Parable of the Talents: A call to venture into the marketplace of ideas?

[manol]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t see him holding grudges...

Good catch - I had lapsed into hyperbole.

11 hours ago, Calm said:

those who accept God’s mercy are far ahead on their path as if they never stumbled or wandered in the dark for a time through repentance and being able to accept the forgiveness God freely gives to those who truly desire it from him. 

YES!!  Once we have set ourselves on the path back to God, our past becomes merely “how we got here”, rather than a multitude of sins we deserve condemnation for.

I think there is another reason Christ told us to “judge not”, in addition to its detrimental effect on the one who holds the other in judgment: Our judgment will inevitably be incorrect. We do not begin to know all the factors which go into OUR bad choices, let alone what goes into anyone else's. We don't know the genetic predispositions, all the environmental factors, the suppressed memories, the unconsciously acquired behaviors and thought patterns, the physiological and chemical and non-physical influences, the unpredictable consequences of prior events, the role of randomness, not to mention the roles, challenges, and limitations we or anyone else “signed up for”. We simply are not in a position to judge righteously based on outward appearances.

5 hours ago, Obehave said:

You know there will be children of Perdition, don't you? You think they will be bowing their knees? And yes there will come a day when no more work will be done, even after all of the work we have done. There is a deadline 

Helaman 13 should suffice as a reference to what I am talking about.  I recommend that you read the entire chapter, if not the whole book.  Every word.   

In my inevitably highly fallible opinion, things are set up so that we can find scriptural justification for a wide range of beliefs. I think this is intentional, so that our belief systems can become a reflection of the desires of our hearts. For instance there is scriptural support for your view, but there is also scriptural support for @mfbukowski's view, such that you can each in good faith believe and pursue what works for you.

In Helaman chapter 13 Samuel the Lamanite was speaking to a very wicked city, so he had to use harsh language to make an impression.  This is not uncommon.  God's representatives routinely uses harsh language for maximum effect - see D&C 19:6-9. 

Section 128 teaches that without our dead we cannot be saved. All of the descendants of Adam and Eve are related, so we are all in this together... INCLUDING me and others like me, and even including the sons of perdition.

And how do we know that the parables of the Prodigal Son and of the Lost Sheep have an expiration date?  We don't. 

Christ's job is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”, and apparently he will succeed: “The works and the designs and the purposes of God will not be frustrated, neither will they come to naught.”

And last but not least as mfbukowski said “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess”, and the eternal principle of free agency says this will be voluntary. Christ taught that we are to “judge not, that [we] be not judged”, therefore it is not our place to hold anyone in condemnation. To do so is arguably to deny that the “infinite and eternal atonement” is indeed infinite and eternal.

Joseph Smith taught that “Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition.” Maybe saving those members of the family of Adam, the very “least of these our brothers”, will be up to us because where they are is so dark Jesus cannot go there.  Maybe that will be part of our apprenticeship.

If you are open to some pre-existence back-story insights about Jesus and Judas from a near-death experience, here's a link cued to where that part begins, it only takes about two minutes for her to get her point across:

https://youtu.be/HI0zn610p-8?t=125

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by manol

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, manol said:

Good catch - I had lapsed into hyperbole.

YES!!  Once we have set ourselves on the path back to God, our past becomes merely “how we got here”, rather than a multitude of sins we deserve condemnation for.

I think there is another reason Christ told us to “judge not”, in addition to its detrimental effect on the one who holds the other in judgment: Our judgment will inevitably be incorrect. We do not begin to know all the factors which go into OUR bad choices, let alone what goes into anyone else's. We don't know the genetic predispositions, all the environmental factors, the suppressed memories, the unconsciously acquired behaviors and thought patterns, the physiological and chemical and non-physical influences, the unpredictable consequences of prior events, the role of randomness, not to mention the roles, challenges, and limitations we or anyone else “signed up for”. We simply are not in a position to judge righteously based on outward appearances.

