A parable and a challenge

[blackout]

I have since realized/REALized mySelf
as an "Heiress of Source".
Source'heiress/Sorceress.

And the Source is like a wellspring
up from the center of my Own Self.
My Own BEing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hehe, yup my interpretaion would be the correct interpretation, being that I'm the one who wrote the parable.

Reminds me of when you have a computer program: the programmer is the only one who can say how it will work, and he is never wrong.

I suppose it depends on how a person defines the term "key" the definition I am using is "something that gives an explanation or identification or provides a solution" (Such as the key to a riddle). In this case the key is something that provides a solution, as it identifies how mankind could have realized the kingdom of heaven (Paradise).

Is it the four of clubs?

No, wait - a raven? Or a writing desk?

 

[Willamena]

What then does the above mean in terms of realizing the kingdom? How does one go about attaining such an existence?

The 'realization' is that the kingdom is attained.

Yes. And that's exactly what I was trying to get at.

You always say it in less words.

Thanks.

I read this just now, re John 18 quoted above:

37Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?

 

[Tre-L]

I hope you understand that a parable isn't supposed to be vague.

The opposite is actually true, Willamena. Otherwise everyone would get the intent, and there would be no need to think about what was actually being implied.

Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given . . . Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matt 13:10-13

If they were not vague then those he spoke them to would have easily known the intent behind them, but this isn't the case. The following parable is probably the easiest of Jesus' parables to understand (IMO), but if I were a betting man I'd bet that we will each derive different meanings from it, which is one of the reasons for this thread in the first place.

And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, "Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matt 13:3-9 (KJV)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The opposite is actually true, Willamena. Otherwise everyone would get the intent, and there would be no need to think about what was actually being implied.

No - an effective parable communicates meaning better or more fully than simple speech would do.

Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given . . . Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matt 13:10-13

Just because the Bible records Jesus as saying it doesn't mean it's not a poor approach.

 

[Tre-L]

No - an effective parable communicates meaning better or more fully than simple speech would do.


Just because the Bible records Jesus as saying it doesn't mean it's not a poor approach.

Fair enough, Penguin .... Even so, people have a range of different views of what the kingdom actually is. The purpose of a parable is to instruct and to reveal. You can't give away the answer outright so it must be vague, yet also understandable, able to teach a truth, a religious principle, or a moral. Mine is quite simple actually, so I'll break down the main components that need be identified before understanding the intent.

1. Who is the man in the parable?
2. Who are his children?
3. What was the inheritance?
4. What is the "gift"?

If you can figure out these four things, you got the parable licked. It really is a very basic, and simple one at heart. Care to take a crack at it? Of course it is all allegory, yet it points to a truth just the same

 

[Willamena]

The opposite is actually true, Willamena. Otherwise everyone would get the intent, and there would be no need to think about what was actually being implied.

Fair enough. I find the opposite to be true --that a parable is intended to be clear and obvious with its non-literal message.

Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matt 13:10-13

Right. Those who already know what is meant by the symbolism of 'the kingdom' will hear him when he speaks ("hear his voice"), and understand, but those who do not know what the symbolism entails would become increasingly confused if he persisted to try to explain. The parable provides an analogy or other non-literal message (and is probably a teaching method common in the time).

If they were not vague then those he spoke them to would have easily known the intent behind them, but this isn't the case. The following parable is probably the easiest of Jesus' parables to understand (IMO), but if I were a betting man I'd bet that we will each derive different meanings from it, which is one of the reasons for this thread in the first place.

And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, "Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matt 13:3-9 (KJV)

We don't know that many didn't learn from his parables. They seem to, even today. And just like today, some are baffled because they don't have the requisite symbolism to support the images presented by the parable (the "deepness of earth").

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough, Penguin .... Even so, people have a range of different views of what the kingdom actually is. The purpose of a parable is to instruct and to reveal. You can't give away the answer outright so it must be vague, yet also understandable, able to teach a truth, a religious principle, or a moral.

The bit in bold is what I'm talking about. Misdirection and obscuration does not help one to instruct and reveal.

The point isn't to avoid "giving away the answer". In fact, the point is to give away the answer in the best way possible. It's just that, as I said, the answer is better expressed as a parable than as simple speech.

And if your subject matter is such that a parable isn't better than simple speech, then you've picked the wrong medium to communicate your message.

 

[Tre-L]

The bit in bold is what I'm talking about. Misdirection and obscuration does not help one to instruct and reveal.

The point isn't to avoid "giving away the answer". In fact, the point is to give away the answer in the best way possible. It's just that, as I said, the answer is better expressed as a parable than as simple speech.

