The Parable of the Talents

[BvBPL]

Most people are too selfish to see beyond themselves regardless of religion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Most people are too selfish to see beyond themselves regardless of religion.

People who encounter what the Christians call God are left with no alternative but to see beyond themselves, even if they would really rather just be selfish.

 

[tetley]

That's the point of parables: to stretch you to see beyond yourselves. Those who blow Jesus off will make no attempt to understand them. After all, they already have all the answers, so... It's easier just to sit back and laugh, what's this madness about vineyards and seeds and all, congratulate yourself on how smart you are.

 

[Borachio]

Most people are too selfish to see beyond themselves regardless of religion.

Yeah. I am, aren't I? Very true, that.

How do you recommend I reach beyond myself?

 

[BvBPL]

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

Aren't the blessings that God gives you nearly synonymous with your abilities, ie your talents?

I get that the talents being given to the servants are bars of precious metal rather than skills, but when the message that one should use one's blessings well it seems that many of those blessings are skills and abilities.

It's weird. This is a parable where the homographs, metaphorically, mean the nearly same thing. Interest choice by the translator.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Aren't the blessings that God gives you nearly synonymous with your abilities, ie your talents?

They could be, but they could also be money, or a job, or as Tim mentioned, the inspiration of the holy-spirit which you should then go out and use to evangelize to others.

I think the point is not what the blessings are, but what you do with them... "Use em' or lose em" ... That's the message. That, and that they should be "used" to the benefit of the "master" ie god (or more cynically, the people in charge of whatever institution is telling you the parable).

 

[Kaitzilla]

I agree entirely with your assessment. Yet another example of a so-called moral example in the Bible which is anything but. I agree it does seem a bit old testament-y as well.

Thanks!
Glad I'm not the only one troubled by this parable.

I remain uneasy if the Master really is the kingdom of heaven.
Going against God's will is a sin after all.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

I was under the impression all 3 servants were to spread the gospel (talents) and the 3rd heard the word but did not spread it

 

[Kyriakos]

That's the point of parables: to stretch you to see beyond yourselves. Those who blow Jesus off will make no attempt to understand them. After all, they already have all the answers, so... It's easier just to sit back and laugh, what's this madness about vineyards and seeds and all, congratulate yourself on how smart you are.

On Parables

Many complain that the words of the wise are always merely parables and of no use in daily life, which is the only life we have. When the sage says: "Go over," he does not mean that we should cross over to some actual place, which we could do anyhow if the labor were worth it; he means some fabulous yonder, something unknown to us, something too that he cannot designate more precisely, and therefore cannot help us here in the very least. All these parables really set out to say merely that the incomprehensible is incomprehensible, and we know that already. But the cares we have to struggle with every day: that is a different matter.

Concerning this a man once said: Why such reluctance? If you only followed the parables you yourselves would become parables and with that rid yourself of all your daily cares.

Another said: I bet that is also a parable.

The first said: You have won.

The second said: But unfortunately only in parable.

The first said: No, in reality: in parable you have lost.

Very apt

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I was under the impression all 3 servants were to spread the gospel (talents) and the 3rd heard the word but did not spread it

Right. To me he represents the Christian who shows up on Sunday and goes home at the end of the service...and that's it. But even if a Christian isn't directly spreading the gospel there is the work of the church to be done, which I think is the equivalent of the "at least could have banked it for interest."

I don't proselytize, because my concept of God is not strictly in the same language as my church...but our beat up old van loses every fluid it contains and I top everything off every Thursday come heat, rain, or snow, so that it can be used in the food ministry on Saturday and pick people up and take them home on Sunday. That's my part, which may be small but isn't "just burying my blessing in the ground."

 

[BvBPL]

The 3rd slave is clearly afraid of him.

That's exactly the problem. He didn't trust his master.

The parable states that the servants were given talents according to their ability. The master knew that the third servant could handle the single talent, that one talent would be an acceptable burden. The third servant, however, feared his own perceived lack of ability. He didn't trust that his master knew of his ability. He didn't try to invest the talent or even give it over to a third party to bank it, and instead buried it away from the world.

