I have come to loath mega stores and do not shop in them, too many people and too much choice for this little swamp creature ;-)

Personally I have no problem with people building the home of their dreams or purchasing geek toys - I would be a hypocrite if I did.  This is apples and oranges to demanding corporate, political and consumer responsibility.

There are good corporations out there.   Responsible companies that put their customers and their employees first.  Consumers should seek them out and buy from those companies while avoiding the corporations who put their customers and their employees last.

It is a form of corporate behaviour modification and evolution.  The good companies thrive while the bad companies either change their ways or die. 

The same system applies to politicians and our day to day interactions with the people around us.  Encourage the good; discourage the bad.

We will never eradicate greed or malfeasance.  However, we can make them less acceptable traits within our culture.  We can say to the Kevin O'Leary's (a CBC pundit but they're all the same) of the world 'you're not only a rude pompous ass but you're wrong about what people want' and, you sir, do not deserve your pay cheque because of it' (and as I am a totalitarian, I would add 'off with his head' but my Canadian culture doesn't allow that anymore; being banished to the modern Unemployment Office is now punishment enough).

People, including my own parents, often mistake my position as anti consumerism it is not - even a socialistic society requires consumption to exist.  My position is all about responsibility; responsibility of both seller and buyer.

Corporations that persist in building a culture that exploits their workers, either through low wages or minimal work force, bite the hand that feeds them.  Without money in our pockets there is no consumption, without workers there is no consumer, without consumers there are no corporations.

Politicians that persist in ignoring the plight of the majority of people also cut off their noses in spite of their face.  A healthy, content nation is a safe haven for even the most incompetent politician; an unhealthy one is dangerous for both competent and incompetent alike.

Consumers who support either corporations or politicians that exploit them only end up hurting themselves for the exploiter only has one loyalty and that is too themselves; thus the downward spiral is created.

As a result of this interconnection we all have a responsibility to ensure each other's survival.  One can not exist without the other.

In my life experience I have seen the horse returned to the stable after it bolts and the door safely closed again.  It takes time and effort, maybe even a carrot and stick,  but it can be done if there is a will to do so.

LB

-------------------------------

It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another.
     Wall Street, 1987

I dispute your figures for the number of people killed by NATO bombing.  Most of the killing has been the two sides fighting each other on the ground.  Even there, some think the rebels are greatly inflating the numbers killed by Ghaddafi.  Sources, please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/africa/skirmishes-flare-around-q...

Libya Counts More Martyrs Than Bodies

September 16, 2011

The New York Times

By ROD NORDLAND

TRIPOLI, Libya — Where are all the dead?

Officially, according to Libya’s new leaders, their martyrs in the struggle against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi should number 30,000 to 50,000, not even counting their enemies who have fallen.

Yet in the country’s morgues, the war dead registered from both sides in each area so far are mostly in the hundreds, not the thousands. And those who are still missing total as few as 1,000, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Those figures may be incomplete, but even if the missing number proves to be three times as high, and all are dead, the toll would be far short of official casualty totals.

On Friday, anti-Qaddafi fighters attacked the two remaining strongholds of the loyalist forces, in the seaside city of Surt and the desert town of Bani Walid. Although both assaults were repulsed by determined resistance from the pro-Qaddafi forces, there can be little doubt that the war is in its final phases. And as it winds down, the question of how many died is taking on greater significance.

The death toll from the Libyan uprising is unarguably horrendous, even if it does not fit neatly into the former rebels’ narrative of a David-and-Goliath struggle against a bloodthirsty regime that slaughtered tens of thousands of the helpless and the innocent. It has also become a politically delicate issue, with some new government officials refusing to release hard statistics on casualties and human rights groups cautious about taking a definitive position.

The new authorities say the confirmed death toll will rise with the discovery of mass graves where the Qaddafi government hid its victims, both during its final months and as it collapsed and fled Tripoli and other population centers.

Mass graves of recent vintage have indeed been found — 13 of them confirmed by the Red Cross, or “about 20” found by the government, according to the Transitional National Council’s humanitarian coordinator, Muattez Aneizi. More are being found “nearly every day,” Mr. Aneizi said.

“Mass” is slightly misleading, however, because the largest actual grave site found so far, in the Nafusah Mountains of western Libya, had 34 bodies. In many of the others, the victims numbered only in the single digits. Many are not even graves, but rather containers or buildings where people were executed and their bodies left to rot.

The Red Cross counted only 125 dead from the 13 sites it confirmed, with 53 of those found in a hangar near Tripoli’s airport. While the rebels may not have died in the numbers their side has claimed, there is no doubt that many were killed, often horribly, after having been taken prisoner. As the Qaddafi government collapsed and its die-hards fled from Tripoli and other strongholds, such war crimes happened in many well-documented cases. They just did not happen in many thousands of cases, judging from the available evidence.

There has been no explanation of the basis for either the council’s tally of 30,000 to 50,000 dead, or the number preferred by the new government’s minister of health, Naji Barakat, a more modest 25,000 to 30,000.

At the Ministry of Health, Mohammed al-Ghazwi, who leads a newly formed Committee on the Dead, charged with confirming death tolls from the conflict, was reluctant to give any numbers out. “Every day we find another grave, so I can’t give you a specific number,” Mr. Ghazwi said. “But it’s about twenty-five to thirty thousand, like the minister of health said.”

Asked how many of those were based on documented cases of dead found so far, he said they were many fewer, but he could not give a number. “It’s very hard to tell the real number because during the Qaddafi time they hid all of them,” Mr. Ghazwi said.

In Tripoli, there are two morgues, but most victims who die violent deaths are taken to one of them, at Tripoli Central Hospital. There, according to Ali al-Kerdasi, a member of the hospital’s media committee, the dead since Aug. 25 totaled 700. Mr. Kerdasi said 600 people had been reported missing by relatives who came to the hospital to try to find them; 113 pictures of missing people are posted on the hospital’s emergency ward walls.

