Matthew 22

HansMustermann · 27th November 2009, 12:28 PM

You know, it occured to me that so far all attempts at picking the horible God described in the Bible suffer from the problem of being OT and promptly dismissed as "yeah, but that doesn't matter because it's OT." So let's talk about how Jesus himself describes the loving Father. (I think you're supposed to take _that_ as gospel, because, well, it is

)

So without further ado, Matthew 22:1-14

Quote:

1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Let's try if it were done by a human: "So I was giving a party, but my friends didn't want to come, so I killed them and burned their neighbourhood down. (What's a few innocents as collateral damage when it comes to making a point.) Then I invited a bunch of bums off the street instead, they'll fill the room just as well. But I didn't like the clothes one happened to be wearing at the time, so I tied him up and kicked him out (still tied.) 'Cause I may have called many, but I have the right to choose only a few that don't get something like that done to them."

The king described there is a horrible psychopath, and the illustration as inviting someone off the street only to do something horrible done to them because of not liking their clothes, is a very repulsive act. It's not only not what a nice and loving person would do, it's the kind you'd think of as an crazy evil prick ever after and you'd not want him in your neighbourhood at all. Unless said neighbourhood happens to have a prison, if you get my drift.

And remember, this isn't some OT story from the time of Moses, this is how Jesus himself describes his sky-daddy.

(And as a side note, for someone who's not only divinely inspired, but part divine logos and part marinated in... err... infused by the Holy Spirit, Jesus's story telling skills sure suck. Most third graders could come up with a better story there.)

Eyeron · 27th November 2009, 12:36 PM

Sorry, but the fact that God is a child murderer and a rapists pretty much renounces any good it may have done. And indeed, considering how much of a liar and a murderer and overall psychopathic megalomaniac he is that brings into a huge amount of doubt he may have done. and in fact probably has done absolutely no good what so ever because of the fact that he is a liar.

steve s · 27th November 2009, 03:13 PM

I like bringing up Luke 14:26.

Quote:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Steve S

HansMustermann · 27th November 2009, 04:02 PM

Aye, that's a very good quote too.

Silly Green Monkey · 28th November 2009, 08:13 AM

First of all, the ones he killed were hardly innocent, they'd killed his messengers. Further, the guests were provided with party outfits when they arrived, kinda like those paper cones for birthday parties, so the guy must have either removed the gift or sneaked in some other way.

HansMustermann · 28th November 2009, 08:54 AM

1. Burning the city down still is an atrocity. I doubt that every single woman, child, slave, etc, in that city had killed a messenger.

2. Please don't fill in your own BS. In the actual text there there is no mention of party costumes being provided.

Hokulele · 28th November 2009, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

2. Please don't fill in your own BS. In the actual text there there is no mention of party costumes being provided.

As I read it, the man without the wedding garment was a gate-crasher, not an invited guest, which is why the king specifically asks how he got in dressed as he was. Other translations are a bit more clear than the KJV.

linusrichard · 28th November 2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by steve s

I like bringing up Luke 14:26.

To me, this quote and others like it demonstrate that Christianity was never meant to be a mainstream religion for billions of people, and the official or de facto official religion on four continents. I think Jesus meant it to be hard, really hard, to be a "Christian," and didn't really expect it to catch on. And it only really caught on because people have found ways to ignore the parts they find inconvenient.

Hokulele · 28th November 2009, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by linusrichard

To me, this quote and others like it demonstrate that Christianity was never meant to be a mainstream religion for billions of people, and the official or de facto official religion on four continents. I think Jesus meant it to be hard, really hard, to be a "Christian," and didn't really expect it to catch on. And it only really caught on because people have found ways to ignore the parts they find inconvenient.

^^

This. Jesus in the gospels is clearly concerned with a soon-to-be Kingdom of God here on earth in the Jewish messianic sense. It isn't until it becomes clear that it ain't gonna happen does early Christianity morph into something more inclusive and, well, heavenly.

HansMustermann · 28th November 2009, 09:24 AM

Effectively, that's the _point_. Sure, it could have been a good story and a better way to make that point, if it were about something the guest did instead of something he owned. Sure, you can turn it into something more palatable by pretending it's like that. But the problem is that it's not. The story, as told by Jesus, is about a guy being herded off the street to fill a chair at the king's party, only to be tied and left tied outside at night because the king didn't like his clothes.

Just shows that the Son Of Man is crap at making up a parable, eh? Maybe they should have nailed Aesop instead

Incidentally, it also can't be about a guy who snuck in, because that would ruin the "many are called, few are chosen" point. He has to be among those _called_, to make that point. He's called, but he's not chosen.

Giving away party clothes also is something that not only isn't in the actual story, but something virtually nobody would have assumed. We're talking about an age before power looms, and even before the spinning wheel. Cloth and clothes were a very expensive thing, and even a king wouldn't hand around clothes just like that.

Incidentally, that's another thing that makes it a crap story. Taken verbatim, the king essentially punishes a random guy off the street for not owning the extremely expensive clothes fit for a king's party. Instead of being about something that guy _does_, it's essentially about what the guy owns, and at that something that wouldn't even be reasonable to expect him to own.

Eyeron · 28th November 2009, 09:51 AM

Or maybe the parable was critical about group think as well as not being charitable.

The group think = we all have to dress and sound alike. This guy who crashed the party was unlike us so he must be punished by ridicule and tossed out on his arse.

And in being charitable they could've allowed the crasher to come in and maybe not necessarily dine with them but at least feed him and then send him on his merry way.

Jesus was always one who stood up for the underdogs. One of the qualities I admire most about him.

But hey, style is more important than making a point.