The point being, at least in part, that one should at least try to commit her blessings to God's will through good works even though that engenders risk.

Another message is one of love. When we love someone, we become emotionally vulnerable. It's a risk, a danger. People get hurt because they love others. However, the rewards of love are so much greater than the risks. You shouldn't bury your love away merely because it is risky, but instead be open to loving others and receiving love in turn.

 

[aelf]

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.

No, I don't see what your point is. You decided to attack me when I made a sarcastic comment about a Christian viewpoint and then proceeded to attack me some more when I defended Christianity as a possibly viable concept against your "wild sweeping supposition" that Christianity was never about transcending this world.

Do you just like being a thoughtless douche for no reason?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, I don't see what your point is. You decided to attack me when I made a sarcastic comment about a Christian viewpoint and then proceeded to attack me some more when I defended Christianity as a possibly viable concept against your "wild sweeping supposition" that Christianity was never about transcending this world.

Do you just like being a thoughtless douche for no reason?

No, I just think arrogant punks are a quality reason.

 

[Borachio]

Uh-oh. Fighting talk.

"Look, we've all had a drink*, right? Let's all just have another drink and be friends, 'K?"

*Well, at some stage we** have. Not necessarily today, or this year even, but at some time.

** Barring life-time teetotallers.

 

[aelf]

No, I just think arrogant punks are a quality reason.

Why don't you remove the plank in your eye for a second and think, "Did I ever make a sarcastic comment to someone I disagreed with?"

Are you not an arrogant punk?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Uh-oh. Fighting talk.

"Look, we've all had a drink*, right? Let's all just have another drink and be friends, 'K?"

*Well, at some stage we** have. Not necessarily today, or this year even, but at some time.

** Barring life-time teetotallers.

Yeah, responding to name calling with more name calling when there's no way to punch him and end it was pretty pointless. Obviously it just goes into a locked loop at that point.

 

[El_Machinae]

How about if we go full-on literalist?

Jesus tells you to not be a goldbug. If you're going to have wealth, go out there and trade. Put it to work. Help things get better.

Hell, at least put your money where it can be lent out. Don't just sit on it. You'll end up basically with what you had before, and you didn't help make things better in the meanwhile.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I am going to lunch. I will see what this thread begats when I get back.

 

[Borachio]

How about if we go full-on literalist?

Jesus tells you to not be a goldbug. If you're going to have wealth, go out there and trade. Put it to work. Help things get better.

Hell, at least put your money where it can be lent out. Don't just sit on it. You'll end up basically with what you had before, and you didn't help make things better in the meanwhile.

There's some fundamentalist financial trader who does exactly this. I personally find his position very hard to argue with. Though it does make me uneasy, what with "No man can serve two masters" and all.

 

[tetley]

How about if we go full-on literalist?

Jesus tells you to not be a goldbug. If you're going to have wealth, go out there and trade. Put it to work. Help things get better.

Hell, at least put your money where it can be lent out. Don't just sit on it. You'll end up basically with what you had before, and you didn't help make things better in the meanwhile.

This won't entirely apply on this forum, but one thing I tell other Christians: just because something is spiritual, that doesn't make it not literal. This life, and mere gold money--that is the symbolism. The next life, which goes on forever and ever--that is the literal. We have this idea of spiritual being this ethereal thing, transparent, pass-through imagery that doesn't really impact anything, vs. hard matter you can touch. Or even fictitious & allegorical at best, which I fully expect some here to continue to believe, even after I post this. The position of Jesus and the New Testament, however, is the opposite: this life is the allegory. The life to come is the real deal. God doesn't even deal in money. Beyond His relationship with us, money is of absolutely no consequence to him. That's why the word "talent" got translated into God-given abilities instead of just a unit of currency: because we should think of the really valuable things the way GOD sees it. We can pray for a million dollars, and God can come back and say, "I'll do one better: I just healed you of Stage One brain cancer. You didn't even know you had it."