Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 03-17-2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I would still like to know who the "servants" are supposed to symbolize in the parable.

Servants are truths that served him well as shepherds and they will be all untied ends or false indoctrintions, or persistent evils such as sins of clan, nation and relious indoctrinations still yet to be comprehended and that includes our honor that we upheld with dignity.

I think it is fair to say that the servants are his, and slain means similar to stoned to death with truth..

mountainman · 03-17-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I would still like to know who the "servants" are supposed to symbolize in the parable.

One possible meaning is given by Big J. in response to Pontius Pilate ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jhn 18:36

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

J-D · 03-17-2012, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants

That's wild, anachronistic misrepresentation. Monarchs were not, as a rule, tyrants (Archelaus was deposed because he was tyrannical), but the principle means of maintaining order and the rule of law. Modern, democratic minds obviously have a different view (that may well stem from the origins of Israel, as it happens), but monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe. A compromise, perhaps, in a less than perfect world, where monarchs had their uses for the common man.

So the moral is quite different: if monarchs were justified in removing influences that would destabilise civil order and progress, the pursuit of happiness, it could be no surprise if deity took a similar attitude when selecting citizens of the permanent, eternal 'society'.

Okay, then: the moral is, don't expect the creator to be any better than the earthly monarchs of 2000 years ago

Or of 1000 years ago, or of almost any time before constitutional monarchy or republicanism became the general practice. Monarchies were rarely tyrannies, if only because people will tolerate a tyranny only in particularly adverse circumstances, where they perceive that 'iron law' is essential to preserve order. When they overthrow a monarchy, they may get little or no practical advantage, as occurred in both France and Russia. Monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe.

Monarchies were, I expect, seen in a positive light by the monarchs themselves, their entourages, and their apologists. I'm not so sure about how widely those views were shared.

Of course there was dissent. There always is. But it's one thing to complain about one's government, it's another to suggest anything better. Historians must take account of economics, because economic realities define the nature of societies. Until the Industrial Revolution, all wealth was based on agriculture and fishery, so land possession, which was very rarely divided equally, defined the power base of any society. A national monarch had two principal functions. One was to defend the nation in war, or to acquire wealth by invasion or imperialism. The other was to create the legal framework by which wealth could be created at home, and to police the law that resulted. That meant restraining local major landowners, if only to protect the agricultural base that maintained the monarchy itself. So it was a system that certainly wasn't democracy, but worked well in an era when there was virtually no international law. Tyranny happened occasionally, when power went to the heads of individuals, when power corrupted absolutely, but this caused instability, and tyrants tended to have short life spans. It's notable that even the Roman Empire, that was a lot more brutal than, say, the Persian Empire, had to take some account of its conquered populations, to say nothing of the plebeians in Rome, who of course could have massacred the patricians overnight, had they been sufficiently goaded into it. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown," the medieval Henry IV said, in Shakespeare's representation of him.

Quote:

But the merits or demerits of monarchy aren't the point here, unless it's being suggested (and it doesn't seem to be) that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about monarchy. You seemed to be saying that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about the creator. Now, regardless of what you or anybody may think about monarchs in general, I know many people who treat other people better than the specific monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds does. I treat people better than the monarch in that story, and there's nothing special about me.

I'm sure you do, but if you can point out a non-constitutional monarch who, on accession, failed to eliminate those who would eliminate him, perhaps you'll let me know. It's well known that sudden death was one of the occupational hazards of a life in court. You either stayed on the farm, or in the schoolroom, or in an occupation of similar low estate; or you went for the high life, but risked your life. So it's anachronistic to cite from modern conditions. However, those pre-modern conditions may very well illustrate the principles of an eternal deity.

Quote:

So the moral of the story, according to you, is not to expect the creator to meet ethical standards even as high as the standards of a fairly ordinary person like me, let alone anything better.

