If you think about substituting the devil for the king it makes as much or more sense than substituting God. So how was the servant to know that this was a king that demanded respect and subservience rather than one who should be despised and resisted? I mean really, which makes more sense: a good person acting like the king or a bad person?
Or how about this: Hitler went off to invade Poland, but before he left he gave some money to three occupied French people to invest for him. Two of them made more money for Hitler, and the other, knowing that Hitler was evil, tried to save his own skin while avoiding making more money for the Nazis. Hitler came back, rewarded the first two and took the money away from the third. Then he killed all the Poles that resisted him.
So what do we take from this? You should you follow the wishes of an evil, unelected ruler because he will punish you if you don’t? Great story, sign me up for that religion.
If you choose not to call the assets gifts then so be it, it doesn’t change things one iota. You may want to learn, however, that in normal speech attributes such as beauty and wealth are commonly referred to as gifts, hence expressions like “the gift of the gab”.
Once again, It seems clear you don’t quite understand what a parable is. A parable is an extended metaphor, it’s not a literal interpretation.
Hence “make more money for the king” does not literally mean “make more money for the king”. If it did literally mean “make more money for the king” then it wouldn’t be a parable. “Make more money for the king” is a metaphor meaning “increase the glory of the kingdom”. One of the ways to increase increase the glory of the kingdom is to do charitable works, including giving to the poor.
Trust me, once you’ve had a bit more practice understanding how parables and metaphors work it will make more sense. Everybody else seems to understand it.
You mean once you’ve mastered the art of interpreting them however you want to interpret them.
Kind of funny that you say the money is a metaphor, but what you say it’s a metaphor for is just another metaphor. What does “increase the glory of the kingdom” mean?
By the way, the “asset” interpretation doesn’t make sense. The money still belonged to the king. Nothing was given to the slaves, any more than telling them to wash his car would have been giving them a car.
I think you need to buy a dictionary my friend. A metaphor is a statement or word that is used as a stand in for something else. “Increase the glory of the kingdom” is not a stand in for anything else. It is a direct and literal usage of the words.
Understand the difference?
It makes perfect sense.
Yes, that’s right.
And all Christians and all they have are the property of Jesus and remain the property of Jesus. He has entrusted some of his assets to Christians to use to his benefit until he returns, but all Christians remain, literally, faithful slaves.
Once again, Dio, you barge into thread on theology only to demonstrate gross ignorance of the most basic tenets of Christian theology.
Pointless semantics. And piss-poor, pathetic, pointless semantics at that.
It says right there in the scripture that “he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas”. Can you understand that? He gave them ten minas. Saying that nothing was given to the slave is ridiculous.
And yes, when I give a valet my car keys I really do, well, give the valet my car keys. As does everyone else who gives a valet their car keys.
What the fuck do you call it when you give a valet your car keys? "I’ll be back in a minute honey, I just have to entrust the valet with my car keys with no implication of transfer of ownership and full understanding that transfer is being undertaken solely as part of a broader transaction.
Pathetic, semantic poppycock. The keys are given to the valet, the laundry is given to the maid and the minas were given to the servants.
IMHO the 10 Minas is about the gifts God gives to us, and we are to use them in a way that they grow, as that is the work God gives for us. If we bury our gifts, not use them, a person is being useless to God, and God will find someone else to use those gifts to reach other people.
Re: Tithing part of the OP
Tithing is Old Testament Law, not the way of Grace and a personal relationship with God. God shows very clearly what happens if we hold anything from Him in Acts 5:1-10, in summary if you withhold anything you will die. You have to give 100% (not 10%) to God.
In my experience (and IMHO), God will indicate who and where to give (His money that He lets you hold) on a personal communication level, and you no longer follow some written code, such as give 10% to this organization - that written code does not require a personal relationship with God, once the personal relationship exists the written code has be set aside as that will hinder God’s work through you.
Also churches that stress tithing IMHO fail to trust God to provide, but their own ability to persuade people to give a portion of their income, though they ask the people to trust God to provide.
