Yeah you went there. I am going to "go there" too, downvotes be damned.
Ignorance of history is NOT in any way limited to the shitlibs and "woke". The template these destroyers are using today has been taken straight from the "conversion" to Christianity, including; (1) lying about the past (convincing Europeans that their history comes from some shithole in the middle east, not their own lands), demonizing their ancestors (calling them "pagans" and "heathens", how is that different from denouncing us as "white supremacists"?) and (3) destroying their heritage (i.e. "Donar's Oak"-look it up, how is that any different from the toppling of statues and the renaming of streets cuz "racism"?). I could go ON and ON-this would just be my opening oratory.
The so-called "conversion" of Europe took nearly a 1,000 years from Constantine proclaiming Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire until the defeat of last holdouts in the Baltics. Does anyone really think that kings forcibly converted their populations because they "saw the light"?. Yeah just like leftist politicians today really care about the "marginalized" and the "vulnerable". The Council of Nicaea was a POLITICAL conference, and don't get me started on the "King James" Bible (also political in intent. It makes for some pretty prose but it is a HORRIBLE translation).
I am not a Christian and I don't want to be a Christian, not because I want to "sin" so to speak, but for many complex reasons, the most important (to me) being that this religion is not from my ancestors, and not their history, and nothing but a tiny drop in the bucket of history, most of which has been stolen and forgotten, just as the Wokies are trying to do the same now. We are the ghosts among the ruins, without history, without names, without a future...
The point of the parable is that we ought to forgive others because we have been forgiven.
Is it now?
Then why did the King not only revoke his "forgiveness" (which by the way you cannot do and if you reserve the right to do that you didn't forgive in the first place) but in addition summarily punished the original person who was no longer in debt, as it had been forgiven!
Did the next stanza of said Gospel make note of said King being stricken with Leprosy and dying a miserable death for not only imprisoning a man for no crime but in addition for the sins of both theft (you cannot claw back a forgiven debt) and lying (the claim he had been forgiven)? No.
So where did said "King" get the right to do such a thing, both of which are claimed to be sins? Said "King" was neither Jesus or God himself; he was mortal.
Or is the Gospel and Torah only to be obeyed by peasants, and not Kings?
----------
"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Your story sounds a lot like mine. My mom went from mainline Protestant to various "Bible believing" churches which started when I was around 8-9. I was forced to go along to church until I was 16 at which I wanted nothing to do with it ever again. Also like you I became more spiritual over time, in my case by discovering some of the beliefs of my ACTUAL ancestors.
I don't hold anything against someone who embraces Christianity because it works for them personally, but the majority of organized religion has been a CANCER.
The parable is disconnected from the notion of scarcity, such is the ways of the kingdom of heaven. And so you no longer have a currency representing human capital, but instead an inexhaustible well of love and grace.
That's the problem with taking a parable and applying a different context to it. Peter asked about forgiveness, and Jesus may have replied with a money allegory, but this was sufficient to his audience in the flesh, where a thousand talents is just an insane amount of money to think about that any notion of scarcity is tossed from the mental picture that is painted.
This parable answers the question of whether you will be forgiven having not forgiven others, and no more.
"All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet:
I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."
Also I assume you understand what a simile is.
"That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king..."
----------
Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with until you understand who's in ruttin command here.
I don't see where there is a commandment of any kind involved. The passage is an illustration, not a proscription, meant to make a point, not to define a theology. And certainly no allegory can be stretched beyond its original intent, ie the status of the King's own relationship with God in this passage.
Oh I disagree entirely. The USCCB disagrees too, as I've heard this one and the sermons on it, that one is essentially commanded not to take vengeance (unless you're a government, since the King clearly did) and that in addition you are required to forgive debts (lest you be locked up yourself!)
Hmmmm....
Me thinks you are making excuses.
Then again organized religion is really good at that, isn't it?
----------
"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Why did the king loan most of his kingdom's GDP to one person? That's a serious lapse in judgment.
Our priest said the two debts were $12 billion and $20,000.
The 12 billion guy could not pay it back, so he lied about being able to do so in the first place. The king was a moron for loaning it to him. This is one of the parables that does not hold up well to time, especially since were all living through massive inflation.
Then there's the whole problem of him revoking forgiveness for the individual while still screwing the entire kingdom. Are we to take from that that being tortured to death or having to pay for some asshole's debt are our two choices?
If you look at it as a parable about forgiving others, apparently you can renege if you're king. Since we no longer have kings, this implies none of us have to forgive anyone. Further, never believe it when someone says they forgive you. This whole parable is sad.
----------
The learning curve for being dead is steep, but everyone gets it down pat on the first go usually.--Thystra, March 28, 2023
I think... In the beginning there was nothing, no currency. Then there was barter. Then gold and silver coins became a currency = massive inflation as prices increased from $0 to market value (maybe this shouldn't be considered real inflation). Then currency was taxed into the treasury = deflationary. Then loans were made = inflationary. Then loans were repaid = deflationary.
