Slogan/motto:
Love those you hate so much you would die for them.
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracked
The gov. is the only advocate that the disenfranchised has--as corrupted as it may or may not be. Lacking any other support, the jobless will always capitulate to the whim of the job provider when push comes to shove... always.
The gov. is not the only advocate these people have. In fact, the government is why these people are disenfranchised in the first place. Government welfare keeps poor people poor, and takes their motivation for bettering themselves away, not only by handing them money for nothing, but also by taking it away if they go make some for themselves if the money they make for themselves reaches a certain point, which might sound good until you learn that the amount is so small that these people would make less at that point than if they never get a job and just stay on gov. assistance. And they don't just take it all away at a certain point, they begin to take it away a little at a time after a certain point and they take away two dollars for every dollar a person makes over a certain amount, thus keeping them poorer than if they don't earn anything.
Why waste my time? You've already shown that you refuse to understand.
LH: if you understand the scriptures better than I do, then you should feel obliged to supply for my defect.
When a Man Lies He Murders
Some Part of the World
These Are the Pale Deaths Which
Men Miscall Their Lives
All this I Cannot Bear
to Witness Any Longer
Cannot the Kingdom of Salvation
Take Me Home
No I understand what you are saying I am saying it is bogus...
Your belief that the "Conservatives" would have paid them less is bogus.
Note that at no point in this thread did I assert this. My claim is not that conservatives would have paid less than the daily wage. Perhaps this is true, but it has no bearing whatsoever on my argument.
What I am concerned with is the following:
Quote:
The conservative view is that TWO people can agree to what ever wage they want. They agreed before the wage was given read the story.
You can't derive this view from the parable. As a matter of fact, the "two people" did not "agree to what ever wage they want." They agreed to the wage which was pretty much the common daily wage for a common laborer.
And, expounding on a point that I made earlier and a point that Morpheus made earlier, note that this means two things:
1. It means that they weren't paid less than standard.
2. It also means that they weren't paid more than standard.
They got exactly a day's wages.
Quote:
Your whole premiss is skewed by your ignorance of the Conservative position. Only the liberals would try to get out of paying what they had previously agreed on or want more than agreed on.
You've misunderstood me. My point is simple: in order to show that the wages are justified arbitrarily by the agreement of the two parties, it would have had to have been the case that the agreement actually rendered a price which was either above or below standard. But this isn't the case.
The workers were paid neither more nor less than the fair and just price.
This is not to say, of course, that the parable rules out the conservative interpretation. That's a stronger claim, and I'm not entirely sure I want to assert it. But you can't derive the conservative interpretation from this parable.
Quote:
And it was his money, if he wanted, as you see from the others in the story, he says I will pay you what ever is right if it is about grace then their would have been NO work involved... Since grace in unmerited favor and they merited the wage... Grace is a free gift not an overpayment for something that you did...
As a matter of fact, there was unmerited favor in the parable. Note that unmerited favor and generosity go hand and hand. If you are generous, you pay more than what is merited. If it's beyond what's merited, then it's unmerited. If I owe you 5 dollars, but I give you 10, then 5 of those dollars were unmerited. It was a free gift on my part.
In any case, this notion that no work at all is involved on our part in the work of redemption is a Protestant innovation.
When a Man Lies He Murders
Some Part of the World
These Are the Pale Deaths Which
Men Miscall Their Lives
All this I Cannot Bear
to Witness Any Longer
Cannot the Kingdom of Salvation
Take Me Home
You can't derive this view from the parable. As a matter of fact, the "two people" did not "agree to what ever wage they want." They agreed to the wage which was pretty much the common daily wage for a common laborer.
Your kidding right?
They didn't agree on what ever wage they wanted? Really you will have to prove that using scripture. Since the story says Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
Couldn't the laborers have said that they wanted two? Of course they could have. Your assumption is that they couldn't have. Or the landowner could have said I am only willing to pay a half a denarius and they could have said no way. But the story says that Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. which shows that there was a negotiation for their labor.
Quote:
And, expounding on a point that I made earlier and a point that Morpheus made earlier, note that this means two things:
1. It means that they weren't paid less than standard.
2. It also means that they weren't paid more than standard.
They got exactly a day's wages.
You really can't understand this can you? You keep coming up with this a "days wage" stuff, some made up standard you seem to think existed. I am pretty sure they didn't have a minimum wage law. Which is what you think this story advocates for. Yet you keep injecting it into this story. The workers were setting the wages. They determined what their time and effort was worth as the story says. What is that based on? The economic forces that was prevailing for their survival and meeting their needs for food and shelter.
It is the free market...
Quote:
You've misunderstood me. My point is simple: in order to show that the wages are justified arbitrarily by the agreement of the two parties, it would have had to have been the case that the agreement actually rendered a price which was either above or below standard. But this isn't the case.
Once again you have this made up minimum wage concept in your mind clouding your thinking.
Quote:
The workers were paid neither more nor less than the fair and just price.
