I believe that it was.
89 chapter project: Matthew
- Thread starter paradox3
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
I believe that it was.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
paradox3 ----your quote ------ What if we are two laborers who did not get picked at the same time of day to work in the vineyard? Say one of us got picked at the sixth hour and one of us got picked at the ninth hour? According to the parable our toil will be of equal value to the landowner.
I have no idea why you are asking me this ????????------
I have no idea why you are asking me this ????????------
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
No need to apologize. This thread has gone off on a few tangents but I have not been terribly worried about it getting derailed. I am happy to be getting comments here even if they are not exactly as anticipated.
Scripture seems to be doing its job as grist for the mill.
Every morning I try to refocus the thread on the next chapter. But sometimes it becomes clear that the discussion from the day before has not yet run its course.
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
You get the connection to Matthew 20:1-16, right?paradox3 ----your quote ------ What if we are two laborers who did not get picked at the same time of day to work in the vineyard? Say one of us got picked at the sixth hour and one of us got picked at the ninth hour? According to the parable our toil will be of equal value to the landowner.
I have no idea why you are asking me this ????????------
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
Okay, well it's what I was saying. Not sure where you were coming from then.
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Agreed that this stereotype exists and I have seen examples of out it there in the world. But I don't think it is fair to apply it to all evangelical Christians. Not by a long shot.
All the same, I said earlier that I was pondering a parable on the subway today. I printed the text rather than lugging a bible with me.
The idea of pulling out a bible and opening it on the subway made me uncomfortable. Perhaps I was worried about being judged; perhaps I was worried about whose interest I might attract.
I've felt that way from time to time. However, I now have the Bible on my cellphone and can thus read it in more privacy.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Both before Christ and after Him men have said the same: that there lives in man a divine light, sent down from heaven, and that light is ‘reason,’ and each must follow that light alone, seeking for good by its aid alone. This has been said by the Brahmin teachers, by the Hebrew prophets, by Confucius, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, and by all truly wise men who sought the truth for their own good and that of all men.[10]
Now, according to the dogma of the redemption, we find that it is altogether unnecessary to think or speak of that light in man.
Men had a teacher who clearly and definitely explained to them what they were to do in order to be happier, but that the teacher’s words were taken by some to mean that 'He' would come in a cloud to set all right, while others said that the words of the teacher were perfect, but impracticable; for human life was not such as they wished it to be, and was not worth caring about; that human intellect was to be directed toward a study of the laws of this life, without any reference to the good of man.
The Church says that the doctrine of Christ is impracticable, because life here is but a suggestion of the true life; it cannot be good – it is all evil.
In the gospel according to Matthew they beg Him to confirm their faith by the promise of a reward. Christ answers Peter’s question (‘What reward shall we have for having left all, and following You?’) by a parable of the laborers who were hired at different times, and who received the same pay (Matt. 20:1-16). He explains to Peter the error he is in with respect to His doctrine, and that his lack of faith proceeds from his error. Christ says it is only in individual life that reward is important in proportion to the work done. A belief in the necessity of reward being proportionate to the work itself proceeds from the doctrine of individual life. If a man declares that he has a right to his own life, and requires compensation from the Author of all – who entrusted him with life – he only shows that he does not understand the true purpose for which life was given to him.
They came to their work with the false idea that they had a right to their own lives and to their own work, and that, therefore, their work was to be rewarded. They did not understand that work itself was the greatest good given to them, in return for which they were to do good to others, but that they could claim no reward.
Man will attain the highest happiness possible on earth when each, instead of only caring about his own personal comfort, acts as Christ taught those assembled on the seashore to do.