In my inevitably highly fallible opinion, things are set up so that we can find scriptural justification for a wide range of beliefs. I think this is intentional, so that our belief systems can become a reflection of the desires of our hearts. For instance there is scriptural support for your view, but there is also scriptural support for @mfbukowski's view, such that you can each in good faith believe and pursue what works for you.

In Helaman chapter 13 Samuel the Lamanite was speaking to a very wicked city, so he had to use harsh language to make an impression.  This is not uncommon.  God's representatives routinely uses harsh language for maximum effect - see D&C 19:6-9. 

Section 128 teaches that without our dead we cannot be saved. All of the descendants of Adam and Eve are related, so we are all in this together... INCLUDING me and others like me, and even including the sons of perdition.

And how do we know that the parables of the Prodigal Son and of the Lost Sheep have an expiration date?  We don't. 

Christ's job is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”, and apparently he will succeed: “The works and the designs and the purposes of God will not be frustrated, neither will they come to naught.”

And last but not least as mfbukowski said “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess”, and the eternal principle of free agency says this will be voluntary. Christ taught that we are to “judge not, that [we] be not judged”, therefore it is not our place to hold anyone in condemnation. To do so is arguably to deny that the “infinite and eternal atonement” is indeed infinite and eternal.

Joseph Smith taught that “Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition.” Maybe saving those members of the family of Adam, the very “least of these our brothers”, will be up to us because where they are is so dark Jesus cannot go there.  Maybe that will be part of our apprenticeship.

If you are open to some pre-existence back-story insights about Jesus and Judas from a near-death experience, here's a link cued to where that part begins, it only takes about two minutes for her to get her point across:

https://youtu.be/HI0zn610p-8?t=125

 

Thanks, great post.

It 's clear we don't have to worry about you misunderstanding anything this topic.  😁😉

[manol]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks, great post.

It 's clear we don't have to worry about you misunderstanding anything this topic.  😁😉

Thank you very much.

Although I'm citing sources from within the LDS paradigm in trying to get certain concepts across, I had to go outside the LDS paradigm in order to learn those concepts in the first place.  Hence my starting this thread, suggesting an interpretation of the Parable of the Talents which justifies and encourages individual Spirit-guided exploration beyond the official and unofficial canon, seeking what else God has to say to us.  For instance Rorty is not where my own interests lie, but based on how much his teachings have apparently done for YOUR relationship with God, he is probably every bit as much a line of communication from God to you as a really good Deseret book. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by manol

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, manol said:

Thank you very much.

Although I'm citing sources from within the LDS paradigm in trying to get certain concepts across, I had to go outside the LDS paradigm in order to learn those concepts in the first place.  Hence my starting this thread, suggesting an interpretation of the Parable of the Talents which justifies and encourages individual Spirit-guided exploration beyond the official and unofficial canon, seeking what else God has to say to us.  For instance Rorty is not where my own interests lie, but based on how much his teachings have apparently done for YOUR relationship with God, he is probably every bit as much a line of communication from God to you as a really good Deseret book. 

I am into Neo Pragmatism, which is a foundational view out of which Rorty is believed to be the easiest to understand.

Related theologies are post-secular theology, radical orthodoxy and others

These views harmonize secularism with religious experience

Deseret doesn't have a market for them apparently.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am into Neo Pragmatism, which is a foundational view out of which Rorty is believed to be the easiest to understand.

Related theologies are post-secular theology, radical orthodoxy and others

These views harmonize secularism with religious experience

Deseret doesn't have a market for them apparently.

Last I heard Deseret has a very narrow market.

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Last I heard Deseret has a very narrow market.

VERY narrow.

It's mostly all devotional stuff which can beautiful and has a definite purpose in all our lives when we need a lift.

But if you want anything else, I would suggest other sources 

 

[manol]

A couple of days ago Bernard Gui asked me:

On 7/13/2022 at 7:18 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Seriously, what would you suggest for the Church-wide Sunday school courses?

To which I replied:

On 7/13/2022 at 7:21 PM, manol said:

I don't have any ideas for Church-wide Sunday school classes, at least not yet.

Well now I do.