No it isn’t. There is no literal “kingdom.” “Kingdom” is a metaphor. “Increase the glory of the kingdom” has no literal semantic meaning. What does “glory” mean in this context, what is the “kingdom” and why does its glory need to be “increased?”
Wow. It must suck to be a Christian then. Not much payoff there. What does “using assets to his benefit” mean? How can an omnimax God logically be benefited?
This is bullshit. I know Christian theology very well. Better than most Christians, and I know you can’t cite an example of me ever being wrong about it. I sometimes ask rhetorical questions about it, not because I don’t understand it, but to show logical cracks in it.
I have not commented on Christian theology in this thread, though, just on the interpretation of a parable.
All you’re doing is agreeing with me. The slaves were “given” nothing. They were only put to work taking care of the king’s assets. He gave them nothing to keep for themselves.
I agree. But here’s the thing: I am not alone in assuming it.* Pastors and other Christian spiritual leaders are telling people to use the Bible and its parables as a guide to living. This can cause some serious spiritual anguish and confusion over the meaning of the parables. People in this thread are saying that the meaning is obvious. I am saying, no it’s not – because people are being coached to fit these stories into a specific, present-day religious context and apply them to their lives.
*Actually, I don’t assume it currently, because I am now functionally atheist. However, I did make similar assumptions in the past. My salad days.
Once again, you show a remarkable ignorance of basic Christian theology. Christ when he returns will have a literal kingdom, comprising the Earth at least. It is very real and no more a metaphor than any other kingdom.
Yeah, it does,
Supply whatever answers you like. It doesn’t change the meaning of the parable one iota.
Once again, your ignorance of Christian theology is staggering.
The payoff is that Christians get to live for eternity on perfect bliss, and everyone else gets put to death or sent to hell.
How is it even possible for someone to live in the US and remain ignorant of these facts?
Supply whatever answers you like. It doesn’t change the meaning of the parable one iota.
Yeah. :rolleyes:
Except that you don’t know that Christians are literally slaves of Christ despite it being emphasised several times in the scriptures. And you don’t know that the payoff for this servitude is eternal life in heaven.
Sure, you’re a real fount of wisdom when it comes to Christian theology Dio.
Except that the the comment about gifts remaining the property of Christ wasn’t a question, it was statement of fact, and it was factually incorrect. And the last two gaffs have shown no such cracks whatsoever. All they’ve shown is your total ignorance of the issue.
Yep, that’s the ticket, they’re rhetorical questions. Sure they are.
Dio, when you profess ignorance in GD I assume that you are posting in good faith. You’ve now admitted that you are not posting in good faith you are skirting dangerously close to trolling.
Uh huh. So claims that Christians don’t owe their property and lives to Jesus and claims that there is no reward to being a Christian aren’t aren’t commenst on Christian theology. :rolleyes:
So now we see the attempt to move the goalposts by use of “scare quotes”.
Nice try Dio, but nobody’s buying it.
You said the slaves weren’t given anything. No quotes. They were given something, the same way that a maid is given laundry and the same way that a valet is given car keys and the same way that a Christian is given gifts such as wealth or beauty. Absolutely no difference in the ways those things are given, which is why this is such a good analogy.
Let’s assume for a moment that the meaning of the parable was clearly understood by the audience and the later writers. Not an unreasonable assumption.
Working with that, what possible other interpretation is there? Can you fit it to any other context or time in any way whatsoever and maintain internal clarity and consistency with the Christian ethos? If not then it seems that your claim about it being shoehorned is without substance.
I don’t get what’s so confusing about the parable. It’s pretty straightforward. Now, we may not like the message of the parable, we might think that telling the parable in this way makes Jesus look like a bit of a dick, but the meaning is pretty clear.
You’re supposed to use your God-given gifts to glorify God. If you don’t do that, then God’s gonna kick your ass. Oh, and whining about it? Double ass-kickings for you. Nothing complicated about it.
This was certainly what I was taught. The Minas or talents represent the Word of God. In other words, use it or lose it. It has nothing to do with money or tithing and I find it strange that something so basic has been twisted and co-opted by people with an agenda.