It was necessary to feed several thousand men. One of the disciples said to Christ that a boy there had a few fish. The disciples had also a few loaves. Christ knew that some of those who had come from a distance had brought food with them and others had not. That many had brought provisions with them is evident from there being twelve basketfuls gathered of what remained, as we read in all the four gospels. (If nobody had had anything except the boy, there would not have been twelve baskets in the field.) Had Christ not done what He did, that is, the ‘miracle’ of feeding thousands with five loaves, what now takes place in the world would have taken place then. Those who had provisions with them would have eaten all they had and would have over-eaten rather than see that anything should be left. Misers would perhaps have taken the remainder home. Those who had nothing would have remained hungry, looking on with wicked envy at those who ate, and some would very likely have stolen from those who had provisions. Quarrelling and fighting would have ensued, and some would have gone home satisfied, the others hungry and cross; exactly what takes place in our present lives would have happened then.
But Christ knew what He meant to do; He told them all to sit in a circle and enjoined His disciples to offer a part of what they had to those next them, and to tell others to do the same. The result was that when all those who had brought provisions with them followed the example set them by the disciples, and offered a share of their provisions to others, there was enough for all. All were satisfied, and so much remained that twelve baskets were filled.
Christ teaches men to act thus in all the circumstances of life, for this is the law of humanity. Labor is the necessary condition of life; and work is a source of happiness for man. But if a man keeps to himself the fruit of his own or others’ work, he prevents its contributing to the general good of mankind. By giving up his work to others he acts for the good of all.
We are accustomed to say, ‘If men do not despoil each other they will starve.’ Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that if men despoil each other there will always be some who will starve, for that is the actual fact.
It does not matter if a man is a follower of Christ or a follower of the world; he is never entirely independent of others. Others have taken care of him, fed him, and still take care of him. But, according to the teaching of the world, man forces others to continue feeding him and his family by threats and violence. According to Christ’s doctrine, man is taken care of, brought up and fed by others; and he does not force others to continue feeding him, but tries to serve others in his turn, to do as much good as possible to all his fellow-creatures.
Which life is then a truer, more rational, and happier one?
Is it a life in accordance with the teaching of the world, or in accordance with Christ’s doctrine?
Paraphrased from:
What I Believe (Tolstoy)/Chapter 10 - Wikisource, the free online library
Now, according to the dogma of the redemption, we find that it is altogether unnecessary to think or speak of that light in man.
Men had a teacher who clearly and definitely explained to them what they were to do in order to be happier, but that the teacher’s words were taken by some to mean that 'He' would come in a cloud to set all right, while others said that the words of the teacher were perfect, but impracticable; for human life was not such as they wished it to be, and was not worth caring about; that human intellect was to be directed toward a study of the laws of this life, without any reference to the good of man.
The Church says that the doctrine of Christ is impracticable, because life here is but a suggestion of the true life; it cannot be good – it is all evil.
In the gospel according to Matthew they beg Him to confirm their faith by the promise of a reward. Christ answers Peter’s question (‘What reward shall we have for having left all, and following You?’) by a parable of the laborers who were hired at different times, and who received the same pay (Matt. 20:1-16). He explains to Peter the error he is in with respect to His doctrine, and that his lack of faith proceeds from his error. Christ says it is only in individual life that reward is important in proportion to the work done. A belief in the necessity of reward being proportionate to the work itself proceeds from the doctrine of individual life. If a man declares that he has a right to his own life, and requires compensation from the Author of all – who entrusted him with life – he only shows that he does not understand the true purpose for which life was given to him.
They came to their work with the false idea that they had a right to their own lives and to their own work, and that, therefore, their work was to be rewarded. They did not understand that work itself was the greatest good given to them, in return for which they were to do good to others, but that they could claim no reward.
Man will attain the highest happiness possible on earth when each, instead of only caring about his own personal comfort, acts as Christ taught those assembled on the seashore to do.
It was necessary to feed several thousand men. One of the disciples said to Christ that a boy there had a few fish. The disciples had also a few loaves. Christ knew that some of those who had come from a distance had brought food with them and others had not. That many had brought provisions with them is evident from there being twelve basketfuls gathered of what remained, as we read in all the four gospels. (If nobody had had anything except the boy, there would not have been twelve baskets in the field.) Had Christ not done what He did, that is, the ‘miracle’ of feeding thousands with five loaves, what now takes place in the world would have taken place then. Those who had provisions with them would have eaten all they had and would have over-eaten rather than see that anything should be left. Misers would perhaps have taken the remainder home. Those who had nothing would have remained hungry, looking on with wicked envy at those who ate, and some would very likely have stolen from those who had provisions. Quarrelling and fighting would have ensued, and some would have gone home satisfied, the others hungry and cross; exactly what takes place in our present lives would have happened then.
