kill anyone who won’t accept him as a king. If Jesus is the king, then Jesus is telling _somebody_ to kill unbelievers. Who is supposed to do the killing? I also think this is missing the point. Let me ask you, do you really expect a king in that circumstance would actuallyy kill people with his own hands? Would you expect the king to say “bring them to me so that I may kill them myself?” That just doesn’t make sense. The fact that he’s ordering them to be killed is synonymous with punishment for being his enemies; that the king won’t actually be doing it himself is just an artifact of the simple fact that a king in that situation doesn’t actually kill his enemies himself. So… > [@](#): > > That doesn’t make it any better. Jesus is going to come back and tell Christians to start smoking atheists and Musims? That’s the message? No, that isn’t the message. The message is simply that those who have not served him will be punished, and those who do will be rewarded. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/63 "2009-11-02T18:22:48Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well since the Kingdom is not yet established the point is kind of moot right? But when/if its established then the resources would be the Earth’s resources. If God is real and the Kingdom is established then obeisance to God is just the sign of a healthy mind and as such the species should be purged of the insanely stupid. This makes no sense to me. Even if God is revealed to be irrefutably real, that doesn’t mean he deserves obesience (I would certainly never give it), nor does it make sense that he would demand it. And I still don’t know what “resources” you were referring to. Hey, if it’s thekingdom of God, let God make more resources..or eliminbate the need for them. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/64 "2009-11-02T18:24:04Z")
What doesn’t make sense to me is why you think you have every right to be an enemy of the state and yet live in the state with a citizen’s rights. It’s funny how you refuse to accomodate God but think that he should just create new parts of the universe to accomodate you. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/65 "2009-11-02T18:34:26Z")
Blessed are the venture capitalists, for they will acquire the world. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/66 "2009-11-02T18:37:46Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > That’s not how I read it. I read “You knew, did you, [that I’m an asshole]?” which doesn’t come across to me as an admission, but as a rhetorical question. It’s not phrased as a question at all. “And he said to him, ‘I will judge you out of your own mouth, wicked servant. you knew I was a harsh man, picking up what I did not lay down, and reaping what I did not sow. Why then did you not put my money in the bank so that, at my coming, I could have received it with interest?’” It’s a flat staement – you know I was a prick, so why didn’t you invest MY money? > [@](#): > > That is, the servant accused the king of being an ass Which the king does not deny. > [@](#): > > and so being afraid of taking any risk, he did nothing. Then the king asks him, that if that is what he thought, why didn’t he at least put it in the bank and get some interest. The king doesn’t say it’s what the servant “thought,” he said it was what the servant _knew_. > [@](#): > > The servant knew he was going to get judged harshly. Sure, he didn’t lose any of the money, but he was also commanded to make some. He could have at least been safe with the money and gotten him some interest. He knew better and completely squandered the opportunity. An opportunity he never asked for, and which was of no benefit to him. This interpretation does nothing to dispel the impression that the king is a dick, by the way. > [@](#): > > I also think this is missing the point. Let me ask you, do you really expect a king in that circumstance would actuallyy kill people with his own hands? I expect God to do it. > [@](#): > > No, that isn’t the message. The message is simply that those who have not served him will be punished, and those who do will be rewarded. It says that he will order people to kill anyone who doesn’t accept him as their “king.” Why do those people deserve to be punished? What’s wrong with not being a Christian? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/67 "2009-11-02T18:41:12Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What doesn’t make sense to me is why you think you have every right to be an enemy of the state and yet live in the state with a citizen’s rights. > > It’s funny how you refuse to accomodate God but think that he should just create new parts of the universe to accomodate you. Omnimax gods do not require “accomodation,” and it’s impossible for them to have enemies. I also think it’s nuts to say that anyone who isn’t a Christian is an “enemy of the state.” That’s like Glenn Beck territory. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/68 "2009-11-02T18:47:06Z")
So you understand the parable, and what Luke believed. You just don’t agree with it. That’s a different thing. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/69 "2009-11-02T18:49:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Omnimax gods do not require “accomodation,” and it’s impossible for them to have enemies… Ooh, I love Omnimax gods. They seem so much more impressive on the big screens with surround sound! ---
