Being a religion of peace

[Jesse]

If anything the parable would make many contemporary Christians uneasy because it speaks of Jesus violently and devastatingly smiting His own people which is in contrast with the non-violent 'loving' peacenik image many have of him.

This is something I can see happening. Makes sense that Shunyadragon disagrees with the original interpretation. It's not the Jesus he wants to see I guess.

[shunyadragon]

This is something I can see happening. Makes sense that Shunyadragon disagrees with the original interpretation. It's not the Jesus he wants to see I guess.

I am not sure where you get it that your interpretation was the original 'interpretation.' Can you enlighten me of a reference that would have been 'original.'

[Cerebrum123]

Luke "parable"--I agree with Shuny---I found it confusing----but in my case, I find a lot about Christianity confusing....

@Cerebrum123
Thank you for taking the time to explain...appreciate it.

@Shuny
In the East, Buddhism is integrated into the existing culture/religion/philosophy so it is hard to say an individual is Shinto but not Buddhist, or Buddhist but not Shinto....
(For those who do not know...Buddhism of the West is different from Eastern Buddhism)

You are correct that Buddhists do not fight "for Buddha" but they do fight for Dharma (Law) and this concept has been abused by those in power (Kings) to justify fighting ---and Buddhist kingdoms have fought with each other. This idea to fight for the Law/righteousness/defending right principles---is not that different from Sam Harris saying we have to fight for our ideas, or George Bush saying they are fighting for democracy...etc....
also, there are a few passages in Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Nirvana Sutra) that are not pretty....

But, if one were to interpret "scripture" broadly, then the Talmud has restraints on human violence in Sanhedrin which says killing an individual is like killing a whole community, and Christianity has the Catechism (CCC2307-2314) which elaborates on the idea of Just war and conduct in war. Islam has the Quran---(Which may come as a surprise to some) but the Quran restricts war to 2 (defensive) occassions, 1) Oppression and 2) the breaking of treaty terms. The Quran/Islam also specifies humane behavior to non-combatants and prisoners of war and prohibits destruction of property as well as advocates for the most speedy conclusion to war in order to resume peace negotiations as soon as possible. Historically, all religious people have ignored their own wisdom teachings/philosophies when they found them inconvenient....For example...Americans used to find torture unethical and they had restraints for torture---but when they found this inconvenient---they overturned these restraints and torture was practiced....

So if history and scripture are the criteria...then one can say Buddhism is the same as many other philosophies---it is people who interpret scripture and act in history---and people have a similar general disposition. But if we were to base the criteria on the practice of peace---then Buddhism would be better than Judaism or Christianity because it has the mystical discipline...(But so does Islam and Hinduism)

Give references to the underlined. Oh, and make sure they aren't abrogated Meccan surahs.

[shunyadragon]

it.

@Shuny
In the East, Buddhism is integrated into the existing culture/religion/philosophy so it is hard to say an individual is Shinto but not Buddhist, or Buddhist but not Shinto....
(For those who do not know...Buddhism of the West is different from Eastern Buddhism)

Let's start with Japan

Yes, there is a blending of Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism in Japanese culture, but there is a real distinction between Shinto and Buddhism in Japan. There is less distinction with the influence of Confucianism and Taoism, but there are temples and orders in Japan that are distinctive. Buddhism and various schools of distinctive Buddhist Arts like Aikido founded by Morihei Ueshiba, are distinctly peaceful and even to some extent pacifist in Japanese history. They were definitely persecuted during World War II.

[Jesse]

I am not sure where you get it that your interpretation was the original 'interpretation.' Can you enlighten me of a reference that would have been 'original.'

