The Parable of the Talents

[aelf]

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

No, it's obviously not a Christian phenomenon per se, but Christianity is the only religion I'm really familiar with.

To see people who are not supposed to be 'of this world' argue that the abundance of hierarchy in this world is proof that man has a divine master does give one a perspective of just how much people can either misunderstand or twist their holy scriptures.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

What does he do that makes you uneasy?

Ideally, we'd be using our spare capital to help make the world a better place. It's not very easy how to find investments that do so. Ideally, one can grow their pool using 'normal' investing, and then bam! place their money in beneficial investments when they become available.

 

[BvBPL]

To see people who are not supposed to be 'of this world' argue that the abundance of hierarchy in this world is proof that man has a divine master does give one a perspective of just how much people can either misunderstand or twist their holy scriptures.

Divine right, and any number of other oppressive philosophies that used religion to maintain power structures, would have developed, or analogous systems would have developed, in the absence of Christianity. They would have used a different philosophical framework, but the result would have been nearly the same.

One need only look at other faiths and philosophies, like the Hindu faith, to see that promulgating philosophies that maintain existing power structures is a very common behavior. It is not caused by any given religion, instead those philosophies are locally informed by religion. Admittedly, those systems become self-sustaining, but the source is found in the desire to maintain the status quo, not out of religion.

 

[aelf]

"No, it's obviously not a Christian phenomenon per se..."

 

[Kyriakos]

Divine right, and any number of other oppressive philosophies that used religion to maintain power structures, would have developed, or analogous systems would have developed, in the absence of Christianity. They would have used a different philosophical framework, but the result would have been nearly the same.

One need only look at other faiths and philosophies, like the Hindu faith, to see that promulgating philosophies that maintain existing power structures is a very common behavior. It is not caused by any given religion, instead those philosophies are locally informed by religion. Admittedly, those systems become self-sustaining, but the source is found in the desire to maintain the status quo, not out of religion.

That is a (sadly known, but still) very wrong use of the term 'philosophy', though. In fact philosophy started exactly as juxtaposed to theology. Eg Thales was very distinct from Hesiod, or Homer.

 

[BvBPL]

In fact philosophy started exactly as juxtaposed to theology.

A useful contrast when one wants to distinguish religious concepts from social ones.

 

[tetley]

To see people who are not supposed to be 'of this world' argue that the abundance of hierarchy in this world is proof that man has a divine master does give one a perspective of just how much people can either misunderstand or twist their holy scriptures.

The parable of the talents is not a sales pitch trying to convince anyone of a divine anything. It is an explanation of man's relationship with their Creator, along with an announcement of how God will judge us. It's more like a professor giving the syllabus at the first lecture and saying, "Your class projects will be graded as follows, and the final will be weighted this much.". Okay, so maybe you never signed up for the class. Carry on, nothing to see here.

 

[Borachio]

What does he do that makes you uneasy?

Ideally, we'd be using our spare capital to help make the world a better place. It's not very easy how to find investments that do so. Ideally, one can grow their pool using 'normal' investing, and then bam! place their money in beneficial investments when they become available.

What makes me uneasy is the ease with which he squares being totally wrapped up in financial markets with being a fundamentalist Christian. It's like he has no trouble at all with, as I say, serving two masters (God and Mammon, if I need to spell it out).

And the "fact" that a "rich man can no more enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle" doesn't trouble him either.

Who knows? Maybe he exploits the capitalist system while remaining uncorrupted himself, lives simply, and gives all the money he makes away to the poor. Though cynical me doubts it very much.

And yet I don't suppose for one minute that he's any more corrupted than any of the rest of us.

 

[aelf]

The parable of the talents is not a sales pitch trying to convince anyone of a divine anything. It is an explanation of man's relationship with their Creator, along with an announcement of how God will judge us. It's more like a professor giving the syllabus at the first lecture and saying, "Your class projects will be graded as follows, and the final will be weighted this much.". Okay, so maybe you never signed up for the class. Carry on, nothing to see here.