The figure of 700 dead may not have included all of those who died in the first days of the final battle for the city, from Aug. 20, when the main hospitals were in the hands of government forces for the first few days, and relatives may have buried some of the dead without taking them to the morgue as required by law.

At the site of the other morgue, at Tripoli Medical Center, Dr. Hossam Algedar, head of the center’s missing persons team, said he was not allowed to release information on the numbers of dead and missing. On the walls of that hospital, fliers show at least 127 missing people.

Bodies of people who have not yet been identified are shown, with their photos, on the team’s Facebook page; they total 52. Dr. Algedar said that was only a partial list.

Dr. Algedar does not hesitate to confirm the widely quoted figure of dead and missing. “Thirty to fifty thousand is a credible number,” he said. “The destination of the missing is a mystery.”

His view is shared by Dr. Othman el-Zentani, a forensic pathologist who has been put in charge of the National Council of the Missing, joining various ministries and international agencies like the Red Cross in an effort to rationalize the lists of missing.

The group has yet to have its first full meeting, but Dr. Zentani confidently predicted that the dead or missing might surpass 20,000. “Why not?” he said. “It’s a seven-month-long struggle, everywhere by all kinds of weapons, so I don’t doubt that.”

Everyone agrees that the toll, whatever it may be, would have been much higher if Colonel Qaddafi’s forces had held out in Tripoli for as long as people had feared. Instead, most victims there died from Aug. 20 to Aug. 26. “Tripoli has fallen in a few days; it was not a Beirut or a Gaza,” said Carole Pittet of the Red Cross.

The estimate of 1,000 missing by the Red Cross includes many migrant workers, Ms. Pittet said, and was gathered by field offices in Tripoli; Misurata, scene of the worst fighting; and Benghazi, where the revolution began.

Even in Benghazi, where fighting raged for weeks before NATO intervened to turn the tide against loyalists, casualties may not have been much higher than in Tripoli. According to Omar Babdous, head of tracing for the Red Crescent Society’s Benghazi office, 850 people were confirmed killed during the fighting in Benghazi and the area around it, while 1,350 are listed as missing.

In Misurata, a much smaller city than either Tripoli or Benghazi, the death toll was worse than anywhere else in Libya. Misurata’s authorities have identified 1,083 dead on all sides, according to Abu Bakr Triebe, the head of the Misurata Medical Bureau, with 2,000 believed missing.

The missing totals in those three largest places add up to far more (exceeding 3,500) than the Red Cross figure for the whole country, even though Red Cross teams were gathering data in those cities as well. But with no centralized system of reconciling missing reports, it is not possible to know how much duplication there is or how many initially were reported missing but then found. And many Libyans may just have not reported missing people to the Red Cross.

Sidney Kwiram, a representative of Human Rights Watch who has been in Libya for much of the conflict, said it was too early for any conclusions about the toll of missing and dead. Some of the missing may still be held by pro-Qaddafi forces inside Surt, where there is a military police detention center. Many rebels were buried by relatives and friends to avoid risking dangerous contact with the authorities. “In Tripoli, people even stopped taking their loved ones to the hospitals out of fear,” Ms. Kwiram said.

Much of the official death toll is based on the theory that there were 30,000 prisoners before the fall of the Qaddafi government, when prisons were all opened, and only 9,000 were found alive. The problem is, no one actually knows how many prisoners there were, and no one actually counted how many were released.

“The numbers you’re hearing in the press, they’re just basically guesses,” said Stefan Schmitt, a forensic anthropologist with Physicians for Human Rights, who was in Libya recently to advise the authorities on how to handle mass graves. “It’s too early to really know.”

Kareem Fahim contributed reporting from outside Bani Walid, Libya.

A question keeps running through my mind. The Americans, on one hand, are telling Government to get out of job creation but on the other hand, they want  the Government to fix the problem. How can they have it both ways?

somegal - There was a hugely successful UC group for girls. Canadian Girls in Training. It was founded in Toronto in 1917, I think. I don't know whether any of it still exists.

But it was the best conceived of all the youth group movements of its time (Boy Scouts, etc.) It was aimed at developing the girls' minds - not moulding them, as the Scouts tried to do.

It was the girls who decided what they wanted to do, and the girls who did the planning. The leader was simply a facilitator - which takes a good deal of skill. The trick is to keep the topics in a Christian context.

It was the girls who raised the questions - who discussed them - and who came up with understandings. The leader guided them - but did not set the goals.

You might try that with a sunday school class. I did it several years ago. We used one class to discuss topics in general, to look for some sort of focus. That gave me enough topics for weeks. In each class, the children spoke at least as much as I did.

It's harder than a top-down class. But I found it worked. Now, of course, this will depend on the age group. I had the senior class.

Graeme,

It warms my heart this sunny Sydney morning to read you speaking pleasantly to Somegal.

I understand that you are passionate about your politics - but there are too many folks out there who want to save the world and don't give a damn for an individual and his/her feelings..........

(Yes, I know I'm being patronising - but, hey, there's a lot of it here in Wondercafe, and I figure it's my turn.)

I would welcome yours - and indeed anyone's - thoughts on something I'm trying to get my old head around.

Re the modern world.....

Do we need to rethink the work ethic as the mainstay of life? We seem to be so wedded to this concept that I fear we're not adapting to present day reality.

It seems to me that globalisation, modernisation, robots, technology etc make full employment less and less viable.

If this is the case, how can we address this - and possibly come up with a different system?

As this is the Religion and Faith forum - it brings to mind the parable of the guy who employed the workers in his field for the same amount - regardless of how much work they actually did.

Those that did the most work grumbled - but the parable seemed to infer that they were wrong to think this way.

So, is it time to find something other than work as the mainstay of society?

If so, what?

Hi Pilgrims Progress,

I do not believe that the Protestant Work Ethic is as all powerful as is believed in this day and age.  I believe that the culture of entitlement has supplanted the notion of a call to work.