The curriculum would be "The Teachings of Jesus Christ", and the primary text would be the words of Jesus as recorded in the four Gospels, with translations other than the King James included where they give useful insights.  No shying away from the weird stuff, and no requirement that the lessons wrap up with the instructor having "all the answers".   Insofar as is feasible, the classes would be experiential rather than purely instructional. 

I doubt it will happen, and I doubt even more (a WHOLE LOT more) that I would be involved, but if(<- and that's a really big "if") Salt Lake runs out of ideas and needs my input, this is where they can find me. 

;^)

Edited July 15, 2022 by manol

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, manol said:

A couple of days ago Bernard Gui asked me:

To which I replied:

Well now I do.

The curriculum would be "The Teachings of Jesus Christ", and the primary text would be the words of Jesus as recorded in the four Gospels, with translations other than the King James included where they give useful insights.  No shying away from the weird stuff, and no requirement that the lessons wrap up with the instructor having "all the answers".   Insofar as is feasible, the classes would be experiential rather than purely instructional. 

I doubt it will happen, and I doubt even more (a WHOLE LOT more) that I would be involved, but if(<- and that's a really big "if") Salt Lake runs out of ideas and needs my input, this is where they can find me. 

;^)

Book of Mormon too, right?  Or are you not there yet?

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, manol said:

For instance Rorty is not where my own interests lie, but based on how much his teachings have apparently done for YOUR relationship with God, he is probably every bit as much a line of communication from God to you as a really good Deseret book. 

Just so you understand why this way of thinking is so essential, is that reality for us is what we "experience" filtered through our bodies and mind.  There is NOTHING we can know which is NOT filtered through our minds.

So cases of "testimony" in which there is a definite experience which happens - a spiritual experience- is just as "real" as you right now reading this on the screen.

The mind/body barrier simply does not exist- spiritual experience is as REAL as ANYTHING.   Advanced physics tells us that observation actually affects what is observed- but philosophers knew that 150 years or more before physics "proved" it.  Kant showed how this works in the 1700's, with his "synthetic analytic" which reasons that the mind puts together reality as we know it

And now we are headed toward a new age- there is an "epidemic" of philosophers, psychologists and physicists all coming together now around these ideas!

And so this is showing that there is a "restoration" now happening taking us back into times similar to those in the past where religion is one of the most important ways of seeing the world as it is!  Secular religions are popping up everywhere- which are based on what kinds of causes and unprovable beliefs can give meanings to our lives.

So the secular ideas and urgencies of today's world, like global warming which give us "evidence" but requires faith still at this point to act upon- are parallels to religious belief.

People devote their lives to organizations like "save the whales" or even abortion rights etc- which take on a quasi- religious character.  Who can "prove" the existence of God?  Who can "prove" that a fetus is "human"?  How can prove that "human rights" exist?  These ways of thinking parallel the structure for the quest for "God"

These are all "things hoped for that are unseen"

And "truth"? what does that mean in these contexts?   As Rorty says, it is undefinable but we know it when we see it.   Again this shows the primacy of EXPERIENCE over some scientific paradigm 

These questions go right to the sources of science and religion intellectually- what we believe and why we believe and why we believe it and what justifies belief itself.

So I don't really have time for Deseret Books..... 

All of these become "religions" based on beliefs which are taken on faith!

And now we move into "post secularism" where more and more people see it as I do-  there is a new age coming.  Call it the Millenium or find some other name but "Something's Happening here!  What it is ain't exactly clear..."  -- Buffalo Springfield. 

What is needed is a return to the family- and a return to beliefs that one should emulate some kind of "perfect Human" which is based on spiritual experience and at the same time Humanistic in that it seeks human perfection

Know where I can find a religion like that? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postsecularism

Quote

 

Postsecularism refers to a range of theories regarding the persistence or resurgence of religious beliefs or practices in the present. The "post-" may refer to after the end of secularism or after the beginning of secularism.

