The Parable of the Talents

[Kyriakos]

Reminds me of myself in elementary school. I gave those ants so much by altering their burrow to have not one but five gates, and deliver food to them. Yet when i returned with a guest, a yellow ant to give to the red ants, the red ants immediately attacked it from ten sides and sunk their mandibles onto its body.

Thus i, lord of all that is alive, took my vengeance that day on the red ants. There was weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Borachio]

"Kingdom of heaven" = "God"?

That seems pretty much the case, yes. Imo. Or at least "Kingdom of heaven" = "The Father", at any rate.

 

[BvBPL]

I think your reading into this too hard. This parable is not about economics. Its alluding your spiritual talents and spreading the Gospel, not actual money.

So talents are your actual talents, and hiding them or not putting them to good use is a waste. Fine.

What is the equivalent of putting your talents in an interest bearing account as advised in verse 27?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

That would probably be honing your talents through training and practice to make them better.

 

[Kyriakos]

This is a more punitive variation on the parable of the seed-planter, where some seeds fell on very fertile ground and grew a lot, others on less fertile and grew less, and those which fell onto the pavement or rocks just did not amount to anything.

Anyway, the talents one is punitive. Not sure about the translation, again i am way too lazy to check the original greek

 

[BvBPL]

The seed-planter is about who hears the Gospel and who does not, and who takes to heart the Gospel having heard it and who does not.

Which seems markedly different than a discussion of to what good you put your talents to.

 

[Kyriakos]

The seed-planter is about who hears the Gospel and who does not, and who takes to heart the Gospel having heard it and who does not.

Which seems markedly different than a discussion of to what good you put your talents to.

Given the nature of the context, semiotics may present differences varying from huge to highly ambiguous and theoretical

 

[Sommerswerd]

So talents are your actual talents, and hiding them or not putting them to good use is a waste. Fine.

What is the equivalent of putting your talents in an interest bearing account as advised in verse 27?

I don't buy the idea that the monetary "talents" = the english word for physical and mental abilities. Beause then what happens with languages that have different words for "talents"? In latin "talent" translates to "ingenium.". It reminds me of the argument from the movie "Zeitgeist" that the proof that Jesus is a personification of the sun is because we call him "God's sun (son)." The fact that it the same or a similar word is a convenient coincidence that can help people understand the overall concept more easily, but its just a coincidence of language and not at all essential to the lesson or "moral" of the story.

The point is just that god gives you blessings and you are supposed to use them well for god to be pleased with you.

 

[BvBPL]

Given the nature of the context, semiotics may present differences varying from huge to highly ambiguous and theoretical

No, it isn't. This parable is explicitly explained step-by-step. Other parables may be ambiguous, this one is not.

 

[Kyriakos]

No, it isn't. This parable is explicitly explained step-by-step. Other parables may be ambiguous, this one is not.

Ok. Seems the seed fell onto the pavement in my case!

 

[Borachio]

I don't buy the idea that the monetary "talents" = the english word for physical and mental abilities. Beause then what happens with languages that have different words for "talents"? In latin "talent" translates to "ingenium.". It reminds me of the argument from the movie "Zeitgeist" that the proof that Jesus is a personification of the sun is because we call him "God's sun (son)." The fact that it the same or a similar word is a convenient coincidence that can help people understand the overall concept more easily, but its just a coincidence of language and not at all essential to the lesson or "moral" of the story.

The point is just that god gives you blessings and you are supposed to use them well for god to be pleased with you.

It's a good point.

It's just fortuitous, I think, that the English word for talent (via Latin and Old French) gives you the double meaning which is absent for some other non-Latin derived languages. But I think the essential meaning of the parable remains the same.

(Which now I come to read your post with slightly more attention is exactly what you're saying.)

And no doubt other languages give double meanings for other passages, that are absent in English translations.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So talents are your actual talents, and hiding them or not putting them to good use is a waste. Fine.

What is the equivalent of putting your talents in an interest bearing account as advised in verse 27?

That would probably be honing your talents through training and practice to make them better.

In the assumed context of proselytizing the first two servants represent evangelists and the recommended course for the third servant represents doing the work of supporting the body of the church, which allows the evangelists to spread the gospel. The unsatisfactory actions of the third servant represent the believer who comes around to hear the preaching but contributes nothing to making it happen.

 

[tetley]

The parable of the talents and the parable of the seed spreading are talking about two different things. The seed is the Gospel being spread. Some take it to heart, most don't. Implied is salvation for those who take it in, and hell for those who don't, but that is said elsewhere in the New Testament--not within this particular parable.

The parable of the talents says nothing of salvation. One could infer that when the master calls his servant "wicked", that it's not going to go well for him, but--again--that is not in the parable.

