From: someone@anywheret.net   
      
   "JimD"  wrote in message news:2018073123045720282-email@nowherecom...   
      
   > Wow.  I'll have to go back and read that again. Apparently the parable was   
   > at all as I was taught as a child. Even down to the lesson implied.   
      
   It's quite a stumblingblock to those whose minds are closed to anything but   
   an Atheistic quid pro quo 'earning', 'money' 'economy. And it does require a   
   genuine mental adjustment to understand it.   
      
   When I first saw Matthew 20:1 - 16, it knocked me for a loop - because some   
   of the Filthy, Fallen, Satanic world's Brainwashing still remained to be   
   removed from my mind and I 'naturally' assumed that UnGodly parameters were   
   being applied, which of course, they really weren't. So I saw the matter as   
   so very many do, as a tale of Injustice...until I saw the Right parameters -   
   then it made Perfect, Godly Sense!!!   
      
   I even came with with my own analogy (I'll Always reserve the term "parable"   
   for the examples taught by Jesus exclusively) to show a protraction of   
   Matthew 20:1 - 16 that others may more fully comprehend and appreciate the   
   situation.   
      
   In this analogy, two friends, one of which has just obtained a new extremely   
   high gas mileage car, meet after the car's owner has driven it 100 miles and   
   is boasting its gas mileage as regularly being 50 mpg - probably has a 1   
   liter engine ;).   
   The driver picks up the other friend so they can both travel to a   
   destination 1000 miles distant, which means going to the  local gas station   
   first to take on fuel.   
      
   But when the friend discovers that the driver has only put 2 gallons of  gas   
   into the  tank, the freaking out begins, and Jesus's parable is given as an   
   example of something that  can't possibly work, as in - just because a   
   worker who worked for only an hour was paid as much as others who worked   
   longer, and some even worked the entire day, doesn't mean that a car that   
   went 100 miles on 2 gallons of gas will also go 1000 miles on 2 more   
   gallons. Obviously the car owner's friend is trying to show how unjust it is   
   to pay a worker who works for only 1 hour as much as one who works an entire   
   12 hour day...and his horrified that the driver only put 2 gallons in the   
   tank, which will only get the car 100 miles away before it runs out of gas -   
   800 miles from the intended destination.   
   Still the driver is clearly not worried at all, which freaks out the friend   
   even more. But when the  friend makes one last appeal to 'logic' in stating   
   that no vehicle can travel 10 times the distance on the same fuel, or go the   
   same distance for only 1/10th the fuel, the  driver calmly explains that the   
   2 gallons just put in the tank was only to top it off - because the car had   
   already been filled up before going the previous 100 miles - with 20 gallons   
   of gas and since it used 2 of those gallons to go 100 miles, and now   
   contained 18 gallons, only need 2 gallons to return it to its previous   
   capacity!   
      
   The message: There was never a fuel problem because the driver had already   
   prepared for the long trip beforehand and having used 2 of those 20 gallons   
   to go the previous 100 miles, had merely replenished the 2 gallons to once   
   again have enough fuel for the trip.   
      
   God does precisely the same thing, He *gives* what's needed, or as Genesis   
   22:8 so powerfully puts it:   
      
   GOD WILL PROVIDE!!!   
      
   > Don't know what they got paid. Do know there were a LOT of horns on that   
   > stage :-)   
      
   I don't know how much gigs pay in Mexico.   
      
   > dunno. you didn't leave the text I was replaying to.  so who knows.   
      
   It was about my comment on 'spare' musicians, or in other words, that   
   everyone is of critical importance for a performance.   
      
   > ah, so time matters ?   
      
   It often does, particularly with roofs and rain ;)   
      
   > We three will work the same amount of time as those 6, so we want the same   
   > money.  They did the job for X dollars, we want X dollars to work the same   
   > amount of time and do the same job.   
      
   Are they paying by the gig? What if the band previously there was an actual   
   orchestra?   
      
   > This comes down to ... do you pay the band as a whole, or do you pay each   
   > performer individually.  Since they can't really make a working ( good   
   > enough for the gig in question ) band out of thrown together players ....   
   > they will have to hire a working band.  And if that happens to be us, they   
   > will have to buy the entire band, not just think they can pay us   
   > individually at the same per player rate they hired some other band for.   
      
   It all comes down to the  terms.   
      
   > This is basic economics. I don't believe you don't get it.  So quit   
   > pretending to too complicated  :-)   
      
   It's quite simple, a simple matter of the  terms....that and whether you   
   want to be competed against by getting  as much a big band, or eliminating   
   the competition by breaking the pay down to how much each person gets thus   
   providing an incentive to the employer keep hiring you for every gig.   
      
   > It's all in the past anyway. Got the call today. They hired us, at the   
   > rate we asked for.   
      
   In other words, the competitive rate.   
      
   > We're meeting tomorrow morning to shake on it, or whatever :-)   This is a   
   > big deal for us. It's not connected to my solo work in any way, won't   
   > interfere.  It does change the band dynamics tho. This deal is   
   > approximately 5 times more money that all the band gigs we do in a year.   
   > And it will keep us busy until next spring.  And these are without our   
   > problem drummer.  So, yikes.  That's a lot of fiddling :-)   
      
   Sounds like some filthy-lucrative gigs. Very fortunate, literally - I only   
   hope you'll enjoy them.   
      
   > Essentually, we could lose all the current band gigs, the ones we use loud   
   > guy on, and I don't care.   
      
   That'd be nice ;)   
      
   > I expect to enjoy it a lot more.  More money. Less stage volume.  What's   
   > to not like in that ?   
      
   Sounds interesting, even promising.   
      
   > Ha, well, you have my sympathies.  I learned a Daniel O'Donnell song today   
   > ( I just wanna dance with you ), and Hot Legs by Rod Steward. Yesterday we   
   > added Hearthache Tonight by the Eagles ( girl is singing that ).   
      
   I'd rather by playing tunes like that rather than Malmsteen ;)   
      
   > Sounds like typical square dance band fare, huh :-)   
      
   JimD   
      
   Square dance? You going to be playing those now? ;)   
      
   Ouisie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)