Contents

• 1Use
• 2Related concept of desecularization
• 3See also
• 4Further reading
• 5References
• 6External links

Use[edit]

The term “postsecular” has been used in sociology, political theory,^[1][2] religious studies, art studies,^[3] literary studies,^[4][5] education^[6] and other fields. Jürgen Habermas is widely credited for popularizing the term,^[7][8] to refer to current times in which the idea of modernity is perceived as failing and, at times, morally unsuccessful, so that, rather than a stratification or separation, a new peaceful dialogue and tolerant coexistence between the spheres of faith and reason^[9] must be sought in order to learn mutually.^[10] In this sense, Habermas insists that both religious people and secularist people should not exclude each other, but to learn from one another and coexist tolerantly.^[11][12] Massimo Rosati says that in a post secular society, religious and secular perspectives are on even ground, meaning that the two theoretically share equal importance. Modern societies that have considered themselves fully secular until recently have to change their value systems accordingly as to properly accommodate this co-existence.^[13]

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by mfbukowski

[manol]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Book of Mormon too, right? 

 You mean, that other Testament of Jesus Christ?  Sure!

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Or are you not there yet?

Just in case I need to clarify, I used to be LDS.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just so you understand why this way of thinking is so essential, is that reality for us is what we "experience" filtered through our bodies and mind.  There is NOTHING we can know which is NOT filtered through our minds.

Agreed.  

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So cases of "testimony" in which there is a definite experience which happens - a spiritual experience- is just as "real" as you right now reading this on the screen.

Agreed.  My fascination with near-death experiences (I did a poll-thread about them) aligns with that. Of course those aren't my experiences, but reading them still has an effect on me.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And now we are headed toward a new age- there is an "epidemic" of philosophers, psychologists and physicists all coming together now around these ideas!

And so this is showing that there is a "restoration" now happening taking us back into times similar to those in the past where religion is one of the most important ways of seeing the world as it is!  Secular religions are popping up everywhere- which are based on what kinds of causes and unprovable beliefs can give meanings to our lives.

Ha!  I hadn't thought of myself as a "secular religionist", but part of the reason I'm here is to see if my unprovable beliefs (present in the background) will "work" for me in a setting like this board.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And "truth"? what does that mean in these contexts?   As Rorty says, it is undefinable but we know it when we see it.   Again this shows the primacy of EXPERIENCE over some scientific paradigm.

The working definition I use is something along the lines of "truth is what works", which doesn't really nail down "truth" to anything absolute.   And I've had too many big shifts in my perceptions to want to do nail them down just yet, hence every now and then I hop upon my little soap-box and decry "creeds" as fossilizers which may seem great in the short term but often end up inhibiting if not halting progression. 

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

These questions go right to the sources of science and religion intellectually- what we believe and why we believe and why we believe it and what justifies belief itself.

All of these become "religions" based on beliefs which are taken on faith!

Well maybe you're right.  In my day job there is the how question which is a matter of hard-core applied science and engineering, but the what and the why questions get into beliefs (and therefore into heated discussions) very quickly. 

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And now we move into "post secularism" where more and more people see it as I do-  there is a new age coming.  Call it the Millenium or find some other name but "Something's Happening here!  What it is ain't exactly clear..."  -- Buffalo Springfield. 

It hasn't been clear to me that there is a "movement" taking place, but then that fits with the Buffalo Springfield prophecy.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is needed is a return to the family- and a return to beliefs that one should emulate some kind of "perfect Human" which is based on spiritual experience and at the same time Humanistic in that it seeks human perfection

Know where I can find a religion like that? 

 Yeah, but it keeps changing the name it wants to use.  Here's a link:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postsecularism

And you even gave me the link so I can just click and read. 

Thank you for your post.

Edit:  I read the link and I'm not sure that's my category across the board, but it is in some ways. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by manol

[Islander]

On 7/12/2022 at 3:26 PM, bluebell said:

Sure, why not?  Parables--like a lot of scripture--can be taken different ways depending on what the spirit is teaching the specific person in the moment.

