No one can serve two masters

[Nakosis]

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [money, possessions, fame, status, or whatever is valued more than the Lord]

Is it possible to serve no master?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes.

Apologies for the verbose response.

 

[Estro Felino]

Absolutely, yes.

Freedom of conscience.

 

[Viker]

It is possible.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes. It's also possible to serve two masters; I serve @SalixIncendium as his wardrobe manager during the day and @JustGeorge as her cat herder in the evening.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes. It's also possible to serve two masters; I serve @SalixIncendium as his wardrobe manager during the day and @JustGeorge as her cat herder in the evening.

This is true...

...and I'm still waiting for you to bring me that top hat so I can send @ChristineM the pic she asked for in the other thread.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. ..."

You (and the author of Matthew) must have been rough on your parents. So much for Exodus 20:12.

 

[Audie]

View attachment 80544​

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [money, possessions, fame, status, or whatever is valued more than the Lord]

Is it possible to serve no master?

Yes.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You (and the author of Matthew) must have been rough on your parents. So much for Exodus 20:12.

You're conflating 'honor' and 'serve'.

 

[Stevicus]

View attachment 80544​

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [money, possessions, fame, status, or whatever is valued more than the Lord]

Is it possible to serve no master?

I suppose it's possible, although not sure how practical it can be. At minimum, one would have to live in a place where there is no government jurisdiction, no laws (except for the ones you make for yourself), no authority whatsoever.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're conflating 'honor' and 'serve'.

Seriously?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Seriously?

Nah...I'm rarely serious.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yes.

Apologies for the verbose response.

tl;dr

 

[JustGeorge]

Its possible, but rare.

A person who is seemingly without 'masters' may be mastered by their own impulses.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

View attachment 80544​

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [money, possessions, fame, status, or whatever is valued more than the Lord]

Is it possible to serve no master?

Theoretically, it should be. Yet, I cannot think of a single person who does so in practice.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Its possible, but rare.

A person who is seemingly without 'masters' may be mastered by their own impulses.

If the road paved of good intentions leads to Hell, then how can someone know they’re on the right path without God?

Then again, how does one know they’re following God in that case?

 

[JustGeorge]

If the road paved of good intentions leads to Hell, then how can someone know they’re on the right path without God?

Then again, how does one know they’re following God in that case?

Does the individual want to follow God? If so, they should follow the instructions laid out by that God.

But not all desire this. And who says what's the right path?

 

[Yazata]

I'm not sure that I want to agree.

For one thing, what is "serving God"? Do we really know whether a 'God' even exists? Does 'God' really will us to behave in certain ways? How does one know what God's will supposedly is? How does one avoid extremes in that regard, such as ISIS launching a holy war on all unbelievers?

For another, is money really a bad thing? I think that a plausible argument can be made that money is the glue that makes large scale social cohesion and hence civilization possible.

In paleolithic times, people typically lived in tribal clan groups linked by common ancestry, whether real or mythical. Social cohesion arose from blood ties, from a sense of everyone being family so to speak.

But as agriculture was invented and hunter-gatherer camps grew into early cities, people entered a new situation where they encountered strangers every time they left their homes.

All of us have needs and desires. Few of us can satisfy all of them by ourselves, by our own effort. We need the assistance of other people. But why should other people help us meet our needs when they have unmet needs of their own?

That's the genius of money. We get other people to help us by paying them. And where do we get the ability to pay them? By being of service to others. It's the same principle behind our going to work every day.

That's not a bad thing. It's what made market economies possible, along with large-scale social groups and functional specialization (artisans, craftsmen, scribes) that enabled the rise of civilization.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Does the individual want to follow God? If so, they should follow the instructions laid out by that God.

But not all desire this. And who says what's the right path?

I was of the assumption that following God is the right path.

 

[JustGeorge]

I was of the assumption that following God is the right path.

Depends on who you ask. And again, what God? Odin is probably going to ask to be served differently than Aphrodite. (Though I bet you could potentially serve them both.)