HansMustermann · 28th November 2009, 10:08 AM

I'd actually like the parable if it were _against_ group think, e.g., if the moral were "don't be like this king." But see verse 2

I Ratant · 28th November 2009, 10:11 AM

It's a common problem with religions and other social theories.
The architects have their minds set on right and wrong, and can't comprehend that some of the measures they are certain are correct and needed aren't.
The messengers were disrespected, therefore kill the people that did that.
It's "right and proper" behavior to do that, for the people that sent the messengers.
The bible is full of that ignorant intolerant self-rationalizing behavior being promoted as the correct way to respond to any injuries, real or imagined.
It's what makes xtianity such a vicious social process, with the xtians always right, no matter what.
"God will sort out the innocents from the guilty after they're all murdered".
The dhimmi status of all non-Muslims is the same ignorant mindset.
Dumbocrats see Reptilicans as evil from the womb, and therefore "hast a demon" and need be put down.
And that is mirrored right back at them.
"Most people are bastard coated bastards with a bastard filling".. Dr. Kelso, "Scrubs".
Any excuse at all to diminish any other persons life is all too easily sought, to get a feeling of superiority, and therefore a potential measure of control over that person.
Religions offer that excuse.

ExMinister · 28th November 2009, 03:38 PM

The first part of this parable seems to be addressing God's disappointment in his chosen people and subsequent turning toward the commoners (prostitutes and tax collectors?). Some of the early Christian texts mention wedding garments and weddings in reference to a mystical union with God, and the text makes more sense if you consider the missing wedding garments to be a reference to perhaps a lack of holiness/godly intentions on the part of this particular guest. Hence, many are called, few are chosen - many are called but is their behavior godly enough to be chosen? If not, out they go.

In this light, it's hard not to think of the Jesus sayings to turn the other cheek and forgive 70 times 7. Does that only apply to humans? Are humans expected to be more moral than God? Go figure.

bokonon · 28th November 2009, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by ExMinister

Are humans expected to be more moral than God? Go figure.

I'm saying when the deity does it, it's NOT immoral!

HansMustermann · 28th November 2009, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by ExMinister

The first part of this parable seems to be addressing God's disappointment in his chosen people and subsequent turning toward the commoners (prostitutes and tax collectors?). Some of the early Christian texts mention wedding garments and weddings in reference to a mystical union with God, and the text makes more sense if you consider the missing wedding garments to be a reference to perhaps a lack of holiness/godly intentions on the part of this particular guest. Hence, many are called, few are chosen - many are called but is their behavior godly enough to be chosen? If not, out they go.

Probably that's what he (or Matthew) was trying to say, but... geesh, talk about screwing it up.

For a start, even in that interpretation, in his parable those who simply refused to come were no better or worse off than before. It's only the guy that does come, that gets horrible stuff done to him for failing to measure up. Effectively, as a metaphor (ok, ok, it says "like" so it's a simile

) for the kingdom of God and his faith he was preaching, it comes out as: the safest bet is to stay a pagan.

Originally Posted by ExMinister

In this light, it's hard not to think of the Jesus sayings to turn the other cheek and forgive 70 times 7. Does that only apply to humans? Are humans expected to be more moral than God? Go figure.

Pretty much.

six7s · 28th November 2009, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

First of all, the ones he killed were hardly innocent, they'd killed his messengers.

Which part of "Thou shallt not kill" are you having difficulty comprehending?

ExMinister · 28th November 2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Probably that's what he (or Matthew) was trying to say, but... geesh, talk about screwing it up.

For a start, even in that interpretation, in his parable those who simply refused to come were no better or worse off than before. It's only the guy that does come, that gets horrible stuff done to him for failing to measure up. Effectively, as a metaphor (ok, ok, it says "like" so it's a simile

) for the kingdom of God and his faith he was preaching, it comes out as: the safest bet is to stay a pagan.

Pretty much.

The message does sort of fall apart when you look at it that way. Better to stay a pagan, ha.

You would have made a troublesome apostle.

kurious_kathy · 29th November 2009, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

You know, it occured to me that so far all attempts at picking the horible God described in the Bible suffer from the problem of being OT and promptly dismissed as "yeah, but that doesn't matter because it's OT." So let's talk about how Jesus himself describes the loving Father. (I think you're supposed to take _that_ as gospel, because, well, it is

)

So without further ado, Matthew 22:1-14

Let's try if it were done by a human: "So I was giving a party, but my friends didn't want to come, so I killed them and burned their neighbourhood down. (What's a few innocents as collateral damage when it comes to making a point.) Then I invited a bunch of bums off the street instead, they'll fill the room just as well. But I didn't like the clothes one happened to be wearing at the time, so I tied him up and kicked him out (still tied.) 'Cause I may have called many, but I have the right to choose only a few that don't get something like that done to them."

The king described there is a horrible psychopath, and the illustration as inviting someone off the street only to do something horrible done to them because of not liking their clothes, is a very repulsive act. It's not only not what a nice and loving person would do, it's the kind you'd think of as an crazy evil prick ever after and you'd not want him in your neighbourhood at all. Unless said neighbourhood happens to have a prison, if you get my drift.

And remember, this isn't some OT story from the time of Moses, this is how Jesus himself describes his sky-daddy.

(And as a side note, for someone who's not only divinely inspired, but part divine logos and part marinated in... err... infused by the Holy Spirit, Jesus's story telling skills sure suck. Most third graders could come up with a better story there.)

Oh please, you are missing the true meaning of this, but what do I expect from someone who is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Tell me what do you think Jesus meant by throwing the man out for not having a wedding garment on? I mysekf know what this means, but I want to see if you do.

kurious_kathy · 29th November 2009, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by bokonon

I'm saying when the deity does it, it's NOT immoral!

No it's not immoral for God to judge unrepented sinners, he gives men plenty of opportunity to accept Christ's forgiveness, but if you deny the free gift of salvation through Christ, well I'm afraid you only have yourself to blame!