This is to completely misapprehend the message of the Bible, that insists that morality creates a necessity for a perfect conscience. Only the perfect can take the same moral ground as the Biblical deity, and none can take higher moral ground. An imperfect conscience, created by just one sin, will condemn, will result in destruction of the spirit after this life, the Bible says. Only a messiah can prevent that happening to all moral creatures. This is not the message of just one parable, but the message of the first word of Genesis through to the last of Revelation. The condition that the Bible relates is that the Bible deity will not accept those who do not accept Jesus, because truly morally acceptable people, in the biblical view, do accept Jesus, sooner or later. That is the warning message of this part of the parable.

You lost me there.

You don't dispute that many people behave according to higher ethical standards than does the monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds.

Now, it would be possible to posit, hypothetically, a creator who is like the monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds; on the other hand it would be possible to posit, hypothetically, a creator who is not like the monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds.

If you take the position that there is a creator who is like that monarch, then, given that you're not disputing my observation about that monarch's ethical standards, you're positing the existence of a creator who falls short of ethical standards which many people meet.

On the other hand, if you take the position that there is a creator but deny that the creator is like the monarch in question, then you can't consistently say that an analogy between the monarch and the creator is the point of the parable.

J-D · 03-17-2012, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

The condition that the Bible relates is that the Bible deity will not accept those who do not accept Jesus, because truly morally acceptable people, in the biblical view, do accept Jesus, sooner or later. That is the warning message of this part of the parable.

The warning message at Luke 19:27 is that if people do not accept Jesus then they will be dragged before him and executed. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" obvious has its loopholes.

Actually the commandment says 'Thou shalt not murder (רצח)' and not 'Thou shalt not kill (הרג)'.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-17-2012, 09:48 PM

I've always found that to be a somewhat question-begging distinction.

J-D · 03-18-2012, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I've always found that to be a somewhat question-begging distinction.

I don't see how. I think it must be culturally universal, or close to it, to have a prohibition on murder, and I think wherever that prohibition occurs there must be distinctions between those killings categorised as murders and those not so categorised. In New South Wales, for example, murder is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment but not all killings are murders. Is that 'question-begging'? How?

sotto voce · 03-18-2012, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants

That's wild, anachronistic misrepresentation. Monarchs were not, as a rule, tyrants (Archelaus was deposed because he was tyrannical), but the principle means of maintaining order and the rule of law. Modern, democratic minds obviously have a different view (that may well stem from the origins of Israel, as it happens), but monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe. A compromise, perhaps, in a less than perfect world, where monarchs had their uses for the common man.

So the moral is quite different: if monarchs were justified in removing influences that would destabilise civil order and progress, the pursuit of happiness, it could be no surprise if deity took a similar attitude when selecting citizens of the permanent, eternal 'society'.

Okay, then: the moral is, don't expect the creator to be any better than the earthly monarchs of 2000 years ago

Or of 1000 years ago, or of almost any time before constitutional monarchy or republicanism became the general practice. Monarchies were rarely tyrannies, if only because people will tolerate a tyranny only in particularly adverse circumstances, where they perceive that 'iron law' is essential to preserve order. When they overthrow a monarchy, they may get little or no practical advantage, as occurred in both France and Russia. Monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe.

Monarchies were, I expect, seen in a positive light by the monarchs themselves, their entourages, and their apologists. I'm not so sure about how widely those views were shared.

Of course there was dissent. There always is. But it's one thing to complain about one's government, it's another to suggest anything better. Historians must take account of economics, because economic realities define the nature of societies. Until the Industrial Revolution, all wealth was based on agriculture and fishery, so land possession, which was very rarely divided equally, defined the power base of any society. A national monarch had two principal functions. One was to defend the nation in war, or to acquire wealth by invasion or imperialism. The other was to create the legal framework by which wealth could be created at home, and to police the law that resulted. That meant restraining local major landowners, if only to protect the agricultural base that maintained the monarchy itself. So it was a system that certainly wasn't democracy, but worked well in an era when there was virtually no international law. Tyranny happened occasionally, when power went to the heads of individuals, when power corrupted absolutely, but this caused instability, and tyrants tended to have short life spans. It's notable that even the Roman Empire, that was a lot more brutal than, say, the Persian Empire, had to take some account of its conquered populations, to say nothing of the plebeians in Rome, who of course could have massacred the patricians overnight, had they been sufficiently goaded into it. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown," the medieval Henry IV said, in Shakespeare's representation of him.

