Post 9hRWfxPU5bHusLh8sK by artsyhonker@sunbeam.city
 (DIR) More posts by artsyhonker@sunbeam.city
 (DIR) Post #9hR87ntsXgDmdU5pr6 by hector@explosion.party
       2019-04-03T17:01:05.231804Z
       
       0 likes, 4 repeats
       
       Jesus was a capitalist. In Matthew 25:14-30 he tells the parable of a man going on a long journey and entrusting his money to his three servants, "to each according to his ability" (not, as you may notice, "to each according to his need"). When the lord returns, he is pleased with the first two servants who doubled their money by trading. With the third servant who just buried the money he was given and therefore had no profit to return, he is angry and says "why didn't you invest my money with the bankers, so that I could least earn interest?"The lord in the parable represents Jesus, who would soon afterwards leave the Earth but later return in the Second Coming.
       
 (DIR) Post #9hRPhaGOQ4lVzIGrSa by artsyhonker@sunbeam.city
       2019-04-03T18:42:57Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @hector There are definitely alternate readings of that where Jesus is *not* the master in the parable; especially since it is immediately followed by a definition of who is righteous that includes "And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’"http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=89961021
       
 (DIR) Post #9hRPhaaxBdDD13tHVY by hector@explosion.party
       2019-04-03T20:18:01.336972Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @artsyhonker what is the point of the parable then? Do note that the capitalist connection I made is facetious and that "doubling the talents" here is not understood in a literal sense but rather to mean spreading the gospel to more people. It's a parable, after all.
       
 (DIR) Post #9hRWfxPU5bHusLh8sK by artsyhonker@sunbeam.city
       2019-04-03T20:32:12Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @hector I tend to read it as "people with more resources in the first place tend to do better materially" without assuming that Jesus endorsed the phenomenon.
       
 (DIR) Post #9hRWfxlSlsrvyVyh8K by hector@explosion.party
       2019-04-03T21:36:10.284212Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @artsyhonker that would be a pretty literal reading which has no theological meaning and out of place given the surrounding scriptural context. The third servant was punished because he acted lazily, and therefore unfaithfully, not because he had little to begin with.
       
 (DIR) Post #9hRYsCDr2i2qCODczA by artsyhonker@sunbeam.city
       2019-04-03T21:47:28Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @hector Punished and called lazy, when he was in fact fearful, by a master who reaps what he does not sow etc. I don't really get why people think such a master represents God in this parable. How do you justify the parable of the talents as being about the spread of the gospel? The surrounding text doesn't mention evangelism at all; it seems far more coherent, to me, as an explanation of how it is that poverty exists, and precursor to the next section of text.
       
 (DIR) Post #9hRYsCPCMX7QlZWgfQ by hector@explosion.party
       2019-04-03T22:00:47.597159Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @artsyhonker there is no practical explanation needed, when they knew it well already. This same basic parable also occurs in Luke 19, where it is not followed by the parable of caring for the needy, but rather by Jesus' entry into Jerusalem as a fulfillment of messianic prophecy. The disciples thought this would immediately bring about the Kingdom of God, but Jesus is trying to tell them it is not yet imminent. Therefore it makes the most sense to interpret it as an essentially eschatological message about using your time on Earth faithfully and being prepared for the Second Coming.