The original workers were paid exactly what they agreed to.. The others their was NO set wage it was just "what ever is right". So what you are arguing for is that being paid more than what is right is wrong?
Quote:
This is not to say, of course, that the parable rules out the conservative interpretation. That's a stronger claim, and I'm not entirely sure I want to assert it. But you can't derive the conservative interpretation from this parable.
Yes I can and have...
Quote:
As a matter of fact, there was unmerited favor in the parable. Note that unmerited favor and generosity go hand and hand. If you are generous, you pay more than what is merited. If it's beyond what's merited, then it's unmerited. If I owe you 5 dollars, but I give you 10, then 5 of those dollars were unmerited. It was a free gift on my part.
In any case, this notion that no work at all is involved on our part in the work of redemption is a Protestant innovation.
No the notion that no work is involved is a biblical one that the Catholics suppressed to keep the masses in chains and bondage to sin always needing the "Church" for redemption.
For a man is justified by faith and not of works lest any man should boast.
No. He paid them the actual fair rate, in the sense of paying them the standard pay for a day's work.
You cannot delineate from the text whether "fair" means "agreed upon" or "the standard pay for a day's work".
However, even if it does mean "the standard pay for a day's work", I hardly see this as an argument for an increase in the minimum wage. It seems more fitting for an argument for the status quo, or the market wage as the so-called "standard".
LH: if you understand the scriptures better than I do, then you should feel obliged to supply for my defect.
Well, first off while you're right about why they were complaining but you seemed to have missed the part wherein the passage shows they were wrong to complain.
Also, minimum wage causes price increases leading to a cost of living increase, thus it is a vicious cycle of never being enough money.
Also minimum wage keeps employers from being able to pay hard workers more money than lazy workers, thus the employer can't abide by the principle of the passage and pay their employees whatever they want to. With minimum wage there is no way the story could happen today. Someone who has been pounding the pavement looking for work to the best of their ability only to find some within the last hour of availability can not be paid as much as those who have been there all day.
And those are just some of the problems with minimum wage; we haven't even touched on the other things you want.
P.S.
I want to commend you for not being a coward and running away from the discussion simply because I called you an insulting name. The people who do that will never learn. I know I wouldn't believe many things I do today if I had ignored people for such things. Maybe you're not as ignorant as I thought.
Well, first off while you're right about why they were complaining but you seemed to have missed the part wherein the passage shows they were wrong to complain.
Also, minimum wage causes price increases leading to a cost of living increase, thus it is a vicious cycle of never being enough money.
Also minimum wage keeps employers from being able to pay hard workers more money than lazy workers, thus the employer can't abide by the principle of the passage and pay their employees whatever they want to. With minimum wage there is no way the story could happen today. Someone who has been pounding the pavement looking for work to the best of their ability only to find some within the last hour of availability can not be paid as much as those who have been there all day.
And those are just some of the problems with minimum wage; we haven't even touched on the other things you want.
P.S.
I want to commend you for not being a coward and running away from the discussion simply because I called you an insulting name. The people who do that will never learn. I know I wouldn't believe many things I do today if I had ignored people for such things. Maybe you're not as ignorant as I thought.
Thats because respectful adults dont call people insulting names, it adds no value and an individuals use of such antics implys that they themselves add no value and should be completely dismissed as their opinions are largely meaningless.
Thats because respectful adults dont call people insulting names, it adds no value and an individuals use of such antics implys that they themselves add no value and should be completely dismissed as their opinions are largely meaningless.
If I am disrespectful to someone it's because I don't respect them, and if I don't respect them it's because they don't deserve my respect.
If I am disrespectful to someone it's because I don't respect them, and if I don't respect them it's because they don't deserve my respect.
And we care why? However making certian rude comments is against forum rules, just like how other congress members may not respect each other there are still rules or order.
And we care why? However making certian rude comments is against forum rules, just like how other congress members may not respect each other there are still rules or order.
And we care why? However making certian rude comments is against forum rules, just like how other congress members may not respect each other there are still rules or order.
What does that have to do with breaking the rules? Obviously -
Its like that with any forum, there are forum owners and the forum owners friends and everyone else. Forum owner or not though, if you make rude remarks or name call then your credibility will go right down the toilet and you wont be able to have a lagit discussion, you will basicly be a sanctioned troll. In a call to order where roberts rules of order are followed then you dont have clowns making rude statements before quickly getting shut down such as in congress etc. The only way for a sanctioned trouble maker to get the boot is when they do something so outlandish that they create a liability to the site owners, like if they said something that had legal implications that threatened the forum otherwise they will be allowed to show their rear end.
Its like the buisness owners kid who adds no real value to the operation but is the owners kid, of course if the owner is prudent he will cut off his kid when the kid presents too much of a liability, if the kid has even a small amount of intellegence they can get away with their hattery without crossing the line into becomming a libility that would warrent the boot. Of course if their hattery is causing high turn over and costing the company money they may get the boot anyways.
Last edited by highlife; June 24th, 2012 at 01:16 AM.
Linear Mode