Sure. Origen, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (246-248 A.D.) makes it clear that the Parable of the Ten Pounds is speaking of a future reckoning:

Source: The Time of the Reckoning

But let these things, then, be said by way of apology, because of the depth of the parable; but, with regard to the question at what time the man— the king— in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, we will say that it seems that this takes place about the time of the judgment which had been proclaimed. And this is confirmed by two parables, one at the close of the Gospel before us, Matthew 25:14-30 and one from the Gospel according to Luke. Luke 19:12-27

© Copyright Original Source

And this was in response to Marcion missusing parables:

Source: No Forgiveness to the Unforgiving

But who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments? But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator of being passionate, because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this king, because that "being angry," he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by Jesus to the tormentors,— pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to this, "So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you;" Matthew 18:35 and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds that the Son of the good God said, "Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them," Luke 19:27 etc.

© Copyright Original Source

If you would like more commentaries on the verse, you can go here.

[siam]

@Shuny

Japan---Yes, you are right that temples and festivals are distinct but could this be because of their social functions rather than philosophical rigidity/exclusivity? If there is one area that Buddhism excels at above all other religions/philosophies is that of peaceful assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence.....

Martial Arts---the various martial arts (which were originally more of a spiritual practice than the "sport" they are considered today) is a good example of the influence of Buddhism as well as its blending/assimilation..?..and Aikido, while it is distinctive, is also a fusion?---It uses the power/force of Qi/Chi ? ("The way of harmony of Ki"--though apparently some practitioners understand Ki/Qi as (laws of) physics))
(The Indian martial arts (South India) had both a defensive and offensive aspect.)

[siam]

Japan---There is Aum Shinrikyo...?...

[Pentecost]

Luke "parable"--I agree with Shuny---I found it confusing----but in my case, I find a lot about Christianity confusing....

Hello Siam, how are you? I hope well. Do you still find that parable confusing? You put quotations around parable, it is not a technical word in English referring only to those things taught by Jesus it is defined as

"1.
a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson." This includes things like the fables told by Aesop.

And if you ever wish for me to try to help you understand Christianity again we can simply return to our old thread.

[siam]

@Pentecost
I have some questions....but the NT is not my sacred book and I don't want to offend Christians just to satisfy my curiosity....
If you are not offended...perhaps you could answer?....(and...Aesops is much easier to understand!!!....)

...It seems the story is like this----

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

12-15---the whole---he-was-made-king business a) How is it relevant? b) who does the King, the delegation symbolize?

26---"those who have nothing---even what they have will be taken away"---Doesn't this contradict the other passages that speak of God giving to the meek/poor/humble etc?...or Mathew 6:31-34 that says not to worry if you have nothing because God will provide and to trust in God.....

27---and how is that passage relevant---or even related---to the story? other than the mention of the King---it does not seem to speak to or even add to the story at all....

The parable---seems to encourage profit, ambition, desire---which would contradict 1 John 2:15-17 which advises people against worldly desires and gain.....

[shunyadragon]

@Shuny

Japan---Yes, you are right that temples and festivals are distinct but could this be because of their social functions rather than philosophical rigidity/exclusivity? If there is one area that Buddhism excels at above all other religions/philosophies is that of peaceful assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence.....

I would not consider Buddhism excelling in assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence. It is predominantly peaceful more by its nature. I consider the Baha'i Faith more adept at peaceful assimilation in a diverse cultural context.

Shinto remains the foundation of Japanese traditional religion and yes, separate from Buddhism. Japanese militarism is rooted in Shinto beliefs, not Buddhist. It is not a matter of rigidity nor exclusivity that separates Buddhism from Shinto. It is fundamental doctrine.

Martial Arts---the various martial arts (which were originally more of a spiritual practice than the "sport" they are considered today) is a good example of the influence of Buddhism as well as its blending/assimilation..?..and Aikido, while it is distinctive, is also a fusion?---It uses the power/force of Qi/Chi ? ("The way of harmony of Ki"--though apparently some practitioners understand Ki/Qi as (laws of) physics))

Some of the more distinctive Buddhist and Taoist Martial Arts (I call Arts of the Way) are distinctly none violent, not aggressive, and more closely related to spiritual meditative practices. These practices were later corrupted by secular governments for militaristic and aggressive purposes, and became distinctly non-Buddhist nor Taoist in nature.

(The Indian martial arts (South India) had both a defensive and offensive aspect.)