And if your subject matter is such that a parable isn't better than simple speech, then you've picked the wrong medium to communicate your message.

O.k. o.k. enough with the criticism already! Good grief! This isn't working quite as I had planned. I thought it might be a fun challenge. I guess not ....

One person did give the intended meaning to the parable in this thread, though. I suppose there is little point in going on now. You guys have a great day! Thanks for playing along.

 

[blackout]

The 'realization' is that the kingdom is attained.

Nice.

Damn girl!

 

[blackout]

Parables are meant to be understood
by those who have the 'eyes and ears'
to make symbolic, metaphoric and allegorical connections,
for themselves.

People who can't. Don't.

 

[Tre-L]

"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who left to his children many gifts as an inheritance. Among the gifts was one which contained the key to living a happy and abundant life. The only thing his children knew of this gift is that it seemed small and insignificant compared to the other gifts their father had left them. So this tiny gift sat largely unnoticed and unappreciated by his children. They had so many gifts after all, and as each child desired the gifts they thought to themselves to be the greatest, the one gift they truly needed was all but discarded. While the mans children did their best to make the most of their inheritance, the gift containing the key to their happiness was neglected and viewed to be the least important among the rest. And much to his children's shame, and because they neglected the gift that could help them live an abundant life, they failed to experience a life filled with joy and happiness. His children missed out on an amazing inheritance because they failed to realize the importance of that one tiny gift."

1) Who is the man in the parable?

Answer: God

2) Who are his children?

Answer: Mankind

3) What was the inheritance?

Answer: The world

4) What is the "gift"?

Answer: Love

Each of us desire and then pursue what we think is greatest in life. Some pursue power, while others pursue wealth, while others pursue only superficial and fading pleasures. Even so, mankind's excessive appetite and want for more has caused a great deal of conflict in our world. Our inheritance was never meant to be a means of conflict between our brothers and sisters after all, but rather something we were to share together. Many wars have been waged and many conflicts have come upon the world as a result of mankind's want, greed and self indulgence. Had mankind not neglected the one gift we truly needed, the conflicts would have never transpired. The gift and the key to the kingdom (Paradise) is "love" (Both for God who gave us the world, and for those we share it with). A big thanks to those who played along!! :clap I applaud you ....

Take care and be well,

Live, Love & Laugh (Tre-L)

 

[bain-druie]

Seems to me that a more effective way of making certain your children will pay proper attention to the one truly vital gift, especially if it is the key to all the others, is to emphasize the vital gift by separation. That key should be the only gift given. Then, when they can use and share it, they will find the other gifts behind the door which the key unlocks - *and* by then, perhaps be trustworthy enough to enjoy those gifts with honor.

Interesting thread, Tre-L.

 

[blackout]

Seems to me that a more effective way of making certain your children will pay proper attention to the one truly vital gift, especially if it is the key to all the others, is to emphasize the vital gift by separation. That key should be the only gift given. Then, when they can use and share it, they will find the other gifts behind the door which the key unlocks - *and* by then, perhaps be trustworthy enough to enjoy those gifts with honor.

Interesting thread, Tre-L.

That depends though, on what the gift is.

If the gift is perception,
there must ALSO be things to percieve.

 

[bain-druie]

That depends though, on what the gift is.

If the gift is perception,
there must ALSO be things to percieve.

Touche, point taken. :yes:

 

[Quagmire]

Funny stuff, but yes quite sad for the mans children!

And yet, somehow funny at the same time.

 

[blackout]

This is easy: The man left his children cases and cases of all kinds of canned goods. The neglected gift was a can opener.

(They all starved. It was very sad.)

You know....
I just re'read this,
and it actually makes a for an exceptionally translatable parable.
:cover:

"Canned">> Previously prepared; not fresh or new; standardized, mass produced, or lacking originality or customization

"goods">> goods - definition of goods - Products, or more specifically, products that economists feel satisfies a market need --

also, "goods" as opposed to "bads"?

("things" or "thoughts" or "moralities")

So...
Canned goods=
"Standardized products/things, mass produced thoughts, costomized moralities"

The can opener
opens things up so we can "get inside" them,
opens up our thinking,
and our "canned" (standardized) moral platitudes.



"Canned" could also be "sealed"
and "goods" could be positive, needed things. lol

goods 1. Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital. ...

Where the hell is that opener.



Great job as always Quag.
:areyoucra :bow:

 

[Riverwolf]

Parables are like riddles. Many possible responses, but once the real answer is found, no other answer can still be possible. IMO, this parable failed that.