Everyone must remember God is Holy and because of this he must judge sin. Only those covered by the blood of the lamb will be forgiven their sins, Jesus shed his blood to redeem us. And just a FYI, this is also what the wedding clothes represnt in this parable. I hope God opens all of your eyes so you too can receive his mercy before it's too late!

RandFan · 29th November 2009, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by kurious_kathy

No it's not immoral for God to judge unrepented sinners...

Was it immoral for god to kill babies in the flood? How about the first born of Egypt?

Have you seen the Trial of God?

If there is a god and that god is the god of the OT then it desperately is in need of an ethics lesson. I'd gladly go to hell to inform god of the depravity it has displayed. To tell god that god is not good.

Fortunately it's just a fairy tale told by iron age nomads.

HansMustermann · 29th November 2009, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by kurious_kathy

Oh please, you are missing the true meaning of this, but what do I expect from someone who is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Tell me what do you think Jesus meant by throwing the man out for not having a wedding garment on? I mysekf know what this means, but I want to see if you do.

What I want to know, is why someone as marinated in the Holy Spirit as Jesus uses such an atrocious simile. It's akin to praising the mayor's building a new road by comparing him to Hitler and his road building program.

I mean, we're not even talking about throwing him out, we're talking about leaving someone tied up and helpless outside at night, at the mercy of any human or animal who might want to do anything to him. When it says there'll be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, it pretty much sums it up how horrible it was.

And the setup for that is _atrocious_. In the text for the parable, the people aren't even herded from a city, but off highways. You know, weary travellers, who can't even run home to get a suit apropriate for a royal wedding.

Yes, it was meant as a metaphor for something else, but the way he chooses to convey that meaning is crap and ends up using an atrocity and an an arbitrary cruel act to describe the Lord.

But it seems to me representative of a certain frame of mind. It seems to me like Jesus himself is likening the Lord to the same kind of arbitrary iron-age warlord that the OT describes him like. He's compared to someone who burns down a whole city indiscriminately, for the sins of a few, for example. Just like he did in the OT too.

It's not some New God (TM) who finally got laid and mellowed out. His metaphor is still very much in line with the OT kind of arbitrary prick they had as a God.

Limbo · 29th November 2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son

"Like" unto a certain king. So it follows that his son is "like" a son, and the marriage is "like" a marriage.

The marriage is symbolic of the union of all pairs of opposites, symbolized by the marriage of male and female. Including the opposites of good and evil:

Quote:

So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

Hieros Gamos, sacred marriage. The kingdom of heaven is coincidentia oppositorum, therefore beyond good and evil, male and female, spirit and matter, etc. The king is just a symbol, and the son is symbolic of one aspect which must be united with its opposite. People who are unable to see beyond the pairs of opposites get stuck identifying with one or the other, instead of one and the other.

For instance their gender. "I am male", they say, identifying themselves only with the body and not realizing their inner female. So the Hieros Gamos does not take place inside their heart. So they throw themselves out of the 'wedding celebration'.

ExMinister · 29th November 2009, 07:48 AM

Judging by Kurious Kathy and Limbo's responses, a parable works something like a Rorschach inkblot test.

Limbo · 29th November 2009, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by ExMinister

Judging by Kurious Kathy and Limbo's responses, a parable works something like a Rorschach inkblot test.

Of course it is. Sacred text is always multifaceted, to a certain degree. It's raw material that we can bake into bread or poison through our exegesis. The face we turn to it is the face it stares back with.

ExMinister · 29th November 2009, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

Of course it is. Sacred text is always multifaceted, to a certain degree. It's raw material that we can bake into bread or poison through our exegesis. The face we turn to it is the face it stares back with.

And yet neither of you phrased your opinion on the meaning of this parable as the matter of personal interpretion (in KK's case, overlaid with fundamentalist-sounding religious dogma) that it is.

ExMinister · 29th November 2009, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

What I want to know, is why someone as marinated in the Holy Spirit as Jesus uses such an atrocious simile. It's akin to praising the mayor's building a new road by comparing him to Hitler and his road building program.

I mean, we're not even talking about throwing him out, we're talking about leaving someone tied up and helpless outside at night, at the mercy of any human or animal who might want to do anything to him. When it says there'll be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, it pretty much sums it up how horrible it was.

And the setup for that is _atrocious_. In the text for the parable, the people aren't even herded from a city, but off highways. You know, weary travellers, who can't even run home to get a suit apropriate for a royal wedding.

Yes, it was meant as a metaphor for something else, but the way he chooses to convey that meaning is crap and ends up using an atrocity and an an arbitrary cruel act to describe the Lord.

But it seems to me representative of a certain frame of mind. It seems to me like Jesus himself is likening the Lord to the same kind of arbitrary iron-age warlord that the OT describes him like. He's compared to someone who burns down a whole city indiscriminately, for the sins of a few, for example. Just like he did in the OT too.

It's not some New God (TM) who finally got laid and mellowed out. His metaphor is still very much in line with the OT kind of arbitrary prick they had as a God.

I agree, the imagery used has much in common with the atrocious behavior of the OT version of God. Interesting point, BTW. I hadn't thought to look through the NT parables this way.

m_huber · 29th November 2009, 09:21 AM

One of the last times that I went to church as a christian, this passage was read. It was one of the more disturbing lesson plans I've ever seen in my life, and it was partially responsible for solidifying my denial of christianity. The basic message, once you strip off the flowery language, was that if you die, there are three options: Heaven, for the chosen, Hell, for those who reject God, and Jew Hell, for God's chosen people who reject Jesus. Jew Hell is worse than regular Hell.

Paulhoff · 29th November 2009, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by kurious_kathy

Christ

And by the way KK, you do not know Christ, you know what you think he is, but this does not make him real.

Paul

Magical thinking begets more Magical thinking begets more...............

Limbo · 29th November 2009, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by ExMinister

And yet neither of you phrased your opinion on the meaning of this parable as the matter of personal interpretion (in KK's case, overlaid with fundamentalist-sounding religious dogma) that it is.