Quote:

But the merits or demerits of monarchy aren't the point here, unless it's being suggested (and it doesn't seem to be) that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about monarchy. You seemed to be saying that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about the creator. Now, regardless of what you or anybody may think about monarchs in general, I know many people who treat other people better than the specific monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds does. I treat people better than the monarch in that story, and there's nothing special about me.

I'm sure you do, but if you can point out a non-constitutional monarch who, on accession, failed to eliminate those who would eliminate him, perhaps you'll let me know. It's well known that sudden death was one of the occupational hazards of a life in court. You either stayed on the farm, or in the schoolroom, or in an occupation of similar low estate; or you went for the high life, but risked your life. So it's anachronistic to cite from modern conditions. However, those pre-modern conditions may very well illustrate the principles of an eternal deity.

Quote:

So the moral of the story, according to you, is not to expect the creator to meet ethical standards even as high as the standards of a fairly ordinary person like me, let alone anything better.

This is to completely misapprehend the message of the Bible, that insists that morality creates a necessity for a perfect conscience. Only the perfect can take the same moral ground as the Biblical deity, and none can take higher moral ground. An imperfect conscience, created by just one sin, will condemn, will result in destruction of the spirit after this life, the Bible says. Only a messiah can prevent that happening to all moral creatures. This is not the message of just one parable, but the message of the first word of Genesis through to the last of Revelation. The condition that the Bible relates is that the Bible deity will not accept those who do not accept Jesus, because truly morally acceptable people, in the biblical view, do accept Jesus, sooner or later. That is the warning message of this part of the parable.

You lost me there.

You don't dispute that many people behave according to higher ethical standards than does the monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds.

You will be lost if you suppose that.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-18-2012, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I've always found that to be a somewhat question-begging distinction.

I don't see how. I think it must be culturally universal, or close to it, to have a prohibition on murder, and I think wherever that prohibition occurs there must be distinctions between those killings categorised as murders and those not so categorised. In New South Wales, for example, murder is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment but not all killings are murders. Is that 'question-begging'? How?

Precisely because "murder" is only a legal standard without any objective or uniform definition. The word, in a vaccuum, doesn't mean anything except "illegal killing," which, as I said, is question-begging, because killing a person "illegally" has no objective or universal definition. Under Levitical law, for instance, it is not illegal to kill your own slave. Killing your own slave is not "murder." It is illegal to kill somebody else's slave, but even then, it's not punished as murder, but only as a property crime.

So what kind of "murder" can we say is definitely forbidden by the Decalogue? There is virtually no kind of killing that the Bible doesn't condone somewhere, including mass infanticide. If "murder" doesn't cover slaughtering babies, then what does it cover?

J-D · 03-18-2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants

That's wild, anachronistic misrepresentation. Monarchs were not, as a rule, tyrants (Archelaus was deposed because he was tyrannical), but the principle means of maintaining order and the rule of law. Modern, democratic minds obviously have a different view (that may well stem from the origins of Israel, as it happens), but monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe. A compromise, perhaps, in a less than perfect world, where monarchs had their uses for the common man.

So the moral is quite different: if monarchs were justified in removing influences that would destabilise civil order and progress, the pursuit of happiness, it could be no surprise if deity took a similar attitude when selecting citizens of the permanent, eternal 'society'.