"Balancing" the system is relative. Didn't the system become unbalanced when taxes first begin to be pulled out of circulation and stored in the treasury? But after 1000 years of having a King's treasury as part of the system, is it then considered balanced? Maybe the system ultimately only becomes balanced when we revert back to the very first stage of initial currency creation? Perhaps the condition of balanced doesn't matter, only the relative inflationary / deflationary pressures.
Interest makes it impossible to ever balance the system. Islam forbids both receiving and paying interest as it's considered morally objectionable. I've heard early Christianity also forbid interest, until the Knights Templar managed to change that belief and essentially became the first proto-bankers.
What's the moral of that bible story? I don't give a crap. I navigate using my own moral compass. It's easy if you're a good person.
<rant>The bible sucks. It's lessons are often morally ambiguous, hypocritical and absurd (Noah's flood, Jonah swallowed by a whale, etc.) Old testament God would not hesitate to smite your ass, but new testament God was inclined to turn the other cheek. Many of the "miracles" were weak sauce - parting the Red Sea was more likely just a really low tide, during a drought along a shallow part of the coastline. A burning bush? Come on, man. The fact that the meaning of virtually every verse in the bible is endlessly debated speaks volumes. Only thing more suspect than the bible is our medical journals / research studies. I'll spend my time with my science textbooks, thank you.</rant>
Church is supposed to be a hospital for sinners. If it is operating as a museum for saints it is time to find a new Church. In the scriptures everyone except Christ was fallen. Even king David of whom God said a man after my own heart did horrible things and possessed and acted upon bad judgement. Only Christ is/was perfect. That is the whole point of the bible. We see ourselves not as Christ but as the rest of the motley characters found in its pages
I'm not Catholic so I don't feel the need to have the discussion along those lines...That said, when I read Matthew 18 I dont interpret it quite that way, namely, a King that had a treasury that he loaded out to individual servants. v.23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
"A King had a Treasury (collected via taxes and various fees) which, he on occasion, loaned out with the expectation of being paid back. This Treasury, being not in circulation, had no economic impact on supply and demand -- and thus on price."
Due to the large amounts of money involved, its likely that these servants would have been provincial governors, certainly not bondservants but probably the governors of his provinces or those in charge of the revenue and finances who owed the money from taxation.
That being the case, wouldn't the monies previously referenced already have been in circulation and while owed to the King not impacted the supply/demand equation?
I'm posting Karl's response as I originally posted in the incorrect thread...
"No @Kennington (you're in the wrong thread by the way); funds in Treasury beyond operating requirements are there for emergencies (e.g. someone invades you!)"
Is this along the lines of the "Judge not lest ye be judged" with that pesky magic word that always gets left out in order to browbeat the citizenry into inaction, "accordingly"? How many things in the world are known to be wrong but people incorrectly believe judging things is wrong and therefore let it slide?
The large debtor wanted one set of rules for himself, but applied a different set to his small debtor...that pesky "Accordingly", again. The lord then saw that and accordingly applied the one standard implemented by the large debtor, "Judge not lest ye be judged, accordingly."
M 7:2 "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
Was the loaned money from the public treasury or was it from the kings own pocket? Kings and noblemen usually had decent sized estates and the profits were to be spend or distributed at the kings will. Now the vengeance of the king is troubling. And same with demanding payment of a debt that is forgiven. However it might be a case of there were implied strings attached to the forgiveness based on the specifics of the debtors begging and pleading. If there were implied terms that were breeched then the debt becomes payable. A bit like a paroled person sentence can be reinstated if they breech the terms of parole. And as the king he had the power to wield the law and punish transgressors. Is it any different to getting absolution in the confession but the sin still remains if you confessed under false pretences? The debtor May also begged and pleaded under false pretences.
I draw no conclusions from this parable about government authority or loans or that those in power have the right to wrath and revenge. Jesus spoke about these issues at other times during His ministry.
Sound Biblical exegesis requires that I do not draw conclusions that are not warranted by the clear intent of the text. The parables of Jesus are rich in content, but I must identify the central point and be careful not to draw tangential conclusions. His parables must be taken within their context and in the light of other Biblical teachings.
The central theme of this parable is forgiveness. Prior to this parable, Jesus was teaching his disciples how to restore a person who has sinned against you. Then Peter wondered how many times should he forgive this person, and Jesus basically told him that he must always forgive. Then Jesus told the story of a king who was settling accounts (i.e. judgement) and was exceedingly merciful to a servant who owed him a great and unpayable debt, but the servant acted unmercifully and would not forgive those who owed him much less. Thus, the king imprisoned the unforgiving servant.