That's because my personal interpretation is über.

Lots of ranting in this thread, how many ranters said, "oh by the way, this is just my personal interpretation." I see strong assertion from HansMustermann and others. Why don't you get on their ass as well as mine? Oh let me guess, because you are more sympathetic to their crude "personal interpretations."

Calls to mind Matthew 7:3-5, *in my personal interpretation*

m_huber · 29th November 2009, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by kurious_kathy

Oh please, you are missing the true meaning of this, but what do I expect from someone who is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Tell me what do you think Jesus meant by throwing the man out for not having a wedding garment on? I mysekf know what this means, but I want to see if you do.

You know, there are hundreds of sermons about this passage online. It doesn't exactly take the guidance of the holy spirit to know what it means to christians. However, just because we can find assertions of what the passage means doesn't mean that we have to turn our reasoning skills off. We can interpret this story many ways from the text, just as William Faulkner can be read many ways. I'm sure "The Sound and the Fury" meant something specific to Faulkner when he wrote it, but it has been analyzed by literary critics and applied to situations that he never even considered would arise. The Bible is a block of text. It is a book. There is absolutely no reason to approach the Bible in a different way than any other book.

Paulhoff · 29th November 2009, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by kurious_kathy

Tell me what do you think Jesus meant by throwing the man out for not having a wedding garment on?

That Jesus has a lot of hang-ups, just like that so-called father of his.

Paul

I Ratant · 29th November 2009, 10:07 AM

Jesus is, like many people of the Book, more interested in the appearance of faith (proper wedding garment) than the practice (celebrating a wedding).

ExMinister · 29th November 2009, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

That's because my personal interpretation is über.

Lots of ranting in this thread, how many ranters said, "oh by the way, this is just my personal interpretation." I see strong assertion from HansMustermann and others. Why don't you get on their ass as well as mine? Oh let me guess, because you are more sympathetic to their crude "personal interpretations."

Calls to mind Matthew 7:3-5, *in my personal interpretation*

Well, I have to humbly disagree about the plank in my own eye. I clearly said it "seems" during my own rant and tried to stay pretty close to the text when I offered a possible interpretation. I don't recall being particularly sympathetic to any other interpretations (except my own, of course).

Anyway, it turns out, if I've got it correctly, that HansMustermann was focusing more on the parable itself, regardless of its interpretation, and how the behavior depicted actually resembles the OT version of God as opposed to the new, more loving and benevolent version that Christians so often believe is found in the NT gospels.

No, I didn't mean to give the impression that I was getting on your ass in exclusion to others. But yes, you and KK did seem to be making strong assertions of meaning about something which sounded quite heavy on interpretation to me. And your comments were so entirely different, it reminded me of the Rorschach tests. No offense intended.

Yours does have a certain "uber" quality in comparison to KK, of course.

Limbo · 29th November 2009, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by ExMinister

Well, I have to humbly disagree about the plank in my own eye. I clearly said "it seems to me..." during my own rant and tried to stay pretty close to the text when I offered a possible interpretation. I don't recall being particularly sympathetic to any other interpretations (except my own, of course).

Are you suggesting I am not 'pretty close to the text'? Matthew is the only one to use the phrase 'kingdom of heaven'. I see it as synonymous with the 'kingdom of God,' which is "within". My exegesis is consistent with that, and so that means the 'marriage' is also within, and so is the son, and the king, and the bride of the son.

The only people who can't come to the wedding are those who only invite part of themselves. Their inner king invites the son, but not the bride. Invites the good, but not the bad. Invites matter, but not spirit. The opposites don't come together inside, so no wedding feast for them. Maybe next life time, eh?

RandFan · 29th November 2009, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

Of course it is. Sacred text is always multifaceted, to a certain degree. It's raw material that we can bake into bread or poison through our exegesis. The face we turn to it is the face it stares back with.

IOW: It means whatever we want it to mean.

qayak · 29th November 2009, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

Are you suggesting I am not 'pretty close to the text'? Matthew is the only one to use the phrase 'kingdom of heaven'. I see it as synonymous with the 'kingdom of God,' which is "within". My exegesis is consistent with that, and so that means the 'marriage' is also within, and so is the son, and the king, and the bride of the son.

The only people who can't come to the wedding are those who don't invite themselves. Their inner king invites the son, but not the daughter. Invites the good, but not the bad. Invites matter, but not spirit. The opposites don't come together inside, so no wedding feast for them.

Have you ever heard of Occum's Razor? You have to do some pretty serious torturing of the text to get that meaning from it.

Limbo · 29th November 2009, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by qayak

Have you ever heard of Occum's Razor? You have to do some pretty serious torturing of the text to get that meaning from it.

It only looks that way to the uninitiated babes who still need their bottle and get sick on spoiled milk, like the ExMinister. And those without ears to hear, like you.

"I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able." -1 Corinthians 3:2

qayak · 29th November 2009, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Limbo

It only looks that way to the uninitiated.

Define "uninitiated."

ETA: Uninitiated in this case seems to mean "pre-lobotomy."

Limbo · 29th November 2009, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by qayak

Define "uninitiated."

ETA: Uninitiated in this case seems to mean "pre-lobotomy."

Not for you to know. Maybe next lifetime, if you're lucky.