Okay, then: the moral is, don't expect the creator to be any better than the earthly monarchs of 2000 years ago

Or of 1000 years ago, or of almost any time before constitutional monarchy or republicanism became the general practice. Monarchies were rarely tyrannies, if only because people will tolerate a tyranny only in particularly adverse circumstances, where they perceive that 'iron law' is essential to preserve order. When they overthrow a monarchy, they may get little or no practical advantage, as occurred in both France and Russia. Monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe.

Monarchies were, I expect, seen in a positive light by the monarchs themselves, their entourages, and their apologists. I'm not so sure about how widely those views were shared.

Of course there was dissent. There always is. But it's one thing to complain about one's government, it's another to suggest anything better. Historians must take account of economics, because economic realities define the nature of societies. Until the Industrial Revolution, all wealth was based on agriculture and fishery, so land possession, which was very rarely divided equally, defined the power base of any society. A national monarch had two principal functions. One was to defend the nation in war, or to acquire wealth by invasion or imperialism. The other was to create the legal framework by which wealth could be created at home, and to police the law that resulted. That meant restraining local major landowners, if only to protect the agricultural base that maintained the monarchy itself. So it was a system that certainly wasn't democracy, but worked well in an era when there was virtually no international law. Tyranny happened occasionally, when power went to the heads of individuals, when power corrupted absolutely, but this caused instability, and tyrants tended to have short life spans. It's notable that even the Roman Empire, that was a lot more brutal than, say, the Persian Empire, had to take some account of its conquered populations, to say nothing of the plebeians in Rome, who of course could have massacred the patricians overnight, had they been sufficiently goaded into it. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown," the medieval Henry IV said, in Shakespeare's representation of him.

Quote:

But the merits or demerits of monarchy aren't the point here, unless it's being suggested (and it doesn't seem to be) that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about monarchy. You seemed to be saying that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about the creator. Now, regardless of what you or anybody may think about monarchs in general, I know many people who treat other people better than the specific monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds does. I treat people better than the monarch in that story, and there's nothing special about me.

I'm sure you do, but if you can point out a non-constitutional monarch who, on accession, failed to eliminate those who would eliminate him, perhaps you'll let me know. It's well known that sudden death was one of the occupational hazards of a life in court. You either stayed on the farm, or in the schoolroom, or in an occupation of similar low estate; or you went for the high life, but risked your life. So it's anachronistic to cite from modern conditions. However, those pre-modern conditions may very well illustrate the principles of an eternal deity.

Quote:

So the moral of the story, according to you, is not to expect the creator to meet ethical standards even as high as the standards of a fairly ordinary person like me, let alone anything better.

This is to completely misapprehend the message of the Bible, that insists that morality creates a necessity for a perfect conscience. Only the perfect can take the same moral ground as the Biblical deity, and none can take higher moral ground. An imperfect conscience, created by just one sin, will condemn, will result in destruction of the spirit after this life, the Bible says. Only a messiah can prevent that happening to all moral creatures. This is not the message of just one parable, but the message of the first word of Genesis through to the last of Revelation. The condition that the Bible relates is that the Bible deity will not accept those who do not accept Jesus, because truly morally acceptable people, in the biblical view, do accept Jesus, sooner or later. That is the warning message of this part of the parable.

You lost me there.

You don't dispute that many people behave according to higher ethical standards than does the monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds.

You will be lost if you suppose that.

Earlier, I said 'I know many people who treat other people better than the specific monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds does. I treat people better than the monarch in that story, and there's nothing special about me.' Your reply began, 'I'm sure you do ...'

If I have misunderstood what you meant by that, what did you mean by that?

sotto voce · 03-18-2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants

That's wild, anachronistic misrepresentation. Monarchs were not, as a rule, tyrants (Archelaus was deposed because he was tyrannical), but the principle means of maintaining order and the rule of law. Modern, democratic minds obviously have a different view (that may well stem from the origins of Israel, as it happens), but monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe. A compromise, perhaps, in a less than perfect world, where monarchs had their uses for the common man.