From a "for profit" perspective I think you are in the bull's eye.  

I wonder how many robots in the GM, Ford and Chrysler plants own and drive the cars that they make?  I suspect that modernization presupposes that the work force is far more fluid than it has proven to be and that workers down-sized by automation would automatically pick up employment elsewhere.  It probably also presumed that anyone working the line at Ford, GM or Chrysler who was let go because of automation would continue to remain loyal to their ex-employer and buy only that brand.

So long as corporations are profit driven it will be difficult to move the system to something more people friendly.  Unless it can be shown that people friendly is actually profit friendly.

A beautiful parable of the graciousness of God.

The parable states that those who grumbled were wrong to think that they were entitled to more than they had agreed to work for.

We are going to pay people not to work?  I don't think that is sustainable.  Part of the problem is the discrepancy between what those offering employment and those seeking employment  and what constitutes a fair wage.

Whenever a robot can be trained to do a living person's job then any for profit corporation will seek to reduce their living workforce.  Unfortunately creditors of the unemployed still think that those without jobs should still have to pay their bills.

The only thing that comes to mind is limit the size and scope of corporations.  I think free trade has also contributed to the problem.  I don't know how to close those barn doors now that the horses are long gone.

Presumeably new industry based on new ideas will increase employment opportunities and those who are into robotics will find ways to fill those new employment opportunities with machines that need an electric current and a shot of grease as a living wage.

Grace and peace to you.

John

[/quote]

If this quote is aimed at me, I suggest you take a look a Graeme's kinds words to me on the "Bushehr Reactor" thread.   He really cares about my feelings.

Actually, I don't care if he cares about my feelings.  I would just like to inject some facts into the discussion.   Many young people reading this would believe everything Graeme says.  I just asked for a source.  

Misleading young people is no service to anyone.   If he is correct, let him show his source, otherwise he should stop saying over and over about NATO killing 30,000 people.

Telling young people misleading things is one of the most destructive things anyone can do. 

Thanks for the ideas Seeler. Our youth group also does some wonderful social action-oriented activities. I was thinking of my Sunday School class (ages 8-10), which I only have for less than an hour/week and don't have a chance to take on field trips (except to the park across the street). One of the things we have done in the past was to make up toiletry bundles for the homeless. They are a very smart group of children and I do enjoy challenging them to think of ways to help others.

I think a new thread is a good idea - but I also  have no objection to the topic being derailed a bit.

I like the idea of work - but that does not necessarily mean employment for payment. I like the synagogue's emphasis on discussion, debate, and intellectual development.  I often think of Jesus in that context. That's work. Development of the mind and the spirit is work. I like activity whether physical or intellectual or spiritual. I think most people do.

In any case, the idea of an economy based on constant material development is not viable. We're watching it fall to pieces. Common sense should tell us that constant economic growth is not possible.

Nor would I worry about free trade getting in the way. Western capitalism was staunchly anti-free trade through most of its history. Free trade became the holy grail only in the 1970s. If things continue to go downhill, capitalism will jump back to trade protection. It's already being discussed in the US.

Right now, we're watching a collapse of both capitalism and democracy. The occupy wall street movement, agree with it or not, is a revolutionary movement. we're at the edge. we might move to greater equality and saner material expectations. Or we might move to a form of fascism backed up force. But it will, I think, be one or the other.

Neither democracy, in its present corrupt state, nor capitalism with its demand for eternal growth is viable.

EO I have not said NATO bombing has killed 30,000 people. I said I  have seen estimates of that. I also said one cannot bomb cities without killing large numbers of civilians. Nobody has ever done it. Given the admitted intensity of bombing and artillery fire on cities, something in the tens of thousands of dead civilians is not a wild accusation. I also said we will never get accurate figures.

somegal- you didn't thank me for my suggeston about CGIT. A little respect and gratitude, if you don't mind.

Graeme - I'm sorry I didn't notice your post. As a former CGIT member, I am quite familiar with the group (it actually started in 1915 with a great deal of help from the YWCA). Alas, they no longer exist in BC (I think they're still around in other parts of Canada). Anyhow, like I said in my post - my kids are younger than that (although I do ask what sorts of things they would like to do, social justice issues don't often cross their mind).

I assume your comment on respect was made tongue-in-cheek - otherwise I'm still awaiting an apology for your calling me "dumbgal."

Now listen carefully possums, I'm about to say something controversial......

Why all the sniping on this site?

Since when did it strengthen an argument to resort to name calling?

Keep it up and I'll send you to bed without any supper..........

"The parable states that those who grumbled were wrong to think that they were entitled to more than they had agreed to work for."
.
Something along the line of give us this day our daily bread. The new economy is radically egalitarian, rooted in the gracious gift of manna which each gathers as able and of which each receives a sufficient share, with not even the least deservimg left without a share proportionate to need.
.
Christian faith displaces any and all devotion to merit based ranking or favour.

graeme,

I tend to agree with you "the idea of an economy based on constant material development is not viable".

Thus, it seems to me, that full employment is also no longer viable.

But, to live an a workable society for all, sooner or later we'll have to consider giving a living income to those not engaged in working in  economic areas.

More and more we'll need thinkers, philosophers, theologians, artists, writers to help us adjust to our new world - and make us see it as a place of awe and wonder - not simply an economy.

When I spoke of the work ethic - I was thinking in Protestant terms of working for a wage or salary. But, there are so many other areas where one could "work" that aren't economy driven.

If there's to be unemployment in economic areas anyway, why not pay  some folks to find other areas of life to make a contribution?

RevJohn and Geo,

The minister at my church spoke of this parable recently.

He drew our attention to something about it that I hadn't noticed before.

He asked us to imagine the man selecting day labourers to work in his field.

Wasn't this like here in Oz when, as kids, we appointed two captains of a cricket team - and asked them to pick their teams from those assembled?