Jesus was teaching that God has forgiven us a huge debt - one that cannot be repaid, and that we must likewise forgive others. Not included in this parable, but in other Scriptures, Jesus told us that there is only one sin that God will not forgive, and that is the failure to trust Jesus for salvation. That's because God, in His infinite mercy and grace, provided a way for us to have complete forgiveness through Christ. If we reject that gift, God cannot forgive us. He will not compel us to accept the gift because we have free will.
I do not conclude that the gospel is corrupt because the king didn't forgive the servant again. Jesus was certainly not teaching that political figures in power can do as they please. On numerous occasions, Jesus excoriated the ruling elite (e.g the Pharisees) of His time and that's why they killed Him.
I must forgive others as God has forgiven me. And that is an exceedingly difficult command.
Meh. The real crooks here were the gold and silver miners. Had they not dug that all out, this whole story would be moot.
Seriously, though, in order for this slant to make sense, one has to assume that whatever was lent out is the only legal means of debt settlement. Releasing gold from the treasury only affects the prices relative to gold. If you are trading cattle for grain, the grain/cattle exchange rate is unaffected by the increase in gold. Except for early on before prices adjust to the new reality, while opportunities for arbitrage exist, even legal tender laws will make no difference, as you can exchange cattle for gold and gold for grain, and the ledgers at the end of the transaction chain will be within spitting distance of just exchanging the two commodities.
Using the exact same logic, one can make the case that the farmer who plants twice the acreage should be executed because his actions altered the grain/lamp oil exchange rate. There's obviously something wrong there, as increased goods production should probably not be a punishable offense in any rational society.
Near impossible for people to challenge belief structures. Once one has accepted the bible as the source of truth, well, you have to perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it conform to real world observation and experience.
For every ideal in the bible, there is a contradicory thought stopping cliche.
Turn the other cheek, then sell your cloak and buy a sword.
Faith without works is a great one.
Forgive your brother 7x. I am under no obligation to forgive him once. I can if I choose, but I don't have to.
Continue to lend to him again so you can forgive him the debt again. This is the greatest demonstration of love!
But god has forgiven you so much! There is nothing to forgive. He placed me into a world he created. One where every child learns by making mistakes and there are no perfect men.
Parables serve a purpose. They illustrate simple truths. Karl is correct.
If you take everything in the bible as accurate, historical fact, then it collapses under its own inconsistency.
It has wisdom in it, but no more or less than wisdom found in any source.
The king was inflationary, but a complex study of economic theory wasn't the point. Getting people to accept having a king rule them wasn't the point either, but it is there regardless.
Take it or leave it, there is no eternal harm in it. But people who borrow and don't pay would be thrown in jail if I were king. Then, fewer would borrow in the 1st place.
Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt.
This pericope is not about emitting credit, monetary policy, or even morality. Obviously Christ is not recommending the practice of selling wives and children into slavery to discharge accrued debts, anymore than that the story of Abraham is a prescription for polygamy ... it is simply a factual empirical description of the way of the world. The wrath of the "king" is also not being condoned, but being described.
The real lesson is that anyone might need forgiveness, and that what goes around is likely to come around: the only way to break the cycle of retribution and debt peonage is forgiveness.
The Bible assumes a kind of immanent moral causality, and many stories describe how things work in fact, but are unfortunately misinterpreted as moral prescriptions.
Some other notes
King does not necessarily refer to government, but could simply be a great/wealthy/powerful man.
There is a similar story in the ANE texts (Babylon) about honoring your father & mother (4th commandment), here applied to the situation in which somebody has to collect his old father from the local inn (their version of old-age retirement) because the old man is (presumably) too drunk to get back by himself. The admonition is that you "owe" this to your father not only if you have already done so 7x, but even if you have done so 77x. Incidentally the 10 commandments tie such care for the previous generation to "that you may live long in the promised land", which should be interpreted not so much at the personal level, but in terms of the sustainability of a society as a whole. (Oh. The numbers are symbolical)
It appears that the first debtor was not TBTT (Too Big To Torture).
Maybe he should have borrowed more so that the King HAD to forgive him, or bail him out.
On the whole inflation/deflation thing. If the original debt was used for a productive purpose, there should have been a slight deflationary effect due to increased productivity in producing the product compared to current methods.
The expected return of a 'commodity' type business would be just above the risk free rate of return by a percent or two, after paying the interest on the loan. Taking out a loan to go into business that has zero return doesn't make sense financially unless there's some sort of shady stuff going on in the second set of books.
After reneging on the loan forgiveness that King deserves to have his eyebrows separated by some high speed lead (or a slung stone for those expecting an adherence to the time period of the parable).
Odd how parables seem to have so many loose ends, eh?
----------
"War is when the Government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself." - Benjamin Franklin
RSS available
.
. Yeah just like leftist politicians today really care about the "marginalized" and the "vulnerable"
building great again!