But Christ knew what He meant to do; He told them all to sit in a circle and enjoined His disciples to offer a part of what they had to those next them, and to tell others to do the same. The result was that when all those who had brought provisions with them followed the example set them by the disciples, and offered a share of their provisions to others, there was enough for all. All were satisfied, and so much remained that twelve baskets were filled.
Christ teaches men to act thus in all the circumstances of life, for this is the law of humanity. Labor is the necessary condition of life; and work is a source of happiness for man. But if a man keeps to himself the fruit of his own or others’ work, he prevents its contributing to the general good of mankind. By giving up his work to others he acts for the good of all.
We are accustomed to say, ‘If men do not despoil each other they will starve.’ Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that if men despoil each other there will always be some who will starve, for that is the actual fact.
It does not matter if a man is a follower of Christ or a follower of the world; he is never entirely independent of others. Others have taken care of him, fed him, and still take care of him. But, according to the teaching of the world, man forces others to continue feeding him and his family by threats and violence. According to Christ’s doctrine, man is taken care of, brought up and fed by others; and he does not force others to continue feeding him, but tries to serve others in his turn, to do as much good as possible to all his fellow-creatures.
Which life is then a truer, more rational, and happier one?
Is it a life in accordance with the teaching of the world, or in accordance with Christ’s doctrine?
Paraphrased from:
What I Believe (Tolstoy)/Chapter 10 - Wikisource, the free online library
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
We were talking about what you feel the words should be for salvation and I pointed out there really is no proper words it's the position of the heart but you felt words were powerful and it is important and I said to you well you better make sure your words are proper for your salvation I don't have to worry about it that was the conversation
GeoFee
I am who I am becoming...
Sad to notice quarrel over superficialities, surface matters. The question I have is concerned with what transpires in the depths of our being in creation? A depth that opened to me when I decided against my inherited world view to embrace an alternative imagination of my being in the world. My identification shifted its centre of gravity from what I experienced to who I am as an experiencer. The matter of consciousness as a primary and necessary human quality. This though consciousness is repressed and resisted in the general population, inclusive of their exploiters and oppressors.
George
This stands near the heart of the gospel. Jesus introduced novel interpretations of long accepted biblical texts and traditions. This stimulated dialogue through the whole population. The poor marvelled at his capacity for the alleviation of pressing circumstance. The rich marvelled at his audacity. The marvel of the rich soon turned to resentment. All because Jesus called into the foreground the prophetic mandate to mercy, justice and humility. A strong criticism of prevailing structures of power and privilege. This being the case today as it was in the day of Matthew.
George
Not quite sure how you got that out of our conversation blackbelt. Indeed, I wrote, "It is not about legalistically saying only the right words blackbelt - no one's salvation is at stake for using the wrong ones."
What I was addressing is the way in which I've heard many evangelicals speak of their spiritual lives.
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
unsafe
Well-Known Member
paradox3 ---your quote -----You get the connection to Matthew 20:1-16, right?
What does that have too with you and me in a field ----There is a Spiritual meaning to the workers in the vineyard ---so what is the Spiritual lesson in that parable ---that is the question and that is the most important thing to get from all the Scripture ------and the Holy Spirit is the only one who can give it to us ------
What does that have too with you and me in a field ----There is a Spiritual meaning to the workers in the vineyard ---so what is the Spiritual lesson in that parable ---that is the question and that is the most important thing to get from all the Scripture ------and the Holy Spirit is the only one who can give it to us ------
Okay. However, in my experience as an evangelical - which includes time as a member of 2 evangelical churches plus earning degrees at an evangelical university-college and seminary - I've heard many evangelicals make, "I..." statements. Have you not?