27th November 2009, 12:28 PM	#1
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	Matthew 22 You know, it occured to me that so far all attempts at picking the horible God described in the Bible suffer from the problem of being OT and promptly dismissed as "yeah, but that doesn't matter because it's OT." So let's talk about how Jesus himself describes the loving Father. (I think you're supposed to take _that_ as gospel, because, well, it is ) So without further ado, Matthew 22:1-14 Quote: 1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, 2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, 3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. 4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. 5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: 6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. 7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. 10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. 11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few are chosen. Let's try if it were done by a human: "So I was giving a party, but my friends didn't want to come, so I killed them and burned their neighbourhood down. (What's a few innocents as collateral damage when it comes to making a point.) Then I invited a bunch of bums off the street instead, they'll fill the room just as well. But I didn't like the clothes one happened to be wearing at the time, so I tied him up and kicked him out (still tied.) 'Cause I may have called many, but I have the right to choose only a few that don't get something like that done to them." The king described there is a horrible psychopath, and the illustration as inviting someone off the street only to do something horrible done to them because of not liking their clothes, is a very repulsive act. It's not only not what a nice and loving person would do, it's the kind you'd think of as an crazy evil prick ever after and you'd not want him in your neighbourhood at all. Unless said neighbourhood happens to have a prison, if you get my drift. And remember, this isn't some OT story from the time of Moses, this is how Jesus himself describes his sky-daddy. (And as a side note, for someone who's not only divinely inspired, but part divine logos and part marinated in... err... infused by the Holy Spirit, Jesus's story telling skills sure suck. Most third graders could come up with a better story there.)

27th November 2009, 12:36 PM	#2
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Sorry, but the fact that God is a child murderer and a rapists pretty much renounces any good it may have done. And indeed, considering how much of a liar and a murderer and overall psychopathic megalomaniac he is that brings into a huge amount of doubt he may have done. and in fact probably has done absolutely no good what so ever because of the fact that he is a liar.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Last edited by Eyeron; 27th November 2009 at 12:48 PM.

27th November 2009, 03:13 PM	#3
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513	I like bringing up Luke 14:26. Quote: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. Steve S
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

28th November 2009, 08:13 AM	#5
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,349	First of all, the ones he killed were hardly innocent, they'd killed his messengers. Further, the guests were provided with party outfits when they arrived, kinda like those paper cones for birthday parties, so the guy must have either removed the gift or sneaked in some other way.
	Last edited by Silly Green Monkey; 28th November 2009 at 08:15 AM.

28th November 2009, 09:17 AM	#7
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 21,351	Originally Posted by HansMustermann 2. Please don't fill in your own BS. In the actual text there there is no mention of party costumes being provided. As I read it, the man without the wedding garment was a gate-crasher, not an invited guest, which is why the king specifically asks how he got in dressed as he was. Other translations are a bit more clear than the KJV.
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

27th November 2009, 04:02 PM	#4
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	Aye, that's a very good quote too.

28th November 2009, 08:54 AM	#6
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	1. Burning the city down still is an atrocity. I doubt that every single woman, child, slave, etc, in that city had killed a messenger. 2. Please don't fill in your own BS. In the actual text there there is no mention of party costumes being provided.

28th November 2009, 09:19 AM	#8
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,355	Originally Posted by steve s I like bringing up Luke 14:26. To me, this quote and others like it demonstrate that Christianity was never meant to be a mainstream religion for billions of people, and the official or de facto official religion on four continents. I think Jesus meant it to be hard, really hard, to be a "Christian," and didn't really expect it to catch on. And it only really caught on because people have found ways to ignore the parts they find inconvenient.
	__________________ "We are talking about an old ladies genitals after all." - ponderingturtle

28th November 2009, 09:21 AM	#9
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 21,351	Originally Posted by linusrichard To me, this quote and others like it demonstrate that Christianity was never meant to be a mainstream religion for billions of people, and the official or de facto official religion on four continents. I think Jesus meant it to be hard, really hard, to be a "Christian," and didn't really expect it to catch on. And it only really caught on because people have found ways to ignore the parts they find inconvenient. ^^ This. Jesus in the gospels is clearly concerned with a soon-to-be Kingdom of God here on earth in the Jewish messianic sense. It isn't until it becomes clear that it ain't gonna happen does early Christianity morph into something more inclusive and, well, heavenly.
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

28th November 2009, 09:24 AM	#10
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	Effectively, that's the _point_. Sure, it could have been a good story and a better way to make that point, if it were about something the guest did instead of something he owned. Sure, you can turn it into something more palatable by pretending it's like that. But the problem is that it's not. The story, as told by Jesus, is about a guy being herded off the street to fill a chair at the king's party, only to be tied and left tied outside at night because the king didn't like his clothes. Just shows that the Son Of Man is crap at making up a parable, eh? Maybe they should have nailed Aesop instead Incidentally, it also can't be about a guy who snuck in, because that would ruin the "many are called, few are chosen" point. He has to be among those _called_, to make that point. He's called, but he's not chosen. Giving away party clothes also is something that not only isn't in the actual story, but something virtually nobody would have assumed. We're talking about an age before power looms, and even before the spinning wheel. Cloth and clothes were a very expensive thing, and even a king wouldn't hand around clothes just like that. Incidentally, that's another thing that makes it a crap story. Taken verbatim, the king essentially punishes a random guy off the street for not owning the extremely expensive clothes fit for a king's party. Instead of being about something that guy _does_, it's essentially about what the guy owns, and at that something that wouldn't even be reasonable to expect him to own.
	Last edited by HansMustermann; 28th November 2009 at 09:25 AM.