What bothers me most is that the servants had to use the minas SUCESSFULLY. Or at least that implication is there IMO.
There wasnt some guy in there who invested with a good heart and say the locust ate the crops, with him loosing all his minas, with Jesus/King saying something to the effect “well, ya tried, and thats better than that asshole who just buried it”.
No, that’s a metaphorical kingdom, not a literal one (a literal one would make no sense), and whether it’s on earth is a matter of deminational opinion.
[quote=Diogenes the Cynic]
“Increase the glory of the kingdom” has no literal semantic meaning.
No, it doesn’t. Even if we accept your ludicous assertion that Jesus will establish a literal kingdom on earth with himself as a “king” (doing what, exactly? What would his duties be?), it’s still a future kingdom, so how is it possible to literally “increase the glory” of something that doesn’t exist yet?
And what does “increase the glory” actually mean?
I’m asking you to explain your own interpretation of the story. Either you can explain your own words or you can’t.
Please. I gurantee I know more about it than you do. I was being facetious.
Yes, wonderful. As I said, I was being facetious. Having to be an eternal slave does not make the so-called “reward” worth the trouble. “Eternal life” does not sound very enticing to me anyway. It’s definitely not worth being an ass-kissing slave for.
Once again, I’m asking you to explain your own words. If God is omnimax, then your interpretation does not make logical sense. That means that eiother your interpretation is wrong, or the parable is illogical. In my opinion, your interpretation is wrong. I don’t believe the king in the parable is supposed to be God.
I think I must be talking ovcer your head if you think I’m actually making theological mistakes.
I made no mistake about the “gifts.” It was a factual observation about the text of the story.
Don’t be ridiculous. I never profess ignorance in GD, and my rhetorical questions are always plainly rhetorical. Don’t get upset with me because yoiu can’t answer them.
I never made any of those claims.
Those things aren’t analogous at all. They are directly opposite, in fact. It’s ludicrous to say theat being given personal wealth is the same as being ordered to increase someone else’s personal wealth. The slaves in this story were given nothing of their own.
I really want to know what “increase the glory of the kingdom” means, by the way. Christians use this kind of abstract language all the time and it means absolutely nothing as far as I can tell.
I also want to know how it’s possible to either “benefit” or harm an omnimax God.
You’re taking the metaphor too literally. It really has nothing to do with growing/investing money. If you were to substitute “Word of God” for talents/minas then success doesn’t enter into it. The parable is supposed to teach you that those who practice the Word of God will be rewarded and while those who don’t, won’t.
The meaning is fairly obvious, only because the message isn’t all that complex. “If the king says to do something, do it or you’ll get in trouble.” It’s so simple that using a parable to communicate the idea adds unnecessary complexity that leads to more confusion than enlightenment. The addition of extraneous information about the king’s character and the politics associated with reigning over his would-be subjects further obscures the point. Critics of this story are right to find problem with it.
Why would Jesus use this parable to promote the rightness of glorifying God? One could argue that this was him using what would be most effective to his audience given their socio-cultural background. But then that inspires the question: Why would God think he could effectively communicate to a modern audience with parables and scriptures that were tailored to people from another era? Am I, from my 2009 Western-sensibility vantage point, evil because I think the 3rd servant was right to bury the money? Any king with the reputation of taking what he doesn’t reap and all that may be the type of leader who would use the proceeds from invested minas to commit crimes against humanity. A conscientious objector is not an evil person; who am I to judge him as wrong for not blinding obeying a potential demagogue?
Follow the rabbit down the hole far enough, and you get to a place where you’re blinded by the emperor’s nakedness. Those with ears, hear.
But what’s up with the servant who pointed out that the king was evil, and the king going to conquer people who didn’t want hiom and killing those who resisted?
It’s kind of perverse. I’m God because I say so, and if you don’t believe me I’ll kill you. Meanwhile I’ll act as dickish as possible so that you aren’t sure if I’m a good guy or a bad guy. And I’ll hide my true intent in koan-like riddles so that you can argue about them for the next few thousand years. This is the guy you choose to worship? What, was David Koresh’s group too full?