Who got selected first?

The most able players.

Who were left to the last?

The least able - often someone with a disability.

The minister went on to say that we're used to the Protestant work ethic, of those that worked the longest and the hardest, deserving a greater remuneration.

But, was this really fair?

Chances are that the least able were left standing around the longest - all the while anxious that they would return home empty-handed. If they had a disability, whether it be physical, psychological or intellectual, didn't that justify them being treated equally?

Seems to be Jesus was advocating what here in Oz we call "a fair go" for everyone.

The Wall Street sit-in seems to be advocating the same thing, IMO............

More ways than ever in the history of mankind. You are not in the group 'people'?

And you believe in that (un-named) poll? How many were polled? How large a majority?

And what relevance does that have to do with 'getting what they need to know'?

What do you consider ''very little news" ?  I hear about it every day, on line and on TV

It seems that you consider people ignorant/uninformed with yourself as a wondrous exception to your 'rule'.

Your stance becomes more and more unconvincing; perhaps it is due to your inability to distinguish discussion, and  proclamation. Answering questions as unnecessary, being questioned  as a springboard for insults.

I have never met anyone so self filled with instantaneous conviction.

There are dozens of reports! Google "Liba death tolls"

Lots of information -- with links.

'If I haven't heard about it - it doesn't exist' is an interesting stance.

You have a poll that convinces you of this ?

Don't bother to answer... you are the only person posting here who must be taken cum mago grano salis

I may be wrong but that isn't how I remember the story going.  The first lot of workers were hired and went to work.  Then another worker was hired and was offered the same sum.  The first lot was upset that the last worker received the same for what they perceived as less effort - to the employer the efforts were *all* viewed as equal in value.

Maybe that is the Oz Protestant work ethic, but it is not the Muskoka one.  Here, it isn't about who can put in the most time but who makes an effort and strives to do their best that is rewarded - that may be a pay increase,  a promotion or a pat on the head it doesn't really matter but effort and excellence are to be recognized and valued. .

I admit I have not seen this occur very often in the work place in quite some time so it may be a unique rural perspective.

I believe excellence and effort should be rewarded.

As one of those people that was always the *last* to be picked I understand the feeling of humiliation.  However there was a very good reason I was the last picked; I was absolutely horrible at sports.  No eye hand coordination whatsoever.  I knew I was not an asset to the team - I once nearly killed one of my team mates when the bat flew out of my hand and hit them in the head.  Frankly I shouldn't have been picked at all.  I knew that.  The Captain knew that.  My teammates knew that.  What we were denied was the opportunity to find a way to get me off the field.

All people should be treated equally but not all people are equally able to do the same things.  I have a disabled cousin, he'll never be a professional basketball player - although he can play wheelchair basketball - but he is a draughtsman and is paid for his effort. 

Which brings me to what I see as an overlooked aspect of the Protestant ethic and, IMO, the parable:  The concept of opportunity.  Opportunities should be available and individuals should be encouraged to seek them.  My disabled cousin was never told his disability was a barrier to *all* things, for example he didn't know he couldn't participate in snowmobile races so he did and won.  He wanted to motocross but he knew that he couldn't ride a traditional bike - so he modified the bike not himself.  He was able to do this because there was an opportunity to do it and he was provided that opportunity.

And this brings me to the last part of the parable - equal pay for equal value.  We have structured our society so that those who provide the least get the most and those who give the most get the least.   In my totalitarian world, the farmer would live like a king and the politician like today's farmer.  The office cleaner would be paid the same as the PR fixer.  There would not be this huge disparity between those that *do* the work and those that *profit* from that effort.

Exactly.

Despite what the media pundits are saying the Wall Street Occupiers are not asking for a free ride.  They are asking for an equal playing field.  Opportunities made available to everyone not just a select few.  They are asking that their hard work, their contributions be recognized and valued.  They are asking that those who through no effort on their own, or worse their incompetency and negligence, stop being rewarded and the rewards of the hard effort be equally distributed.

LB

--------------------------------

Three Rules of Work: Out of clutter find simplicity; From discord find harmony; In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.

     Albert Einstein

Hi Pilgrims Progress,

In all fairness I think the minister in question missed the point of the parable in spectacular fashion.  It sounds, at first blush, like he was dealing with his own issues and not issues present in the text.

That is a grossly unjust bit of reading into the text something which does not exist.  Those who were called first are those who were present in the village center when the landowner went looking for help.

That is more of the same gross injustice.  Those who were called last were those who were present in the village centre when the landowner went looking for help the last time.

Here is where that particular minister moves back to issues that are actually present in the text.  Those hired first see that those hired last are paid a days wages and they immediately leap to the conclusion that they are owed more.  It is the scandal of grace. The landowner puts things into a different perspective by making sure to remind those hired first that they are getting paid the agreed wage.  They are getting what they agreed to work for.  

The landowner then goes on to question what right those hired first have to limit the grace he showed to those hired last?  The parable is about the graciousness of God rather than equal work for equal pay.  Of course it is refreshingly disturbing to see that the culture of entitlement existed long before the present.  One hopes that confronting today's version of that particular culture with a similar smattering of grace would yield similar results.

It isn't about physical ability it is about readiness to respond.  All who were present when the invitation is given are rewarded equally.  All were promised a wage that was fair.  That the wage is proportionately bigger for those hired in the last hour is only a problem for the petty.  The landowner has the right to spend his money as he wishes and nobody can say that he cheated them because nobody was paid less than he promised.

Well, when you monkey with the premise as the minister has you invariably skew the response.  To be blunt the disabled have been the whole day at the city gate begging for alms.  Those hired last are those who frittered the day away and showed up at the employment office just shy of quitting time.

And again the parable is not about equal work for equal pay (that's entitlement thinking) it is about a master who calls and labourers who respond.  It is about getting paid what seems fair and our hubris in believing that we are the ones who get to decide what our labour is worth even though it is the master who is paying for our labours out of his own pocket.