28th November 2009, 09:51 AM	#11
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Or maybe the parable was critical about group think as well as not being charitable. The group think = we all have to dress and sound alike. This guy who crashed the party was unlike us so he must be punished by ridicule and tossed out on his arse. And in being charitable they could've allowed the crasher to come in and maybe not necessarily dine with them but at least feed him and then send him on his merry way. Jesus was always one who stood up for the underdogs. One of the qualities I admire most about him. But hey, style is more important than making a point.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

28th November 2009, 10:08 AM	#12
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	I'd actually like the parable if it were _against_ group think, e.g., if the moral were "don't be like this king." But see verse 2

28th November 2009, 10:11 AM	#13
I Ratant Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,593	It's a common problem with religions and other social theories. The architects have their minds set on right and wrong, and can't comprehend that some of the measures they are certain are correct and needed aren't. The messengers were disrespected, therefore kill the people that did that. It's "right and proper" behavior to do that, for the people that sent the messengers. The bible is full of that ignorant intolerant self-rationalizing behavior being promoted as the correct way to respond to any injuries, real or imagined. It's what makes xtianity such a vicious social process, with the xtians always right, no matter what. "God will sort out the innocents from the guilty after they're all murdered". The dhimmi status of all non-Muslims is the same ignorant mindset. Dumbocrats see Reptilicans as evil from the womb, and therefore "hast a demon" and need be put down. And that is mirrored right back at them. "Most people are bastard coated bastards with a bastard filling".. Dr. Kelso, "Scrubs". Any excuse at all to diminish any other persons life is all too easily sought, to get a feeling of superiority, and therefore a potential measure of control over that person. Religions offer that excuse.
I Ratant Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,593

28th November 2009, 03:38 PM	#14
ExMinister Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,269	The first part of this parable seems to be addressing God's disappointment in his chosen people and subsequent turning toward the commoners (prostitutes and tax collectors?). Some of the early Christian texts mention wedding garments and weddings in reference to a mystical union with God, and the text makes more sense if you consider the missing wedding garments to be a reference to perhaps a lack of holiness/godly intentions on the part of this particular guest. Hence, many are called, few are chosen - many are called but is their behavior godly enough to be chosen? If not, out they go. In this light, it's hard not to think of the Jesus sayings to turn the other cheek and forgive 70 times 7. Does that only apply to humans? Are humans expected to be more moral than God? Go figure.
	__________________ www.stopsylvia.com

28th November 2009, 03:43 PM	#15
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by ExMinister Are humans expected to be more moral than God? Go figure. I'm saying when the deity does it, it's NOT immoral!
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

28th November 2009, 04:30 PM	#16
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	Originally Posted by ExMinister The first part of this parable seems to be addressing God's disappointment in his chosen people and subsequent turning toward the commoners (prostitutes and tax collectors?). Some of the early Christian texts mention wedding garments and weddings in reference to a mystical union with God, and the text makes more sense if you consider the missing wedding garments to be a reference to perhaps a lack of holiness/godly intentions on the part of this particular guest. Hence, many are called, few are chosen - many are called but is their behavior godly enough to be chosen? If not, out they go. Probably that's what he (or Matthew) was trying to say, but... geesh, talk about screwing it up. For a start, even in that interpretation, in his parable those who simply refused to come were no better or worse off than before. It's only the guy that does come, that gets horrible stuff done to him for failing to measure up. Effectively, as a metaphor (ok, ok, it says "like" so it's a simile) for the kingdom of God and his faith he was preaching, it comes out as: the safest bet is to stay a pagan. Originally Posted by ExMinister In this light, it's hard not to think of the Jesus sayings to turn the other cheek and forgive 70 times 7. Does that only apply to humans? Are humans expected to be more moral than God? Go figure. Pretty much.
	Last edited by HansMustermann; 28th November 2009 at 04:47 PM.

28th November 2009, 05:03 PM	#17
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,064	Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey First of all, the ones he killed were hardly innocent, they'd killed his messengers. Which part of "Thou shallt not kill" are you having difficulty comprehending?
	__________________ Sent from my Mac Book Wheel using Clickaclickaclickaclickatalk

28th November 2009, 06:50 PM	#18
ExMinister Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,269	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Probably that's what he (or Matthew) was trying to say, but... geesh, talk about screwing it up. For a start, even in that interpretation, in his parable those who simply refused to come were no better or worse off than before. It's only the guy that does come, that gets horrible stuff done to him for failing to measure up. Effectively, as a metaphor (ok, ok, it says "like" so it's a simile) for the kingdom of God and his faith he was preaching, it comes out as: the safest bet is to stay a pagan. Pretty much. The message does sort of fall apart when you look at it that way. Better to stay a pagan, ha. You would have made a troublesome apostle.
	__________________ www.stopsylvia.com

29th November 2009, 02:02 AM	#19
kurious_kathy Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sierra FootHills Posts: 2,112	Originally Posted by HansMustermann You know, it occured to me that so far all attempts at picking the horible God described in the Bible suffer from the problem of being OT and promptly dismissed as "yeah, but that doesn't matter because it's OT." So let's talk about how Jesus himself describes the loving Father. (I think you're supposed to take _that_ as gospel, because, well, it is ) So without further ado, Matthew 22:1-14 Let's try if it were done by a human: "So I was giving a party, but my friends didn't want to come, so I killed them and burned their neighbourhood down. (What's a few innocents as collateral damage when it comes to making a point.) Then I invited a bunch of bums off the street instead, they'll fill the room just as well. But I didn't like the clothes one happened to be wearing at the time, so I tied him up and kicked him out (still tied.) 'Cause I may have called many, but I have the right to choose only a few that don't get something like that done to them." The king described there is a horrible psychopath, and the illustration as inviting someone off the street only to do something horrible done to them because of not liking their clothes, is a very repulsive act. It's not only not what a nice and loving person would do, it's the kind you'd think of as an crazy evil prick ever after and you'd not want him in your neighbourhood at all. Unless said neighbourhood happens to have a prison, if you get my drift. And remember, this isn't some OT story from the time of Moses, this is how Jesus himself describes his sky-daddy. (And as a side note, for someone who's not only divinely inspired, but part divine logos and part marinated in... err... infused by the Holy Spirit, Jesus's story telling skills sure suck. Most third graders could come up with a better story there.) Oh please, you are missing the true meaning of this, but what do I expect from someone who is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Tell me what do you think Jesus meant by throwing the man out for not having a wedding garment on? I mysekf know what this means, but I want to see if you do.
	Last edited by kurious_kathy; 29th November 2009 at 02:04 AM.

