Replies

Now when we would interpret that modernized parable, we would not limit its applicability to million dollar bills. We also would not limit its applicabilities to what we would call "natural millions" [=natural talents]. We would apply the parable to ALL THAT WAS ENTRUSTED TO US. What Tamsey did was very creative, and very much on point. She took the parable and applied it to a gift or privilege or right which we call voting. Very fascinating.

Were we *born* with ballots??? How are ballots *natural*???

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. This seems to be going back to principle versus pragmatism in a sense. Again, I don't think that the use of 'talent' in the bible was referring to the secular; it was referring to the spiritual. The parables lose their "zing" when you interpret them too literally. I just find interpreting talent to mean anything related to secular government spiritually impoverished...

:-(

We may not be that far apart, really.

Are you limiting the applicability of this parable ONLY to spiritual gifts? I'm not quite certain on this point.
Are you willing to apply it to natural talents (which are also gifts from God?
If so, then the only point of disagreement is how we go in applying to other gifts of God--in this case, voting.

If you take a parable and replace the literal secular meaning with another secular meaning, you miss the point imho.

It's like taking the text of the talents parable and replacing the word "talents" with "Krugerrands".

Yes, you can do it.

Yes, you might feel clever about yourself.

No, you didn't get the point of the parable.

IMHO.

:-( :-( :-(