Clearly, in Jesus' world, you could be cheated.  There is nothing in this parable that points to anyone getting a raw deal.  There are some people who are pissed off because they agreed to a days wage and now having worked as they agreed to suddenly think they are owed more.

There is an appeal to fairness in the occupation.  Part of that points to elements not present in the parable.  Ten years ago when the world economy was more stable there was still a disparity in the wages paid to CEO's and labourers.  At that time things were running in a system that was roughly stable.  My company did well and my wage would reflect that because my union could press for more when there was more money lying around.  Then Wall Street cooked up the idea that debt was actually credit.  They didn't go so far as to say to the common person that the red-ink on our credit statements was the new black and we were all suddenly richer than we thought.  That is in effect what they told themselves and, in the words of Douglas Adams, having convinced themselves that black was white they were promptly run over at the next zebra crossing.

So, Wall Street was spectacularly stupid and there were spectacular consequences because of it.

This is where things get surreal.

Having insisted on capitalism being the best way to go and thus ensuring that only investors get rewards the managers blow it big-time turning to socialism for a bail-out. "we're to big to fail" they lament and governments believed it so the bail-out happened. Somewhere somebody grumbled that Wall Street found somebody willing to toss them some grace when Wall Street is probably the least gracious element of Western society.

The grumbling turned to angry roars when the doofuses responsible for the economic collapse because of their stupidity still insisted on their ridiculous bonuses while they continued to tighten the screws on people in over their head because somebody screwed the economy.

The most compelling and applicable parable that Christ offers for this particular mess is the parable of the unmerciful servant and the Wall Street occupiers are most appropriately cast as the fellow servants who rush to the king when the unmerciful steward throws one of his colleagues into debtor's prison.  There are some scale problems in that there is more than one unmerciful servant, and much more than one servant being penalized for incurring considerably less debt.

What remains is to see if there is a King somewhere who is going to toss the unmerciful servant that Wall Street has become into the slammer until it can make good on its debt.  Sadly, no such King appears to be available.

Truth be told it isn't just Wall Street that is a problem.  it is one that is rightly getting more attention than it is comfortable with.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Sorry RevJohn, I took the time to look up the parable in Matthew.  It says that the man went out early in the morning to hire some men to work in his vineyard.   "Some men".  It doesn't say that he hired everyone.  He hired 'some men'.  It is not hard to imagine that he choose the minimum number he thought he would need, and that he choose those who appeared most capable.  He miscalculated.   Before long it became evident that he needed more.  So he went out again to the marketplace (ah - the marketplace, my understanding is that the marketplace in that time was where people gathered - those looking for work, those looking for labourers).   And he hired a few more - presumably, again he looked for the best among those still there.   But probably not all of them.  He's still trying to get by with the minimum.   Some are left behind.  

Again he has miscalculated.  By noon, and again at three oclock, he goes out looking for workers and brings back whoever he can find who still might be able to contribute significantly to the harvest.   But by five oclock he is getting desperate.  It will soon be dark and the weather is threatening.  He goes down to the marketplace again and finds a few still there.  He accuses them of laziness - of sitting around doing nothing all day.  But I think the truth lies in their answer:   "No one hired us."   No one wanted us.  No one thought we could put in a good day's work - because we are too old, too young, too handicapped, to be of much value.  And in a society where a day's wages meant the difference between a day's meal, they are facing going to bed hungry tonight.  

But now, in the 9th hour, he offers them a couple of hours work.   Can you imagine their joy and surprise.  After standing around all day.  Perhaps approaching land-owner after land-owner  "Do you have any work that I could do?"   Perhaps offering to help a stall holder with her merchandise in exchange for a bruised tomato.   Now they have an opportunity to do some real work.  Finally they have been chosen.

Hi seeler,

I'm not sure why you think you need to apologize for that.

Nor does the parable indicate that the man is obligated to hire everyone let alone anyone.  

No, in fact, I'm confident that Jesus would say that was a shrewd use of his money if that is the case.  It is his money and he is free to decide how he spends it.

The point of the parable is not that people discovered at the last minute are equally worthy.

The point of the parable is not that people who have put in the most effort deserve the bigger wage.

The point of the parable is that the owner can do what he likes with his money and that his paying a labourer the equivalent of a days wage for an hours work is pure gift by the owner.

It destroys a merit based economy.  Which is what equal pay for equal work seeks to establish.  The grumblers in the vineyard aren't upset to see someone with a disability get the same as them (that is one of many ways we read into the text) they are upset that someone who has worked an hour gets the same wage as they for the day.

The point that Jesus makes through the vineyard is that in the Kingdom of Heaven all who respond to the invitation to work, no matter how late in the day they might receive that invitation, can be certain of getting the same reward.

As to the charge that he called them lazy I think the evidence of the parable refutes that particular reading.  Why would he reward someone with a days worth of wages if he was disgusted with them for not being able to find work until he showed up so late in the day?

The text provides no clue for the tone of voice.  We provide that and the tone we assign probably tells us more about ourselves than it does what the landowner thinks.

And it isn't just those at the end who get paid the daily wage it is all of those who were hired after the first round.  We only know how those who laboured from the begginning of the day feel about the fact that they didn't get more than anyone else.  We don't know if the guys hired at noon complained just as loudly or if they considered their good fortune and high-tailed it before the land-owner could reconsider his generosity.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thank you for defending me against somegal, pilgrim's progress. I'm sure it's not her fault that she attacks old people and Christians.

I think there may be a CGIT group left in Toronto. the last one in Montreal died some ten years ago.

But it's a related suggestion I made to somegal that I thought could be useful. I did it with 11 and 12 year olds.  somegal, what age group are you working with? It might be possible to come up with adaptations all the way to age six. (I've been thinking of one - reading a short story rooted in today's world, and encouraging them to discuss it in a Christian context. You could even use a newspaper clipping.)