I fail to see what is so terrible about the parable of the talents, unless you just have it out for Christianity. Do you have a boss? Everyone is a servant, everyone has a master. But wrap it in a Christian context and suddenly it's " oh, Christianity condones slavery". And Apple doesn't? Nike? Every company who outsources to China and India?

And there is nothing really earth-shattering about reallocating the talents, either. Does the NFL and every pro sport not do the very same thing? Some are born able to play, others...not so much. We take the ball away from the not-so-talenteds, bench them, and give it to the stars. The stars can be bullies, rapists, rob convenience stores, we don't care. All that matters is if they can catch a football.

 

[Kyriakos]

The parable of the talents and the parable of the seed spreading are talking about two different things. The seed is the Gospel being spread. Some take it to heart, most don't. Implied is salvation for those who take it in, and hell for those who don't, but that is said elsewhere in the New Testament--not in this particular parable.

The parable of the talents says nothing of salvation. One could infer that when the master calls his servant "wicked", that it's not going to go well for him, but--again--that is not in the parable.

I fail to see what is so terrible about the parable of the talents, unless you just have it out for Christianity. Do you have a boss? Everyone is a servant, everyone has a master. But wrap it in a Christian context and suddenly it's " oh, Christianity condones slavery". And Apple doesn't? Nike? Every company who outsources to China and India?

And there is nothing really earth-shattering about reallocating the talents, either. Does the NFL and every pro sport not do the very same thing? Some are born able to play, others...not so much. We take the ball away from the not-so-talenteds, bench them, and give it to the stars. The stars can be bullies, rapists, Rob convenience stores, we don't care. All that matters is if they can catch a football.

If Nike or Apple were presented as owning heaven i would not like that either

 

[tetley]

If Nike or Apple were presented as owning heaven i would not like that either

That's probably the #1 reason people don't want to espouse Christianity. They don't want to have a master. Still, God owns Heaven and the earth, and everything in it. That makes Him master. Again, hardly earth-shattering news. People view "God is master" as some kind of jihad, when really it is a simple statement of the abundantly obvious.

 

[aelf]

I thought the whole point of being Christian is being better than this world. I guess not, as we've seen again and again...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I thought the whole point of being Christian is being better than this world. I guess not, as we've seen again and again...

Well, better late than never. So now that you have figured out that that is not, and never was, the whole point, have you got some new perspective?

 

[Gucumatz]

I see the parable of talents as a discussion on the endowment of natural ability/resources/etc. The idea that doing something/anything to better the world/others is what anyone should do. There are plenty of people who just look at what they have in life and are satisfied and have no interest in helping out or seeing other people do well in life.

Take the hedge fund manager who just washes his money through the system over and over again, without doing anything to better or effect society. Despite being given enourmous resources, the hedge fund manager is content with seeing only a maximization of his returns without a concern for anyone else or the system around him. The first 2 servants use their resources to please god - or if we are talking in an ethical sense - to better the status of natural law for someone other than themselves.

Even if we are unsure in life what choices to make, the fact that as human beings we have agency and therefore certain inalienable rights, means that we have a choice whether to create a better world or live in ignorance and ignore the problems of the world. I take the usury mentioned, as the idea that even the smallest deeds can make the world a better place. For the person who may not be as apt to volunteer actively or change the world themselves, they can at least start with themselves and others and make the world a better place bit by bit
---------------------------------------------

Small acts of kindness and large acts of kindness in essence both matter, the important thing is to make the world a kinder place for the tl;dr version

 

[aelf]

Well, better late than never. So now that you have figured out that that is not, and never was, the whole point, have you got some new perspective?

Err, nope. I'm not a believer, but I could see that it's possible to defend Christianity as something other than simply of this world, much as I imagine you could do with other major religions. But like most other major religions, you could interpret Christian teachings in different ways. Many Christians are just too stupid or too selfish to uphold anything but the most narrow-minded and self-serving vision.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Err, nope. I'm not a believer, but I could see that it's possible to defend Christianity as something other than simply of this world, much as I imagine you could do with other major religions. But like most other major religions, you could interpret Christian teachings in different ways. Many Christians are just too stupid or too selfish to uphold anything but the most narrow-minded and self-serving vision.

I'm confused. You had this idea of what "the point" was. Now you have seen that that isn't the point. But since you are "not a believer" you now are saying that it is somehow not your place to have a perspective. But you apparently had a perspective before. Were you a believer then?

Or perhaps your new perspective is coming to the understanding that since you aren't directly involved you may very well not be in any position to know what "the point" is and have no grounds for making wild sweeping suppositions?

Nope. Clearly that isn't your newfound perspective.

Hmmmm.