**Author:** ![rivulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rivulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rivulus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/70 "2009-11-02T19:44:15Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > The point, as I see it, is that God is the rightful king, even if many of his subjects fear and reject him. Jesus was crucified by the very people he came to save. The third servant feared the king, having decided that the king didn’t deserve the his wealth and was a harsh man. Yet, the king wasn’t harsh to the servants who did as they were asked; in fact, they were rewarded far and above what they earned for him; that is, surely a city is worth far more than a mina. > > So, the king is beyond generous to those who served him well, but he will punish those who do not or reject him. Looking at it from a completely dispassionate perspective, this nicely summarizes the parable and makes sense. Many Christian denominations do, in fact, present God in just this way: as a rightful king who rewards and punishes depending on obedience to him. > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > So you understand the parable, and what Luke believed. You just don’t agree with it. That’s a different thing. I can’t speak for **Diogenes the Cynic** , but from my perspective it’s not that simple. People are getting mixed messages from different Christian denominations. I grew up in a denomination where I spent years in Sunday school surrounded by pictures of Jesus with fuzzy lambs and little children. The stories cherry-picked for us children focused on the gentle Jesus, the compassionate God. (God drowned everyone on the Earth, but he **saved Noah** and his family! What a good guy God is!) Even as an adult, the concepts of compassion and forgiveness were preached as the ultimate moral good. An example to follow. Then I grew up and read the Bible end to end. Quite the shabby shocker, that one. Where are the angels and little sparrows? Where are the fishes and loaves? Wow, there’s a lot of Og smash in there! And smiting! The lambs are still happy, but the goats are screwed. Where is the compassion and forgiveness? The cognitive dissonance becomes even more pointed when one tries to live a so-called “Christian” life following Jesus’ example, based on a book that casts God and Jesus in a distinctly _un_compassionate and authoritarian role at times. This is where interpreting the parable becomes tricky. **WWJD** based on this parable? What am I supposed to do? How does one live a moral life based off of this message? What happens when I, as the third servant, have doubts about God? Do I get everything taken away? What about forgiveness? Yes, one can easily interpret this parable in isolation. Trying to put it in context and have it mesh with some brands of Christian teaching can be very difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/71 "2009-11-02T19:45:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Omnimax gods do not require “accomodation,” and it’s impossible for them to have enemies. > > I also think it’s nuts to say that anyone who isn’t a Christian is an “enemy of the state.” That’s like Glenn Beck territory. And what’s up with Zeus appearing as a swan and lying with maidens? Isn’t that sexual harassment? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/72 "2009-11-02T19:56:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Omnimax gods do not require “accomodation,” and it’s impossible for them to have enemies. So you say. It’s nice to be able to dictate terms for what God does and does not require no? > [@](#): > > I also think it’s nuts to say that anyone who isn’t a Christian is an “enemy of the state.” That’s like Glenn Beck territory. LOL, we’re talking about God ruling Earth in an immanent sense here. Glenn Beck territory is anyone who refuses to bow to God when proof is 100%. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/73 "2009-11-02T20:20:19Z")
I always took the parable (of the “talents” as I heard it) to mean that we need to use the gifts we’re given for the kingdom of God, speard love and not hide our light under a bushel. It always made me uneasy, because I’m risk-averse and identified with the guy who just wanted to keep the money safe. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/74 "2009-11-02T20:20:28Z")
Logic dicates the rules, not me. And the mere existence of a god is not sufficient to warrant obesience to it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/75 "2009-11-02T20:28:08Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Logic dicates the rules, not me. Except that logic is nowhere to be found in your posts. You are basically saying you’d obstinantly cling to the beliefs formed in a world where God isn’t known in a world where God is known. So you’ve abandoned the logical platform and insist that you will cleave to the atheist position as an article of faith. That’s religious extremism, not logic. I can think of logical reasons why God might want us to pay obeisance. > [@](#): > > And the mere existence of a god is not sufficient to warrant obesience to it. _shrugs_ If the creator of the universe wants obeisance and is willing to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is real and rules immanently, then it is irrational to act contrary to those dictates. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/76 "2009-11-02T20:33:23Z")