I can look further, but no, this is not Buddhist. Various Martial Arts disciplines can be traced back to the Neolithic based on cave and cliff drawings in South China. These ancient ways are closely related to hunting and warrior Arts of primitive human cultures.

Along with the previous book, Bodisattva Warriors, I recommended I recommend The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar to get a better over all picture of the nature and history of Chinese Shaolin history

[shunyadragon]

Japan---There is Aum Shinrikyo...?...

Bad example for anything constructive. A syncretistic violent minor cult with no direct real connection to Buddhism not Taoism (another more peaceful religion like Buddhism.)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo

Aum Shinrikyo/Aleph is a syncretic belief system that incorporates Asahara's facets of Christianity with idiosyncratic interpretations of Yoga, and the writings of Nostradamus.[6] In 1992 Asahara published a foundational book, and declared himself "Christ",[7] Japan's only fully enlightened master and identified with the "Lamb of God".[8] His purported mission was to take upon himself the sins of the world, and he claimed he could transfer to his followers spiritual power and ultimately take away their sins and bad deeds.[9]

Asahara outlined a doomsday prophecy, which included a World War III instigated by the United States.[10] He described a final conflict culminating in a nuclear "Armageddon", borrowing the term from the Book of Revelation 16:16.[11] Humanity would end, except for the elite few who joined Aum.[11] Aum's mission was not only to spread the word of "salvation", but also to survive these "End Times". Asahara predicted Armageddon would occur in 1997.[11] He called the United States "The Beast" from the Book of Revelation, predicting that it would eventually attack Japan.[11] He also saw dark conspiracies everywhere promulgated by Jews, Freemasons, the Dutch, the British Royal Family, and rival Japanese religions.[12]

The name "Aum Shinrikyo" (オウム真理教 Aumu Shinrikyō?), usually rendered in English as "Supreme Truth", derives from the Sanskrit syllable Aum, used to represent the universe, followed by the Japanese Shinrikyo (meaning, roughly, "religion of Truth") written in kanji. In 2000, the organization changed its name to "Aleph" – a reference to the first letter of the Phoenician, Hebrew and Arabic alphabets – and replaced its logo.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

Ashoka Maurya (/əˈʃoʊkə/; Sanskrit: अशोक मौर्य; 304–232 BCE), commonly known as Ashoka and also as Ashoka the Great, was an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from circa 269 BCE to 232 BCE.[1] One of India's greatest emperors, Ashoka reigned over a realm that stretched from the Hindu Kush mountains in the west to Bengal in the East and covered the entire Indian subcontinent except parts of present day Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The empire's capital was Pataliputra (in Magadha, present-day Bihar), with provincial capitals at Taxila and Ujjain.

In about 260 BCE Ashoka waged a bitterly destructive war against the state of Kalinga (modern Odisha).[2] He conquered Kalinga, which none of his ancestors had done.[3] He embraced Buddhism after witnessing the mass deaths of the Kalinga War, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest. "Ashoka reflected on the war in Kalinga, which reportedly had resulted in more than 100,000 deaths and 150,000 deportations."[4] Ashoka converted gradually to Buddhism beginning about 263 BCE.[2] He was later dedicated to the propagation of Buddhism across Asia, and established monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Gautama Buddha. "Ashoka regarded Buddhism as a doctrine that could serve as a cultural foundation for political unity."[5] Ashoka is now remembered as a philanthropic administrator. In the Kalinga edicts, he addresses his people as his "children", and mentions that as a father he desires their good.

Ashoka is referred to as Samraat Chakravartin Ashoka – the "Emperor of Emperors Ashoka." His name "Aśoka" means "painless, without sorrow" in Sanskrit (the a privativum and śoka "pain, distress"). In his edicts, he is referred to as Devānāmpriya (Pali Devānaṃpiya or "The Beloved of the Gods"), and Priyadarśin (Pali Piyadasī or "He who regards everyone with affection"). His fondness for his name's connection to the Saraca asoca tree, or the "Ashoka tree" is also referenced in the Ashokavadana.