No, indeed it is not a sales pitch trying to convince anyone of a divine anything. Your earlier explanations, however, are a different matter.

 

[El_Machinae]

What makes me uneasy is the ease with which he squares being totally wrapped up in financial markets with being a fundamentalist Christian. It's like he has no trouble at all with, as I say, serving two masters (God and Mammon, if I need to spell it out).

And the "fact" that a "rich man can no more enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle" doesn't trouble him either.

Who knows? Maybe he exploits the capitalist system while remaining uncorrupted himself, lives simply, and gives all the money he makes away to the poor. Though cynical me doubts it very much.

And yet I don't suppose for one minute that he's any more corrupted than any of the rest of us.

The Christianity expressed in the Bible is, in the end, fundamentally unsustainable. Now, I find this appealing, insofar as I agree that achieving perfect morality is basically impossible. So, if you lived according to the way you were 'supposed' to (in the Bible), you'd have a bad enough life such that no one would imitate you.

In the end, a faith has to be transmissible. And if a faith tells you to think nothing of the morrow, but you need to have a savings account in order to retire ... well, that's what's going to happen.

I've only seen a handful of people who live the lives of charity that Jesus suggests. Some of them still go on to engage in income-accumulating schemes, they just arrange to give it away. It's a hard call. If I can get an 7% return on a saved dollar, that means that I can save twice as many people with it in 10 years than I could have saved today.

But it's much harder to square that with getting a much nicer SUV with your savings instead of applying the Golden Rule.

 

[tetley]

No, indeed it is not a sales pitch trying to convince anyone of a divine anything. Your earlier explanations, however, are a different matter

Never at any time did I ever proselytyze anybody on this thread. Simply defending the false accusation spam. Yours being false accusation #3.

 

[Borachio]

The Christianity expressed in the Bible is, in the end, fundamentally unsustainable. Now, I find this appealing, insofar as I agree that achieving perfect morality is basically impossible. So, if you lived according to the way you were 'supposed' to (in the Bible), you'd have a bad enough life such that no one would imitate you.

In the end, a faith has to be transmissible. And if a faith tells you to think nothing of the morrow, but you need to have a savings account in order to retire ... well, that's what's going to happen.

I've only seen a handful of people who live the lives of charity that Jesus suggests. Some of them still go on to engage in income-accumulating schemes, they just arrange to give it away. It's a hard call. If I can get an 7% return on a saved dollar, that means that I can save twice as many people with it in 10 years than I could have saved today.

But it's much harder to square that with getting a much nicer SUV with your savings instead of applying the Golden Rule.

I agree. I've come across a handful of people who've tried to implement this kind of basic Christianity... and really it's a recipe for a chaotic life.

The point was, I think, that Christianity, as Christ envisaged it, was literally Millennialist and that the world, as we know it, was really going to end imminently. And in that case there was absolutely no point in thinking about tomorrow.

But after thousands and thousands of repeated disappointments on this score, I think it's no longer worth while subscribing to the model.

Still, people who put their faith in material goods instead are pretty certain to be disappointed too, I think. Sooner or later.

 

[Harv]

One thing I find funny is (assuming one talent is 1200 troy ounces) back in 2000, that talent of silver would have been worth about 6000 USD. Had I buried that talent, I would have tripled my money! I believe this outperforms the DJITR and the S&P 500 and certainly survives the Tech Wreck of 2000 and the 2008 Panic.

So the Master facepalms and asks, "Why didn't you sell back in 2010 when that talent was worth 50000 USD?"

I will try to get back to the OP questions later.

 

[aelf]

Never at any time did I ever proselytyze anybody on this thread. Simply defending the false accusation spam. Yours being false accusation #3.

You could have proselytized, for all I care. You would do much better, though, if you actually understood what you were talking about.

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.

Yup, using sinful worldly relations to reason towards and justify divine truth is definitely not a good demonstration.