29th November 2009, 02:11 AM	#20
kurious_kathy Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sierra FootHills Posts: 2,112	Originally Posted by bokonon I'm saying when the deity does it, it's NOT immoral! No it's not immoral for God to judge unrepented sinners, he gives men plenty of opportunity to accept Christ's forgiveness, but if you deny the free gift of salvation through Christ, well I'm afraid you only have yourself to blame! Everyone must remember God is Holy and because of this he must judge sin. Only those covered by the blood of the lamb will be forgiven their sins, Jesus shed his blood to redeem us. And just a FYI, this is also what the wedding clothes represnt in this parable. I hope God opens all of your eyes so you too can receive his mercy before it's too late!
	Last edited by kurious_kathy; 29th November 2009 at 02:19 AM.

29th November 2009, 02:22 AM	#21
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 31,778	Originally Posted by kurious_kathy No it's not immoral for God to judge unrepented sinners... Was it immoral for god to kill babies in the flood? How about the first born of Egypt? Have you seen the Trial of God? If there is a god and that god is the god of the OT then it desperately is in need of an ethics lesson. I'd gladly go to hell to inform god of the depravity it has displayed. To tell god that god is not good. Fortunately it's just a fairy tale told by iron age nomads.
	__________________ www.StopSylvia.com. Probability has absolutely nothing to do with statistics. --Southwind17 Last edited by RandFan; 29th November 2009 at 02:23 AM.

29th November 2009, 03:05 AM	#22
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	Originally Posted by kurious_kathy Oh please, you are missing the true meaning of this, but what do I expect from someone who is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Tell me what do you think Jesus meant by throwing the man out for not having a wedding garment on? I mysekf know what this means, but I want to see if you do. What I want to know, is why someone as marinated in the Holy Spirit as Jesus uses such an atrocious simile. It's akin to praising the mayor's building a new road by comparing him to Hitler and his road building program. I mean, we're not even talking about throwing him out, we're talking about leaving someone tied up and helpless outside at night, at the mercy of any human or animal who might want to do anything to him. When it says there'll be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, it pretty much sums it up how horrible it was. And the setup for that is _atrocious_. In the text for the parable, the people aren't even herded from a city, but off highways. You know, weary travellers, who can't even run home to get a suit apropriate for a royal wedding. Yes, it was meant as a metaphor for something else, but the way he chooses to convey that meaning is crap and ends up using an atrocity and an an arbitrary cruel act to describe the Lord. But it seems to me representative of a certain frame of mind. It seems to me like Jesus himself is likening the Lord to the same kind of arbitrary iron-age warlord that the OT describes him like. He's compared to someone who burns down a whole city indiscriminately, for the sins of a few, for example. Just like he did in the OT too. It's not some New God (TM) who finally got laid and mellowed out. His metaphor is still very much in line with the OT kind of arbitrary prick they had as a God.

29th November 2009, 06:29 AM	#23
Limbo Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,223	Quote: 2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son "Like" unto a certain king. So it follows that his son is "like" a son, and the marriage is "like" a marriage. The marriage is symbolic of the union of all pairs of opposites, symbolized by the marriage of male and female. Including the opposites of good and evil: Quote: So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. Hieros Gamos, sacred marriage. The kingdom of heaven is coincidentia oppositorum, therefore beyond good and evil, male and female, spirit and matter, etc. The king is just a symbol, and the son is symbolic of one aspect which must be united with its opposite. People who are unable to see beyond the pairs of opposites get stuck identifying with one or the other, instead of one and the other. For instance their gender. "I am male", they say, identifying themselves only with the body and not realizing their inner female. So the Hieros Gamos does not take place inside their heart. So they throw themselves out of the 'wedding celebration'.
Limbo Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,223	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." Last edited by Limbo; 29th November 2009 at 07:10 AM.

29th November 2009, 07:48 AM	#24
ExMinister Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,269	Judging by Kurious Kathy and Limbo's responses, a parable works something like a Rorschach inkblot test.
	__________________ www.stopsylvia.com

29th November 2009, 07:52 AM	#25
Limbo Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,223	Originally Posted by ExMinister Judging by Kurious Kathy and Limbo's responses, a parable works something like a Rorschach inkblot test. Of course it is. Sacred text is always multifaceted, to a certain degree. It's raw material that we can bake into bread or poison through our exegesis. The face we turn to it is the face it stares back with.
Limbo Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,223	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." Last edited by Limbo; 29th November 2009 at 07:55 AM.

29th November 2009, 09:16 AM	#26
ExMinister Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,269	Originally Posted by Limbo Of course it is. Sacred text is always multifaceted, to a certain degree. It's raw material that we can bake into bread or poison through our exegesis. The face we turn to it is the face it stares back with. And yet neither of you phrased your opinion on the meaning of this parable as the matter of personal interpretion (in KK's case, overlaid with fundamentalist-sounding religious dogma) that it is.
	__________________ www.stopsylvia.com

29th November 2009, 09:21 AM	#27
ExMinister Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,269	Originally Posted by HansMustermann What I want to know, is why someone as marinated in the Holy Spirit as Jesus uses such an atrocious simile. It's akin to praising the mayor's building a new road by comparing him to Hitler and his road building program. I mean, we're not even talking about throwing him out, we're talking about leaving someone tied up and helpless outside at night, at the mercy of any human or animal who might want to do anything to him. When it says there'll be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, it pretty much sums it up how horrible it was. And the setup for that is _atrocious_. In the text for the parable, the people aren't even herded from a city, but off highways. You know, weary travellers, who can't even run home to get a suit apropriate for a royal wedding. Yes, it was meant as a metaphor for something else, but the way he chooses to convey that meaning is crap and ends up using an atrocity and an an arbitrary cruel act to describe the Lord. But it seems to me representative of a certain frame of mind. It seems to me like Jesus himself is likening the Lord to the same kind of arbitrary iron-age warlord that the OT describes him like. He's compared to someone who burns down a whole city indiscriminately, for the sins of a few, for example. Just like he did in the OT too. It's not some New God (TM) who finally got laid and mellowed out. His metaphor is still very much in line with the OT kind of arbitrary prick they had as a God. I agree, the imagery used has much in common with the atrocious behavior of the OT version of God. Interesting point, BTW. I hadn't thought to look through the NT parables this way.
	__________________ www.stopsylvia.com

