.
For even when the issue is a "good intention," the aphorism that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" still holds.
I am only speaking from my own experience, based on my relationship with Jesus, my mediation training and practice and my attempt to live a nonviolent life as Jesus's life continually informs me.
I usually always have good intentions, so I suspect others do as well. Sometimes, though, I am struck by the truth that the EFFECTS of my underlying intentions is NOT good.
Give a puppy a pain killer the strength of which is meant for a full grown animal, but that you "believed might alleviate its suffering too," and you still kill the poor thing.
Exactly. I agree. Try to avoid the extremes.
The hazards of living in the material world means that we will "sin." With puppies and people.
Because I am a Christian, I think it is profoundly important for me to discover not only what a biblical verse or passage means to me in the present, but to also study and dig and try to discover what that verse or passage meant to its
original writers, readers and listeners.
The translation I accept--based on the conjectures of historians who know much more than I do--is that sin means literally "missing the mark." And I miss the mark every day in big ways and small. I am just glad my faith now gives me the courage to be accountable for that.
Matthew 25:
24. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25. And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27. Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
To me after the study I have devoted to the parables, I have learned this about the parable:
A "talent" is an undoubtedly large sum of money. Historical researchers have determined that a talent is 6,000
dearii. And one denarius was a day’s wage.
This would be the equivalent of 15 years of wages for a day laborer!.
But parables are not literal or meant to be taken as allegories. So the fact about the money is unimportant, especially as Luke’s version uses a single pound per servant which is much
less.
Matthew may have inflated the numbers for the sake of making the point. But who really knows the mind (or INTENTIONS) of anyone in the remote past--Or even the present)?
The meaning for my own life that I take away from this would translate to my modern notion of "talent" referring to the gifts and abilities that I can easily apply to the use of my God-given gifts.
I also realize that while this understanding is useful for me, it may be too narrow. God is wholly infinite and I am condemned to be finite.
But rather than assume a parable literally talks about real, specific actual characters Jesus picked up, I like to focus on the
meaning of a verse from Jesus, much like his anti-fundamentalist, literalist rant to Nicodemus in John.
I accept that Mark was written first and both Matthew and Luke used him for ordering the events of their gospels. But all the authors have different agendas.
At this point in my studies, I believe the thrust of the parable remains to me that that each of us is accountable to God for what he has done with what he has been given. In my documents I cited Luke 12:48 as a way to explain what I think Jesus's intentions were.
I am not going back and teaching my method of historical exegesis to you, however. Both of us may get bored if I do.
Face it, you continue to read your moral relativism in to these things that are, either black, or white, not some in between.
I don't see poetry, myth or parable as propositional theology that traffics in black/white, either/or formulations.
Logic and rationality are different qualities, however. And for myself, living in the modern scientific world that I do, have to provide a place for them in my toolkit.
But sacred and holy language is far from rationality or logical.
In my way of seeing things anyway, I use the "relative" terms of language when needed. But when I confront Jesus, he quickly disturbs me and awakens me from the all-too-human sleep of living in a conventional and rational world.
The grey (and it is meant to be only temporary) is allowed only in the middle between interpretations from within the camp, not without.
Your opinion here comes across too much as didactic and almost tyrannical. It puts me off because it sounds like you are making a pronouncement that is way off your own purview. You may believe the text is "inerrant" but it does not give you license to assume your theological interpretations are inerrant as well.
I hope I have answered your points respectfully. Many times I have noticed when I introduce someone to different ideas, they either become unreasonably angry or else think I am putting them down in some sort of "victim" mode.
My intentions are not to come across like that, but if I have please tell me specifics (actually
quoted) and we can certainly go over them together. I need to be policed on my own communication skills because I want them to be as direct and focused and respectful as I can make them.