I am sorry but that is an erroneous assumption. The Savior had a specific teaching in mind and He crafted a message that the audience could grasp and relate to in place and time. We can not "spiritualize" or extend the meaning of the parable beyond the significance and its contextual frame of reference. That is just bad theology.

The Lord has endowed each and every one of His servants with specific talents and abilities. He expects us to put them to good use in the building up of his kingdom so that our efforts bear fruit in that endeavor. He severely chastises the servant that did absolutely nothing with the resources/skills/talents/abilities entrusted to his while living off the substance of His master. Thus he proved to be worthless in the enterprise and a thief for which he was severely punished. Our diligence in the work of the Lord is the evidence of our love for Him and commitment to the covenant and promises we have made to Him.

We can not read into the text something is not there and that is completely anachronistic. Especially not out of convenience. None of us would think to sell everything we have and give it to the poor to follow Christ, for example.

 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Islander said:

I am sorry but that is an erroneous assumption. The Savior had a specific teaching in mind and He crafted a message that the audience could grasp and relate to in place and time. We can not "spiritualize" or extend the meaning of the parable beyond the significance and its contextual frame of reference. That is just bad theology.

The Lord has endowed each and every one of His servants with specific talents and abilities. He expects us to put them to good use in the building up of his kingdom so that our efforts bear fruit in that endeavor. He severely chastises the servant that did absolutely nothing with the resources/skills/talents/abilities entrusted to his while living off the substance of His master. Thus he proved to be worthless in the enterprise and a thief for which he was severely punished. Our diligence in the work of the Lord is the evidence of our love for Him and commitment to the covenant and promises we have made to Him.

We can not read into the text something is not there and that is completely anachronistic. Especially not out of convenience. None of us would think to sell everything we have and give it to the poor to follow Christ, for example.

 

So is the Good Samaritan a simple story about charity or a metaphor of the plan of salvation.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Islander said:

I am sorry but that is an erroneous assumption. The Savior had a specific teaching in mind and He crafted a message that the audience could grasp and relate to in place and time. We can not "spiritualize" or extend the meaning of the parable beyond the significance and its contextual frame of reference. That is just bad theology.

The Lord has endowed each and every one of His servants with specific talents and abilities. He expects us to put them to good use in the building up of his kingdom so that our efforts bear fruit in that endeavor. He severely chastises the servant that did absolutely nothing with the resources/skills/talents/abilities entrusted to his while living off the substance of His master. Thus he proved to be worthless in the enterprise and a thief for which he was severely punished. Our diligence in the work of the Lord is the evidence of our love for Him and commitment to the covenant and promises we have made to Him.

We can not read into the text something is not there and that is completely anachronistic. Especially not out of convenience. None of us would think to sell everything we have and give it to the poor to follow Christ, for example.

 

Disagree.  Many parts of the scriptures, including parables, have different meanings depending on context and personal revelation on applying scripture to our own lives.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Disagree.  Many parts of the scriptures, including parables, have different meanings depending on context and personal revelation on applying scripture to our own lives.

And in this context specifically, the interpretation works and it works as directly as any other spiritual gift works. Most of not all spiritual gifts can be expressed as ideas. Sharing those ideas is one way to share the spiritual gift. 

The interpretation in the OP is pretty spot on.

[Islander]

On 7/18/2022 at 6:24 AM, JLHPROF said:

So is the Good Samaritan a simple story about charity or a metaphor of the plan of salvation.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong.

It is not that complicated. The Good Samaritan is a parable, not an allegory. They are two different things. What those that heard the parable understood is what the Lord intended to communicate and that is precisely what it means. We can not just stretch the meaning into anything "we think" it means. There is no creative license when it comes to the word of God. You are free to think what you want but Christianity and the Bible are 2000 years old and have been studied and scrutinized by brilliant minds. I suggest what what you think holds very little weight.