If they're younger than that, pretty well all you can do is give them a six pack, and let them have fun with a burping contest.

If they're Catholic, the beer can be used for religious instruction by playing an old drinking game. People go around the table naming ranks in the church hierarchy, from priest to pope. Anyone who makes a mistake or who pauses for more than a second or so has to empty his/her glass in one swallow.

In my hearing the parable resonates deeply with the gift of manna in the wilderness. Every day the stuff appeared and the people gathered.

That gathering provided daily bread for each and all (which we affirm by our recitation of the Lord's prayer). None had more than required and none had less. Though the narrative does not notice this, it does seem possible that some with greater gathering capacity grumbled concerning the fair share distributed to those with lesser gathering capacity.

Behind the justification of unequal shares stands the offer early on in the garden - "You shall be as Gods." History offers ample example of the desire for prominence and preeminence manifest as conspicuous consumption.

In our own day many feel justified in the indulgence of hedonistic appetite while around them their "own kin" languish and perish for lack of the basic substance required for life.

Woe to us when we implicitly or explicitly permit the justification of capitalizing principles by biblical interpretation rendering Christ as anti-Christ.

By capitalizing I mean the taking of advantage by resort to superior capacity in the interest of profit, power and pride.

As a capitalist I see the vulnerability of others as opportunity for the advancement of my own interest rather than the opportunity for making manifest the generosity of God which knows no boundary of exclusion, as revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Bottom line on my end?

The parables of Jesus are radically subversive of status quo, now as then. Were we to take them as light for our feet there would be a strong reaction from those powers and principalities which are well served by said status quo.

How about this parable?

"A young salesperson was disappointed. He had lost an important sale. In discussing the matter with the sales manager, the young man shrugged, "I guess it just proves you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." 

"Son, said the sales manager, let me give you a piece of advice: your job is to not make him drink. It's to make him thirsty"

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness" in a world which presses us each and all to hunger and thirst for stuff.

LOL - when exactly did I do that???

As I said in an earlier post, they are ages 8-10.

LOL - I like that one! Alas, I go to a United Church. Only locally-brewed, organic, fair-trade beer allowed though - right???

Don't exclude older folks. Less destructive, but still ...uh....bad (for lack of a better word) 

Really enjoy yer posts....

Seeler,

For what it's worth, my understanding of the parable mirrors yours......

Rev John, Geo,

Perhaps one of the reasons Jesus spoke in parables was because they are sufficiently obscure enough for us ALL to (perhaps unconsciously) interpret them through our own lens? Thus, we see say, the trunk of the elephant at first - but the parable suggests that there is more to know - and one day we may see the elephant in it's entirety.

LB,

Effort should always be rewarded - but I have a problem with "excellence".

It's a myth to say we live on a level playing field - a belief in excellence can, and  sometimes does, lead to elitism and arrogance.

Humility is a lesson we need to experience, IMO.

Unlike your good self I was good at most sports and made the school teams.

But, I was hopeless at balance sports and could never manage to ride a bike without wobbling all over the place. It was a valuable lesson - although I was good at some sports I was hopeless at others.

If we confine ourselves to areas where we excel it can become a breeding ground for elitism. Best to occasionally dip our toes in situations where we make a hash of things - reminds us that, like everyone else, we have our areas of weakness...............

waterfall,

I like your parable.

(Although, like all good parables, I'll return to it with more consideration).

I did no such thing, as you very well know.

But, just to spell it out for you - I, unlike you, have met Somegal.

She happens to be an intelligent young woman.

Pilgrim....
.
A wee word sitting in a downtown cafe.
.
You have it about right. We may call to mind Jacob wrestling with the angel - "I will not let you go until you bless me."
.
This where creed and doctrine may trip up our best hope. They have seemed to crystalize the gospel and thereby render domestic the radical freedom of God given in living presence of the holy spirit - love moving in and through us.
.
Thanks for the notice and affirmation of our diverse presence here!

Eight to ten? perfect.

read them a very short story. VERY short. Or a news clipping that's a simple one. It should be a familiar and local and current as possible (though if local, it should stay away from real people).

Get them going on a discussion of how Jesus would deal with such a situation. (you might even want to have a Bible verse or two on hand.)

You could read it to them, then assign it for discussiono the following Sunday. that might spur a bit of thinking.

You might also want to select the story with a Bible reading in mind. Perhaps let them know both in advance.

PP  If somegal is really so nice and intelligent, why do you have to protect me from her abusiveness?

I get so frightened and confused.

Eight to ten? perfect.

read them a very short story. VERY short. Or a news clipping that's a simple one. It should be a familiar and local and current as possible (though if local, it should stay away from real people).

Get them going on a discussion of how Jesus would deal with such a situation. (you might even want to have a Bible verse or two on hand.)

You could read it to them, then assign it for discussiono the following Sunday. that might spur a bit of thinking.

You might also want to select the story with a Bible reading in mind. Perhaps let them know both in advance.

PP  If somegal is really so nice and intelligent, why do you have to protect me from her abusiveness?

I get so frightened and confused.

Eight to ten? perfect.

read them a very short story. VERY short. Or a news clipping that's a simple one. It should be a familiar and local and current as possible (though if local, it should stay away from real people).

Get them going on a discussion of how Jesus would deal with such a situation. (you might even want to have a Bible verse or two on hand.)

You could read it to them, then assign it for discussiono the following Sunday. that might spur a bit of thinking.

You might also want to select the story with a Bible reading in mind. Perhaps let them know both in advance.

PP  If somegal is really so nice and intelligent, why do you have to protect me from her abusiveness?

I get so frightened and confused.

Eight to ten? perfect.

read them a very short story. VERY short. Or a news clipping that's a simple one. It should be a familiar and local and current as possible (though if local, it should stay away from real people).

Get them going on a discussion of how Jesus would deal with such a situation. (you might even want to have a Bible verse or two on hand.)