© Copyright Original Source

The early kingdom history of Buddhism is distinctly non-violent and non aggressive after Ashoka converted to Buddhism.

[shunyadragon]

Sure. Origen, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (246-248 A.D.) makes it clear that the Parable of the Ten Pounds is speaking of a future reckoning:

Source: The Time of the Reckoning

But let these things, then, be said by way of apology, because of the depth of the parable; but, with regard to the question at what time the man— the king— in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, we will say that it seems that this takes place about the time of the judgment which had been proclaimed. And this is confirmed by two parables, one at the close of the Gospel before us, Matthew 25:14-30 and one from the Gospel according to Luke. Luke 19:12-27

© Copyright Original Source

And this was in response to Marcion missusing parables:

Source: No Forgiveness to the Unforgiving

But who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments? But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator of being passionate, because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this king, because that "being angry," he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by Jesus to the tormentors,— pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to this, "So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you;" Matthew 18:35 and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds that the Son of the good God said, "Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them," Luke 19:27 etc.

© Copyright Original Source

If you would like more commentaries on the verse, you can go here.

Yes, parables may be misused. I will leave this as an open question at present, but Marcion commentary above does not necessarily led to an 'original' interpretation of what you proposed.

[Jesse]

Yes, parables may be misused. I will leave this as an open question at present, but Marcion commentary above does not necessarily led to an 'original' interpretation of what you proposed.

Yes it does. This shows that early in the history of the church, this was how the parable was interpreted. If you looked into the rest of the commentaries I provided at the link, you will see this was the majority established opinion. Now, would you like to give any proof that there was a different interpretation of this passage prior to the 3rd century? This was indeed the original interpretation.

[Pentecost]

@Pentecost
I have some questions....but the NT is not my sacred book and I don't want to offend Christians just to satisfy my curiosity....
If you are not offended...perhaps you could answer?....(and...Aesops is much easier to understand!!!....)

...It seems the story is like this----

I will do my best to answer your questions.

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

12-15---the whole---he-was-made-king business a) How is it relevant? b) who does the King, the delegation symbolize?

The noble who left his own estates symbolizes God seeming to not pay attention to his servants which was a common perception of the time because the Lord had been silent to the people of Israel for the past 400 years. They are coming to Jerusalem which in the minds of many of Jesus's followers indicated a soon coming revolution against Rome. The citizens who hate Jesus and begrudge his claims of being the Messiah (let alone divine) would have sent a delegation to a higher authority protesting local rulers, really this section of the parable is not moral in nature, so much as it is stating to whom the parable is addressed to.

26---"those who have nothing---even what they have will be taken away"---Doesn't this contradict the other passages that speak of God giving to the meek/poor/humble etc?...or Mathew 6:31-34 that says not to worry if you have nothing because God will provide and to trust in God.....

The one who has nothing in this story is the one who did not work for his master who in the story represents God. This could be tied to the teaching that those who know there is a God but do nothing about it are no better than the demons, and they will be justly punished for it.

27---and how is that passage relevant---or even related---to the story? other than the mention of the King---it does not seem to speak to or even add to the story at all....

Jesus is explaining the great wrath God will bring upon the (particular) Jews (and gentiles) who rejected Him.

The parable---seems to encourage profit, ambition, desire---which would contradict 1 John 2:15-17 which advises people against worldly desires and gain.....

The parable encourages doing your best to obey God because you will be rewarded greatly for success and only punished if you refuse to acknowledge God or shirk your duty.

I know of alternative teachings, but this one is the one that makes the most sense. Jesus tells the people who believed in him and those who hated Jesus that the day of Judgement when Jesus comes back will result in both rewards and punishments. Rewards for good stewards who grow the Lord's Kingdom (some of those who believed in Jesus) and punishments for those who oppose it either actively (those who sent the delegation) or passively (those who do not invest in the Kingdom of God).

I was a little distracted as I wrote this response so I hope it makes sense, I will not be offended if you ask for clarification.