So the moral is quite different: if monarchs were justified in removing influences that would destabilise civil order and progress, the pursuit of happiness, it could be no surprise if deity took a similar attitude when selecting citizens of the permanent, eternal 'society'.

Okay, then: the moral is, don't expect the creator to be any better than the earthly monarchs of 2000 years ago

Or of 1000 years ago, or of almost any time before constitutional monarchy or republicanism became the general practice. Monarchies were rarely tyrannies, if only because people will tolerate a tyranny only in particularly adverse circumstances, where they perceive that 'iron law' is essential to preserve order. When they overthrow a monarchy, they may get little or no practical advantage, as occurred in both France and Russia. Monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe.

Monarchies were, I expect, seen in a positive light by the monarchs themselves, their entourages, and their apologists. I'm not so sure about how widely those views were shared.

Of course there was dissent. There always is. But it's one thing to complain about one's government, it's another to suggest anything better. Historians must take account of economics, because economic realities define the nature of societies. Until the Industrial Revolution, all wealth was based on agriculture and fishery, so land possession, which was very rarely divided equally, defined the power base of any society. A national monarch had two principal functions. One was to defend the nation in war, or to acquire wealth by invasion or imperialism. The other was to create the legal framework by which wealth could be created at home, and to police the law that resulted. That meant restraining local major landowners, if only to protect the agricultural base that maintained the monarchy itself. So it was a system that certainly wasn't democracy, but worked well in an era when there was virtually no international law. Tyranny happened occasionally, when power went to the heads of individuals, when power corrupted absolutely, but this caused instability, and tyrants tended to have short life spans. It's notable that even the Roman Empire, that was a lot more brutal than, say, the Persian Empire, had to take some account of its conquered populations, to say nothing of the plebeians in Rome, who of course could have massacred the patricians overnight, had they been sufficiently goaded into it. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown," the medieval Henry IV said, in Shakespeare's representation of him.

Quote:

But the merits or demerits of monarchy aren't the point here, unless it's being suggested (and it doesn't seem to be) that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about monarchy. You seemed to be saying that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about the creator. Now, regardless of what you or anybody may think about monarchs in general, I know many people who treat other people better than the specific monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds does. I treat people better than the monarch in that story, and there's nothing special about me.

I'm sure you do, but if you can point out a non-constitutional monarch who, on accession, failed to eliminate those who would eliminate him, perhaps you'll let me know. It's well known that sudden death was one of the occupational hazards of a life in court. You either stayed on the farm, or in the schoolroom, or in an occupation of similar low estate; or you went for the high life, but risked your life. So it's anachronistic to cite from modern conditions. However, those pre-modern conditions may very well illustrate the principles of an eternal deity.

Quote:

So the moral of the story, according to you, is not to expect the creator to meet ethical standards even as high as the standards of a fairly ordinary person like me, let alone anything better.

This is to completely misapprehend the message of the Bible, that insists that morality creates a necessity for a perfect conscience. Only the perfect can take the same moral ground as the Biblical deity, and none can take higher moral ground. An imperfect conscience, created by just one sin, will condemn, will result in destruction of the spirit after this life, the Bible says. Only a messiah can prevent that happening to all moral creatures. This is not the message of just one parable, but the message of the first word of Genesis through to the last of Revelation. The condition that the Bible relates is that the Bible deity will not accept those who do not accept Jesus, because truly morally acceptable people, in the biblical view, do accept Jesus, sooner or later. That is the warning message of this part of the parable.

You lost me there.

You don't dispute that many people behave according to higher ethical standards than does the monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds.

You will be lost if you suppose that.

Earlier, I said 'I know many people who treat other people better than the specific monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds does. I treat people better than the monarch in that story, and there's nothing special about me.' Your reply began, 'I'm sure you do ...'

If I have misunderstood what you meant by that, what did you mean by that?

Carry on reading.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2012, 09:48 PM	#45
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I've always found that to be a somewhat question-begging distinction.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.