 

[Harv]

I am not a bible teacher, but I will give it a go. First of all, Wikipedia Article on Usury. I notice that you quoted the passage from the King James version. I would say the definition of the word, "usury" has changed over the course of 500 years. I also did not read the 1545 Act referenced in the Wikipedia article. (I have no idea if the King James use of the word "usury" condemns the action like today's use of the word "usury" would.)

(I generally see the condemnation against usury as against rich people taking advantage of poor people.)

The issue in question is the Master gave the Servant a job: Here is $20K. Go an invest it. Did he double his money like the other two servants? No. Was he supposed to invest it? Yes. Was he afraid of his boss? Yes. Clearly, as you said. Now he has to give an account of the money right after the other two did well and doubled their money.

Did the servant have any right whatsoever to pass judgment on his master like that? No. He had a job to do, but he did not do it and now he was trying to justify himself by condemning his boss's actions.

What does Old Testament law say about Usury? It is written in the Wikipedia article. One verse says you may lend to a foreigner with interest.

This might be similar to how you might feel about loaning money to close friends and family members. You might not charge them interest, but you will expect your money back. However, if you were loaning money to a stranger, you are much more likely to draw up a document stating the exact details of the loan, including the interest rate.

What is the context of the prohibition against usury?

I do not know anything about ancient Jewish society. Is a rich person loaning money to a poor person expecting nothing in return simply to be generous? I wonder how the rich person profits? Simply from being generous? If the poor person profits from the rich person's generosity, did the poor person traditionally give something on top of the repayment? I don't know. I'm just asking.

If I lent you $100 to go play blackjack or something, I am really expecting to see substantially less money back, if anything at all. However if you have a great night playing and you have $200, you will certainly return the $100. You might even return something on top of it.

Long post. Does any of this make sense?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You could have proselytized, for all I care. You would do much better, though, if you actually understood what you were talking about.

He could have proselytized for all you know, but since your mind is totally closed to the subject you would never have known. Which is why you don't know what you are talking about. Which I wouldn't have any problem with if you didn't do it quite so much.

"I am committed to examining Christianity from a perspective of unshakable disbelief" is about the most worthless inquiry a human mind can be wasted on, and I see no reason anyone would undertake such other than a desire to be unpleasant.

 

[aelf]

I still have no idea what your point is. The only hint I have is that you seem to be hilariously misled about what my position is.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I still have no idea what your point is. The only hint I have is that you seem to be hilariously misled about what my position is.

Who do you suppose has misled me?

 

[jackelgull]

He could have proselytized for all you know, but since your mind is totally closed to the subject you would never have known. Which is why you don't know what you are talking about. Which I wouldn't have any problem with if you didn't do it quite so much.

"I am committed to examining Christianity from a perspective of unshakable disbelief" is about the most worthless inquiry a human mind can be wasted on, and I see no reason anyone would undertake such other than a desire to be unpleasant.

I think there's a distinction to be made between hard skepticism and straight out disbelief. One provides insight that can't come from anywhere else, the other is just a pointless exercise in futility.

The main problem I see with the parable is that the master praises his servants for putting wealth to work to make more wealth. So the only appropriate use of one's talents is to benefit oneself or their overlord? Not a single servant thought to benefit others with their gift and the master does not call them out on it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think there's a distinction to be made between hard skepticism and straight out disbelief. One provides insight that can't come from anywhere else, the other is just a pointless exercise in futility.

The main problem I see with the parable is that the master praises his servants for putting wealth to work to make more wealth. So the only appropriate use of one's talents is to benefit oneself or their overlord? Not a single servant thought to benefit others with their gift and the master does not call them out on it.

I think the idea that they "doubled their money" is just another way of saying "put to good use." The whole story is meant to be symbolic, so I don't think the money is meant literally either. They could very well have put their gold/talents/money/etc to good use by benefiting others. We dont really know exactly what they did or what the "doubling" symbolizes other than the fact that they (the first two) used their endowment well, and the master approved.