Jesus proved to the scribes and Pharisees that they have corrupted the meaning of the law to accommodate their racism and prejudice, giving them license to hate the Samaritans and the gentiles. He illustrated to them in the parable that in order to enter the kingdom of God we must live the law and carry it to the full extent of its intention; to love our neighbors, regardless of who they are as the Samaritan did. The Samaritan saw the injured Jew as someone in need and rendered care and attention above and beyond, regardless.  The good man was a Samaritan, Jesus is drawing a strong contrast between those who believed they knew the law and those who actually followed the law in their lifestyle and conduct. Jesus ends the exchange by telling the lawyer to “go and do likewise,” meaning that he should start living the spirit of the law in their every day life.

That is the intended meaning of the parable created for an audience that could relate to its meaning. We can't just spiritualize that scripture beyond the intent of the Lord. That is just bad theology.

[The Nehor]

On 7/18/2022 at 12:04 AM, Islander said:

I am sorry but that is an erroneous assumption. The Savior had a specific teaching in mind and He crafted a message that the audience could grasp and relate to in place and time. We can not "spiritualize" or extend the meaning of the parable beyond the significance and its contextual frame of reference. That is just bad theology.

The Lord has endowed each and every one of His servants with specific talents and abilities. He expects us to put them to good use in the building up of his kingdom so that our efforts bear fruit in that endeavor. He severely chastises the servant that did absolutely nothing with the resources/skills/talents/abilities entrusted to his while living off the substance of His master. Thus he proved to be worthless in the enterprise and a thief for which he was severely punished. Our diligence in the work of the Lord is the evidence of our love for Him and commitment to the covenant and promises we have made to Him.

We can not read into the text something is not there and that is completely anachronistic. Especially not out of convenience. None of us would think to sell everything we have and give it to the poor to follow Christ, for example.

 

Nice, I don’t have to reread scripture anymore since I got the obvious and historically accurate meaning? Finally, more time to read Proust.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Jesus proved to the scribes and Pharisees that they have corrupted the meaning of the law to accommodate their racism and prejudice, giving them license to hate the Samaritans and the gentiles. He illustrated to them in the parable that in order to enter the kingdom of God we must live the law and carry it to the full extent of its intention; to love our neighbors, regardless of who they are as the Samaritan did. The Samaritan saw the injured Jew as someone in need and rendered care and attention above and beyond, regardless.  The good man was a Samaritan, Jesus is drawing a strong contrast between those who believed they knew the law and those who actually followed the law in their lifestyle and conduct. Jesus ends the exchange by telling the lawyer to “go and do likewise,” meaning that he should start living the spirit of the law in their every day life.

That is the intended meaning of the parable created for an audience that could relate to its meaning. We can't just spiritualize that scripture beyond the intent of the Lord. That is just bad theology.

Jesus told the Parable of the Good Samaritan in response to the question, "Who is my neighbor?" (the context being, the questioner having acknowledged the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself").

So Islander, if I understand you correctly, this Parable is only intended to have meaning for the audience Jesus was speaking to then and there, and any other meaning we might ascribe to it is "bad theology".  Is that correct?

What do you think the answer is today to the question, "Who is my neighbor?" 

Could your neighbor be someone you disagree with on an internet forum?  If so, we've all got lots of neighbors here!

Edited July 31, 2022 by manol

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, Islander said:

It is not that complicated. The Good Samaritan is a parable, not an allegory. They are two different things. What those that heard the parable understood is what the Lord intended to communicate and that is precisely what it means. We can not just stretch the meaning into anything "we think" it means. There is no creative license when it comes to the word of God. You are free to think what you want but Christianity and the Bible are 2000 years old and have been studied and scrutinized by brilliant minds. I suggest what what you think holds very little weight.

Jesus proved to the scribes and Pharisees that they have corrupted the meaning of the law to accommodate their racism and prejudice, giving them license to hate the Samaritans and the gentiles. He illustrated to them in the parable that in order to enter the kingdom of God we must live the law and carry it to the full extent of its intention; to love our neighbors, regardless of who they are as the Samaritan did. The Samaritan saw the injured Jew as someone in need and rendered care and attention above and beyond, regardless.  The good man was a Samaritan, Jesus is drawing a strong contrast between those who believed they knew the law and those who actually followed the law in their lifestyle and conduct. Jesus ends the exchange by telling the lawyer to “go and do likewise,” meaning that he should start living the spirit of the law in their every day life.