> [@rivulus](#): > > I can’t speak for **Diogenes the Cynic** , but from my perspective it’s not that simple. People are getting mixed messages from different Christian denominations. I grew up in a denomination where I spent years in Sunday school surrounded by pictures of Jesus with fuzzy lambs and little children. The stories cherry-picked for us children focused on the gentle Jesus, the compassionate God. (God drowned everyone on the Earth, but he **saved Noah** and his family! What a good guy God is!) Even as an adult, the concepts of compassion and forgiveness were preached as the ultimate moral good. An example to follow. Right, but Luke didn’t write the gospel for you. Your culture and your values are different than the culture and values of the early Christian community. They have to be. It’s been two thousand years. Christianity has changed, so there’s going to be things in the bible that cause you cognitive dissonance, because you’re assuming that the teachings of the bible are applicable to your life and your situation, and in a lot of ways, they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/77 "2009-11-02T20:47:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not phrased as a question at all. > > “And he said to him, ‘I will judge you out of your own mouth, wicked servant. you knew I was a harsh man, picking up what I did not lay down, and reaping what I did not sow. Why then did you not put my money in the bank so that, at my coming, I could have received it with interest?’” > > It’s a flat staement – you know I was a prick, so why didn’t you invest MY money? First off, that’s a different translation than that one I was using; I was using NIV. What translation is that? It does change the tone, but I don’t think it changes the message. I see that you can get that interpretation out of it if you’re looking for it, I still don’t see that as the most likely meaning in translating it to Jesus. I think the main point is that the servant knew what the king expected and what the consequences would be and still made a foolish decision. So, whether the king is a jerk or not is immaterial. What matters is that the servant had a commandment and he didn’t follow through with it even knowing that he would be punished for not doing so. So sure, that may make the king harsh in his view (as it would to anyone who he would punish), but it doesn’t change the fact that the servant didn’t do his job. > [@](#): > > Which the king does not deny. I don’t see how this is relevant. Again, the king may be a jerk, he may not be, but what good does it do him to deny an accusation of a servant who has already made up his mind about him? More importantly, how does it affect the fact that the servant didn’t do his job? > [@](#): > > The king doesn’t say it’s what the servant “thought,” he said it was what the servant _knew_. I’m sorry, I’m not seeing this as a meaningful distinction. If I’m getting your implication correctly though, it seems to only reinforce my point that the servant knew there would be punishment for making a foolish choice with the money he was given and still made the foolish choice. > [@](#): > > An opportunity he never asked for, and which was of no benefit to him. This interpretation does nothing to dispel the impression that the king is a dick, by the way. I’m sorry, I really don’t get your point here. In the parable, the guy is a servant. Do servants get to ask their masters for what tasks they get and don’t get? We don’t live in that kind of world anymore, but I don’t see how a king giving a commandment to his servants in the context of the world these people lived in makes him a dick… it makes him a king. A king would have had servants and they were supposed to do what he told them too. If he was a just king, he would reward those who served him well and punish those who didn’t. > [@](#): > > I expect God to do it. As do I, and I don’t think this parable implies anything different. However, that’s not relevant to the lesson here at all, and so you’re taking the analogy too far. This lesson is about how to serve God, so I think trying to extract that God will have his servants kill those who disbelief is missing the point. If you want to learn about how punishment will be carried out, there’s plenty of other examples that specifically address that point. > [@](#): > > It says that he will order people to kill anyone who doesn’t accept him as their “king.” > > Why do those people deserve to be punished? What’s wrong with not being a Christian? I’m not really sure what you’re missing here because it seems pretty obvious to me. God is the rightful king. As our rightful king, he expects us to serve him, and if we serve him, he will reward us well; if we take the resources he gives us serve him and squander them or, instead, refuse his kingship and rebel against him, what king wouldn’t punish those who did that? I’m guessing the confusion is coming simply because the idea of a king just doesn’t carry over to government in the modern world. So, perhaps a parental relationship makes a bit more sense here. Say a parent asks their child to do some chores and do their homework, doesn’t a child who does that deserve to be rewarded and a child who doesn’t deserve to be punished? Similarly, imagine a rebelious child who is always fighting against their parents and doesn’t like them; does that make the mother and father jerks for being his parents? Our relationship with God is the same thing. Many people rebel against him, many people squander his blessings, but whether we love him or despise him, he’s still the one who created us and no amount of not liking that will change that relationship, just like no amount of not liking your parents will make them not your parents. I think the other part that you’re glossing over is the reward. Those who served the king well got many times back what they did for the king. God gives all of us blessings, and we’re expected to use those in ways that glorify him. The point is, there isn’t any way out of it. A child doesn’t get to go to his parents and say “I’d rather not enter into an arrangement in which I get rewarded for doing chores and punished for not doing them.” ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/78 "2009-11-02T20:59:57Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Except that logic is nowhere to be found in your posts. You are basically saying you’d obstinantly cling to the beliefs formed in a world where God isn’t known in a world where God is known. So you’ve abandoned the logical platform and insist that you will cleave to the atheist position as an article of faith. That’s religious extremism, not logic. I can think of logical reasons why God might want us to pay obeisance. Well, I think that it’s important to note that, in the context of this parable, whether or not one actually believes in God, I think it’s important to realize that the person telling the parable has professed himself as the son of God and that his audience are similarly religious people. So, I think it’s illogical to not have as part of the context of interpretting the parable that all of the teachings of Jesus are true. > [@](#): > > _shrugs_ If the creator of the universe wants obeisance and is willing to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is real and rules immanently, then it is irrational to act contrary to those dictates. I’d actually have to disagree with you a bit here. If the creator of the universe exists, then logically speaking, he deserves your obedience if he says he deserves your obedience for the simple fact that, if he’s powerful enough to create the universe, then similarly, he is powerful enough to give punishment and/or rewards based upon obedience. Obviously, we all still have the choice to be disobedient, but in so doing, we must also realize we’re choosing to accept the consequences of those actions. The part with which I disagree with you is the “beyond the shadow of a doubt”. Though I have faith, I don’t think that I, or very many people at all, have a faith to that degree. Thus, I think it’s simply a matter of making sure that everyone knows the rules. And I think this actually comes across in the parable, as those who didn’t even want him to be king were punished just as the one who served him poorly. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/79 "2009-11-02T23:30:54Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > First off, that’s a different translation than that one I was using; I was using NIV. What translation is that? It does change the tone, but I don’t think it changes the message. It’s my own translation, and it’s a straight translation. Yours is the one that changes the tone. Here is the actual Greek: λέγει δὲ αὐτῷ Ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου κρινῶ σε πονηρὲ δοῦλε ᾔδεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος αὐστηρός εἰμι αἴρων ὃ οὐκ ἔθηκα καὶ θερίζων ὃ οὐκ ἔσπειρα Here is the literal, word by word translation (the word order may sound strange in English): _He said [then] to him, “from the mouth of yours [“from your own mouth”], I judge you, [you] miserable slave. You knew that I am a man harsh [“a harsh man”], picking up what not I laid down and reaping what not I sowed.”_ The construction “you knew, did you” from the NIV translation you cite is not in the Greek. There is no “did you,” no question. It just says “you knew.” > [@](#): > > I see that you can get that interpretation out of it if you’re looking for it It’s the plain translation. > [@](#): > > I still don’t see that as the most likely meaning in translating it to Jesus. I think the main point is that the servant knew what the king expected and what the consequences would be and still made a foolish decision. Whether the king is supposed to be Jesus or not (and I don’t believe he is), the king in the story admits to being “harsh” and that he takes what he did not earn. > [@](#): > > So, whether the king is a jerk or not is immaterial. What matters is that the servant had a commandment and he didn’t follow through with it even knowing that he would be punished for not doing so. So sure, that may make the king harsh in his view (as it would to anyone who he would punish), but it doesn’t change the fact that the servant didn’t do his job. The Greek word is actually _doulous_, “slaves.” So the moral is that slaves should do whatever their owners tell them to do, and if they don’t, they’re evil and should be killed? > [@](#): > > I don’t see how this is relevant. Again, the king may be a jerk, he may not be, but what good does it do him to deny an accusation of a servant who has already made up his mind about him? Killing the slave only proves him right. > [@](#): > > More importantly, how does it affect the fact that the servant didn’t do his job? The slave didn’t avoid work, he was rightfully afraid of the king’s wrath, and simply tried to avoid losing his money. How does that make the slave evil and worthy of death? > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, I’m not seeing this as a meaningful distinction. If I’m getting your implication correctly though, it seems to only reinforce my point that the servant knew there would be punishment for making a foolish choice with the money he was given and still made the foolish choice. “Foolish” is really defined only as a choice which will cause a harsh master to kill him. The slave’s intention was to _avoid_ that eventuality, but the lesson was that he underestimated how big of a dick the king really was. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, I really don’t get your point here. In the parable, the guy is a servant. Do servants get to ask their masters for what tasks they get and don’t get? We don’t live in that kind of world anymore, but I don’t see how a king giving a commandment to his servants in the context of the world these people lived in makes him a dick… it makes him a king. Slavery wasn’t immoral then? > [@](#): > > A king would have had servants and they were supposed to do what he told them too. If he was a just king, he would reward those who served him well and punish those who didn’t. There’s nothing just about the punshment in this parable. > [@](#): > > As do I, and I don’t think this parable implies anything different. However, that’s not relevant to the lesson here at all, and so you’re taking the analogy too far. This lesson is about how to serve God, so I think trying to extract that God will have his servants kill those who disbelief is missing the point. If you want to learn about how punishment will be carried out, there’s plenty of other examples that specifically address that point. Any punishment at all for simply not being Christian is asinine and unjustified, but if the king in this parable is Jesus, then Jesus is telling his “slaves” to go kill anyone who doesn’t accept him as king. > [@](#): > > I’m not really sure what you’re missing here because it seems pretty obvious to me. God is the rightful king. Says who? What does that even _mean_? King of what? > [@](#): > > As our rightful king, he expects us to serve him What gives him the right to demand that? > [@](#): > > ,and if we serve him, he will reward us well; if we take the resources he gives us serve him and squander them or, instead, refuse his kingship and rebel against him, what king wouldn’t punish those who did that? A benevolent king. This story was only about money anyway, and only for the benefit of the king. “Make me money or I’ll kill you.” > [@](#): > > I’m guessing the confusion is coming simply because the idea of a king just doesn’t carry over to government in the modern world. So, perhaps a parental relationship makes a bit more sense here. Say a parent asks their child to do some chores and do their homework, doesn’t a child who does that deserve to be rewarded and a child who doesn’t deserve to be punished? Similarly, imagine a rebelious child who is always fighting against their parents and doesn’t like them; does that make the mother and father jerks for being his parents? The salve in this story wasn’t rebellious, just scared. And the “parent” is an admitted asshole who kills children fort being afraid of him. > [@](#): > > Our relationship with God is the same thing. Many people rebel against him What does that mean? How does one “rebel against god,” especially if one has no idea that God even exists? How does rebellion _harm_ God? > [@](#): > > many people squander his blessings What blessings? > [@](#): > > but whether we love him or despise him, he’s still the one who created us and no amount of not liking that will change that relationship, just like no amount of not liking your parents will make them not your parents. Parents aren’t in the right just because they’re parents. > [@](#): > > I think the other part that you’re glossing over is the reward. Those who served the king well got many times back what they did for the king. God gives all of us blessings, and we’re expected to use those in ways that glorify him. The point is, there isn’t any way out of it. A child doesn’t get to go to his parents and say “I’d rather not enter into an arrangement in which I get rewarded for doing chores and punished for not doing them.” The rewards don’t matter. The injustice of the king’s punishment (and command to commit mass slaughter) cannot be bought off by giving a few sycophants some material rewards. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998/80 "2009-11-02T23:51:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Foolish” is really defined only as a choice which will cause a harsh master to kill him. The slave’s intention was to _avoid_ that eventuality, but the lesson was that he underestimated how big of a dick the king really was. The slave doesn’t get killed in the parable. The only punishment that happens to the slave in the parable, other than being yelled at, is that the king takes back the mina he gave to him, and gives it to the one who had made ten minas. You’re confusing this parable with the parable of the talents. In the parable of the talents, the useless slave gets “cast into the outer darkness”. In this one, he doesn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-understand-the-parable-of-the-ten-minas/515998.md?page=5)