29th November 2009, 09:21 AM	#28
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	One of the last times that I went to church as a christian, this passage was read. It was one of the more disturbing lesson plans I've ever seen in my life, and it was partially responsible for solidifying my denial of christianity. The basic message, once you strip off the flowery language, was that if you die, there are three options: Heaven, for the chosen, Hell, for those who reject God, and Jew Hell, for God's chosen people who reject Jesus. Jew Hell is worse than regular Hell.
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	__________________ "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.

29th November 2009, 09:25 AM	#29
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 8,366	Originally Posted by kurious_kathy Christ And by the way KK, you do not know Christ, you know what you think he is, but this does not make him real. Paul Magical thinking begets more Magical thinking begets more...............
	__________________ "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given. Mine "Still looking for that honest person." besides you Randi Never in the history of humankind, have so many, known so little, about so much. Christianity, Years of fear. - mine I'm so old I remember when dirt came to life

29th November 2009, 09:26 AM	#30
Limbo Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,223	Originally Posted by ExMinister And yet neither of you phrased your opinion on the meaning of this parable as the matter of personal interpretion (in KK's case, overlaid with fundamentalist-sounding religious dogma) that it is. That's because my personal interpretation is über. Lots of ranting in this thread, how many ranters said, "oh by the way, this is just my personal interpretation." I see strong assertion from HansMustermann and others. Why don't you get on their ass as well as mine? Oh let me guess, because you are more sympathetic to their crude "personal interpretations." Calls to mind Matthew 7:3-5, in my personal interpretation
Limbo Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,223	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." Last edited by Limbo; 29th November 2009 at 09:38 AM.

29th November 2009, 09:38 AM	#31
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by kurious_kathy Oh please, you are missing the true meaning of this, but what do I expect from someone who is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Tell me what do you think Jesus meant by throwing the man out for not having a wedding garment on? I mysekf know what this means, but I want to see if you do. You know, there are hundreds of sermons about this passage online. It doesn't exactly take the guidance of the holy spirit to know what it means to christians. However, just because we can find assertions of what the passage means doesn't mean that we have to turn our reasoning skills off. We can interpret this story many ways from the text, just as William Faulkner can be read many ways. I'm sure "The Sound and the Fury" meant something specific to Faulkner when he wrote it, but it has been analyzed by literary critics and applied to situations that he never even considered would arise. The Bible is a block of text. It is a book. There is absolutely no reason to approach the Bible in a different way than any other book.
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	__________________ "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.

29th November 2009, 09:45 AM	#32
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 8,366	Originally Posted by kurious_kathy Tell me what do you think Jesus meant by throwing the man out for not having a wedding garment on? That Jesus has a lot of hang-ups, just like that so-called father of his. Paul
	__________________ "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given. Mine "Still looking for that honest person." besides you Randi Never in the history of humankind, have so many, known so little, about so much. Christianity, Years of fear. - mine I'm so old I remember when dirt came to life

29th November 2009, 10:07 AM	#33
I Ratant Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,593	Jesus is, like many people of the Book, more interested in the appearance of faith (proper wedding garment) than the practice (celebrating a wedding).
I Ratant Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,593

29th November 2009, 10:08 AM	#34
ExMinister Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,269	Originally Posted by Limbo That's because my personal interpretation is über. Lots of ranting in this thread, how many ranters said, "oh by the way, this is just my personal interpretation." I see strong assertion from HansMustermann and others. Why don't you get on their ass as well as mine? Oh let me guess, because you are more sympathetic to their crude "personal interpretations." Calls to mind Matthew 7:3-5, in my personal interpretation Well, I have to humbly disagree about the plank in my own eye. I clearly said it "seems" during my own rant and tried to stay pretty close to the text when I offered a possible interpretation. I don't recall being particularly sympathetic to any other interpretations (except my own, of course). Anyway, it turns out, if I've got it correctly, that HansMustermann was focusing more on the parable itself, regardless of its interpretation, and how the behavior depicted actually resembles the OT version of God as opposed to the new, more loving and benevolent version that Christians so often believe is found in the NT gospels. No, I didn't mean to give the impression that I was getting on your ass in exclusion to others. But yes, you and KK did seem to be making strong assertions of meaning about something which sounded quite heavy on interpretation to me. And your comments were so entirely different, it reminded me of the Rorschach tests. No offense intended. Yours does have a certain "uber" quality in comparison to KK, of course.
	__________________ www.stopsylvia.com Last edited by ExMinister; 29th November 2009 at 10:10 AM.

29th November 2009, 10:22 AM	#35
Limbo Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,223	Originally Posted by ExMinister Well, I have to humbly disagree about the plank in my own eye. I clearly said "it seems to me..." during my own rant and tried to stay pretty close to the text when I offered a possible interpretation. I don't recall being particularly sympathetic to any other interpretations (except my own, of course). Are you suggesting I am not 'pretty close to the text'? Matthew is the only one to use the phrase 'kingdom of heaven'. I see it as synonymous with the 'kingdom of God,' which is "within". My exegesis is consistent with that, and so that means the 'marriage' is also within, and so is the son, and the king, and the bride of the son. The only people who can't come to the wedding are those who only invite part of themselves. Their inner king invites the son, but not the bride. Invites the good, but not the bad. Invites matter, but not spirit. The opposites don't come together inside, so no wedding feast for them. Maybe next life time, eh?
Limbo Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,223	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." Last edited by Limbo; 29th November 2009 at 10:33 AM.