You could read it to them, then assign it for discussiono the following Sunday. that might spur a bit of thinking.

You might also want to select the story with a Bible reading in mind. Perhaps let them know both in advance.

PP  If somegal is really so nice and intelligent, why do you have to protect me from her abusiveness?

I get so frightened and confused.

Hi Pilgrims Progress,

That strikes me as a rather risky way to try and get a point across and if all interpretations are essentially valid there would be no grounds to challenge any interpretation at all.

Having said that I do believe that the parables are not meant to ossify our faith into rigid patterns.  They provide structures upon which we can build and points that are not present in the original telling can be extrapolated, provided of course, that we remember we are extrapolating and not discovering a secret meaning.

Jesus said nothing about nuclear power.  He did say enough about love of neighbour for us to conclude that cobalt therapy is something Jesus would probably support and atomic bombs are probably something Jesus would probably not support.

The function of the parable was to teach us something more about what the kingdom of God was like and God, is played by the owner of the vineyard.  The parable shows us that God is constantly looking for folk to work in the vineyard and all who agree to do that work, receive the same reward no matter how many hours that they actually put on the clock.

The labourers see that as inherently unfair and they give their reasons and those reasons are not petty.  I'd be embarrassed to receive a days wages for an hour of work, I'd suspect that a mistake was made and I'd attempt to correct it.  Primarily because if it was a mistake and I said nothing then my reputation for honesty takes a thumping.  Not an unhealthy bit of pride.

If my employer insists then I'll take a days worth of wages and I'll make sure I tell everyone about how generous that employer is.  What's more, that is the kind of employer I want to work for in the future and if I am fortunate enough to get picked up next season I'll be sure to work that much harder.

I've been in the position of the labourers who worked through the heat of the day.  Taking on new help with an hour left has never provided me with reason to grumble about my pay.  It isn't always easy to integrate somebody into the routine and if I'm trying to close out the day and I have to spend time teaching somebody how to start the task then there can be some resentment.  It is primarily a pride thing, I have to interrupt "my" work to train this guy when we are going to quit.  Can't we just give him a broom and have him sweep up?  This is where pride gets the better of me, I somehow think the work I am doing is more important than the work my employer has asked me to complete.

The parable isn't about how long any of us actually work it is about our resentment in the face of our employers grace or beyond the parable.  It is about how we feel about a God who operates an economy based on grace rather than one based on merit.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Graeme - thanks for the suggestion. I will give it some thought.

Pilgrims - thanks for the compliment! I really enjoyed hanging out with you and I wish you didn't live so far away!

Graeme,

I agree with you, you are confused, as evidenced by posting four times .

As to being frightened. Perhaps if you can bring yourself to admit that, just maybe, you - like all of us - can make a mistake, you won't be in a position of always having to defend yourself from yourself? 

God love ya, John - if scientists wish to locate the opposition gene(s) I suggest they go no further than studying you............

I didn't say that all interpretations are valid.

I'll attempt to clarify what I mean........

A parable has to initially attract us to enable us to consider it.

We all walk around with "ways of seeing the world" in our heads. (called "constructs" by psychologists).

Now a parable is sufficiently vague to allow room for interpretation. Initially, we read it and apply our own construct. That's the hook that drags us in - we all feel comfortable with "hearing' something that we think confirms our interpretation - even I might add, if the interpretation is negative. (We all like to be right!)

Then, precisely because a parable is vague, we can through hearing the interpretations of others, make shifts away from our initial constructs.

Initially, I wasn't keen on this parable. My first thought, being raised on the Protestant Work Ethic was" but that's not fair".

I agree with you that it is meant as an illustration of God's Kingdom - so I was pleased to hear an interpretation that reconciled these two seeming opposing positions that existed in my mind.

Life is a process - and I believe that God, through events,  ideas,and relationships with other people, gives us further opportunities to become all that we can be.

We can say "I understand all there is to know", or we can choose to keep an open mind................

An important aspect of the parable is its focus on spiritual comparisons as a sure-fire way of alienatiing God with pride.  Similarly, Paul does not think of himself as "spiritually mature" and speaks sarcastically of Philippian Christians who do.  We must all view ourselves as works in progress.  Once we presume to compare ourselves to others and, in effect, grade ourselves, we already wander from a grace-based life into the ugly realm of pride.  In the parable, all the workers received that standard day's wage, and thus had no right to complain about injustice.  The frustrated wannabe workers who spent the day in the hot sun loitering around the market place were not to blame for not being chosen early.  God judges us not by what we actually do, but by what we would do, given the chance to serve. 

Those who worked only late in the day were not told what their wages would be.  They were no doubt afraid to ask!  So they had no sense of entitlement--a real grace killer!  They would be more grateful than those who bore the burnt of the sun and worked all day.  Christianity is a religion of grace; it's most basic virtue is gratitude, not love, because Christian love must be an expression of gratitude for God's grace. 

Thank you happy genius. I am totally stunned. But you must the only person on the site who likes anything I write so I am packing it in.

Many (not all, but far too many) people do not want facts.  They do not want their pre-conceived prejudices challenged.  And Pilgrim, she is just one of those people who is so kind and good she cannot bear to contemplate evil.

That can be very very dangerous, even though it initially seems like an appealing trait,

Full agreement with a request for brief elaboration on what "rewarded" signifies from your perspective in the gathered circle. What is the reward of excellence and effort?

Went back to read the thread through one more time. Found this....

Here, it isn't about who can put in the most time but who makes an effort and strives to do their best that is rewarded - that may be a pay increase,  a promotion or a pat on the head it doesn't really matter but effort and excellence are to be recognized and valued. 

.... and discovered that I had the answer in hand. So.... complete agreement!

PP - I'm frightened because people bully me. Now I have two of them, not naming any names, just shrugging my shoulder in their far distant directions.

what is excellent? Is it getting bailout from the govermemt to save your bank? Is it the door greeter at Walmart who has never missed a day?