That is the intended meaning of the parable created for an audience that could relate to its meaning. We can't just spiritualize that scripture beyond the intent of the Lord. That is just bad theology.

Naive and narrow minded.  Good job.  And Christ absolutely used allegory in parables.

 

[pogi]

On 7/30/2022 at 9:59 PM, Islander said:

The Good Samaritan is a parable, not an allegory. They are two different things.

I don't really understand the difference.  Even after reading a site attempting to explain the difference, I don't see the difference in how Christ used them.  Maybe I am a dunce or something.   I think Jesus used them both with the same form and function.

According to this site:  

Quote

An allegory is a simple story, poem, or image whose interpretation can be used to reveal a hidden meaning. The usual lessons in allegories include moral or political ones and require a deeper analysis and interpretation of the piece of work.

An allegory is typically considered to be in the same line with “moral of a story”. It’s usually exciting and uses characters or events to send hidden messages or meanings across. The basic characteristic of an allegory is that it does not just come out and reveal the moral of a story.

Characteristics of an Allegory
- It is a simple poem, story, or prose that can be read at a metaphorical or literal level.
- When used by religious writers, it is used for teaching principles of a faith.
- When used by ethical writers, it is used to inculcate the morals the writers want to send to their reader’s hearts.
- It is used to aid in getting the point of view across if used by satirists in a social or political nature.

Like allegories, Christ used parables to reveal hidden meaning.  He never just came out and revealed the moral of the story - "he who has ears to hear...".   He used simple stories on a metaphorical level.  He used them to teach principles of faith.  Checks all the boxes of an allegory, apparently. 

Now for parables:

Quote

A parable is defined as a simple story that is used to illustrate spiritual or moral lessons. The most common application of the style is the way Jesus told stories in the Gospels with hidden spiritual lessons.

Characteristics of a Parable
-It is a short tale or simple narrative.
-It illustrates a universal truth.
-It is used to sketch a setting, draw an action, and show results.
-It involves a character facing a moral dilemma or one who has made a bad decision and suffers from the unintended and unforeseen circumstances.
-It expresses abstract points of argument using concrete narratives.

Quote

An allegory uses plants, animals, forces of nature, and inanimate things as characters to tell a story while parables use human characters to tell their story or the moral lesson of a story.

And yet we see parables using plants, seeds, soils etc. (parable of the sower) in a metaphorical way to reveal hidden truths only intended for those with spiritual ears to hear.  Not even his disciples were able to discern the lesson without asking further. 

It sounds like they both can be simple stories used to teach principles/truth/morals.  According to this site the primary difference seems to be that allegories have hidden meaning that require deeper evaluation, and parables use human characters rather than plants/animals as metaphors to tell simple straight forward, easy to understand lessons.   I simply don't see Christ following these rules though in his use of parables/allegories.   The messages in Christ's parables were not always plainly evident, even to his disciples, and he often used non-human subjects as metaphors.  So, perhaps you can explain to me the difference 

On 7/30/2022 at 9:59 PM, Islander said:

We can't just spiritualize that scripture beyond the intent of the Lord. That is just bad theology.

You can't objectively know what "the intent of the Lord" is in his parables.  Sorry.  Christ didn't just come out and reveal his intent plainly.  Many listeners were left confused.  His parables are intended to be spiritualized.  That is the only way we can "hear" them.   

The different gospels themselves interpret his parables in different ways - pointing to possible layers of meaning in his parables:

Quote

Matthew’s tendency to understand parables as allegories with hidden meanings is finally all too evident in his interpretation of the Parable of the Drag-Net. In its original form the parable spoke about the wisdom of selecting that which is good. As the parable is told in the Gospel of Thomas (#8), it is still clear that it wants to illustrate wisdom:

The man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty.

Matthew 13:49–50 on the other hand, changed the conclusion so that it pointed to the Final Judgment: “So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire.”

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by pogi