What is effort? Is it signing papers in an office? buying politicians? Working in a mine?

And I quite agree with geofee on the reward. The reward is thanks, respect from others, and self-respect.

Bersek, I agree with much of what you say here - but your last sentence is a bit of a worry.

It makes me nervous when anyone claims to know the mind of God - that's a big call!

Who is this Pilgrim?  I don't believe I know her.

EO, just to clarify - I don't believe in evil people, but I do think we're all capable - and do -  miss the mark.

And, there are those whose acts are so horrific  that I would describe them as perpetrating evil acts.

But, as a Christian - I believe there is always the possibility of redemption - so, IMO. it's incorrect to say there are evil people - just evil acts.

Bummer!  (Oz for "sheesh")

It turns out to be a back-handed compliment.

Tangent alert!!!

Geo,

Were you having coffee with LB?

Those little dots look familiar..........

Another tangent -

It's mental health month here in Oz - and I was asked to contribute an article in our church magazine. Thanks to you and your wife's interest I wrote about the nurse that helped with my recovery.

(EO)

 But you must the only person on the site who likes anything I write so I am packing it in.

----------------

No no no no no! Pul-eeze! Don't!

I am certainly not 'the only one' by a long shot.

Your infusion of factual material is often drops of Tabasco on an otherwise dull hamburger.

 (I should reply more, rather than just nodding my head in agreement)

Graeme - I'm hurt!    Only two people bullying you????    And you consider Somegal's posts asking about your work with youth, and Pilgrim's asking everybody to play nice as Bullying?    What about my posts?    If you consider Somegal and Pilgrim to be bullies, what about me?

Hi Pilgrims Progress,

Thank you kindly.

I don't think its an opposition gene so much as some Scots ancestry.  And no, I have not been diagnosed with ODD.  Primarily because one doesn't need to be an authority of any kind for me to oppose them and I fail at being excessively and persistently angry.

I didn't say that you said that.  The analogy you gave, and it is one I agree with, presumes that everybody is looking at the same thing.  While it is true that all are looking at the same parable it is not at all clear that everyone sees what the parable says.

There will be various interpretations which is to be expected.

There will also be inventions.  I'm not anti-invention though I approach all invention with caution.  Successful invention is statistically rare enough to be considered accident.  While I am sympathetic to the inventions which turn a parable of grace into one of inclusion and merit I'm stymied as to why grace alone is insufficient?

Agreed.  See I'm not unreasonably oppositional.

Ummm.  Constructs are ideal objects like centre of mass.  You appear to be pointing at worldview when you talk about ways of seeing the world.  Unless I am missing your point.

I follow your point.  I think you have confused the psychological application of construct with the philosophical application of worldview.  I am not sure that I agree with your premise.  I think the actual hook is the commonality of the premise of the parable, it is an everyday event, and then a twist of sorts.

I mean what kind of employer pays a labourer a daily wage for one hour of effort?  That doesn't sound very usual does it?

I don't think that vagueness on the parables behalf opens us to hearing others.  I think that openness is a function of our own character. 

Mindful that you find my style taxing I'll refrain from further parsing of your post.  All things considered I don't think our respective thoughts on this particular parable are vastly different.  I don't completely reject the worthiness of the other perspectives.  I simply don't believe that they are anything other than a forced fit and that forced fit is introducing a point/agenda which was not on Jesus' mind.

I'm not saying that those agendas or points are antithetical to Jesus' teaching.  By no means am I saying that.  When the scope of the parable is so narrowly set, when God's natural graciousness is reduced to grace for a specific few no matter how sympathetic we are to those few we are moving back to a merit based economy of salvation and even if we turn the economy upside down we are still trapped in a system based on points where there are clear winners and clear losers and we can see with even more clarity what separates the two.  I won't buy into interpretations that go that far.

That doesn't mean I won't be sympathetic.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Make no mistake, I do not believe there is a level playing field; I do believe in equal opportunities, there is a profound difference between the two.  All corruption of belief will lead to elitism and arrogance, the idea of excellence is no different.  How excellence is perceived depends on what one defines as excellent and whether one sees it as an end result or a continuing goal.

And I experience it daily - one can not work with one's elders and not be humbled on a regular basis.  I witness their excellence in frail bodies but strong minds or conversely frail minds in strong bodies.  My struggles pale against their superiority to face the hurdles of life and still move forward.

I have been blessed all my life to meet and know people that some label as "disabled".  I watched them struggle not only with their own limitations but the limitations that others put upon them.  These strong courageous people taught me two lessons: no one is disabled; we are all disabled.  Secondly, without the opportunity and recognition to discover, experience and be rewarded for our unique strengths those strengths will wither.

The other lesson taught by these people who overcome "disability" is that the reward is not something as finite as financial gain, fame and glory.  The reward is life.  A life full of the riches of discovery of new things, new strengths, new excellencies.

And I was an abject failure at riding a bike and learning to water ski - but I am an excellent driver of both car and boat.  

I could have spent my time banging my head against either pavement or water, or recognized that I had a limitation (I later learned it was a physical limitation) and move forward to discover a personal strength that I could use to bring enjoyment to both my self and others - my boat skills were greatly appreciated by those with superior skiing skills btw, and I was always First Choice in that particular realm

I am afraid I continue to disagree.  I do not have a problem with failure and I believe that only through making mistakes does one truly learn.  However discovering what we excel at is what makes us confident.  Persisting or being forced into things that are beyond our skill sets destroys our confidence.

Elitism only arises when one group wishes to exclude another group not because of real ability but on preconceptions about what it takes to become excellent.  Excellence is available to all and all deserve the opportunity to experience and be recognized for it.

LB....

who must now dash to work or face the consequences of my lack of time management skill, thankfully I'm a good driver ;-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am more awed by those who struggle to make one small difference.
      Ellen Goodman