Servants - yes or no?

[Pegg]

sure, just like I am a servant to my slave, because come dinner time I have to order one of my other slaves to cook and clean the dishes - and that's a hassle.

I could be relaxing in my champagne bath instead.:sarcastic


so how does Jesus and the spirit of love fit into this sham of groveling over those that have money.

and why would you think this is correct?

the love of mammon and all that.

Jesus said that he came to serve others so there is no shame in serving others.

 

[Revoltingest]

Jesus said that he came to serve others so there is no shame in serving others.

This Jesus fella has some positive ideas!

sounds like you are working at some kind of cowboy outfit to me!

Jarofthoughts?
Cowboy outfit?
Yes!

 

[jarofthoughts]

Jarofthoughts?
Cowboy outfit?
Yes!

More like this I think...

 

[nnmartin]

I do not have the education, experience and skills to be a doctor, an electrician, or a baker for that matter, so when I need those services, I pay for them, in effect making those people my servants

Any teacher who does not, in some sense, see themselves as a servant of their students, i.e. feels that they have a calling, should not be a teacher in my opinion.

'in effect, in some sense' - you are indirectly agreeing with me here that we are speaking allegorically, ie: not 'the same as being'.

you do understand that, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

News flash!
I snuck up to nnmartin's window, & snapped this photo.
(But who is who here?)

 

[nnmartin]

Jesus said that he came to serve others so there is no shame in serving others.

allegorically speaking for sure.

but that does not mean we should be have others grovel over us because we are too lazy to do our own chores.

This just fuels the human corruption that Jesus was sent to destroy.

can you not see that?

 

[jarofthoughts]

'in effect, in some sense' - you are indirectly agreeing with me here that we are speaking allegorically, ie: not 'the same as being'.

you do understand that, right?

I understand what you are trying to get at, but I still don't agree with you.
The word 'servant' has several definitions, one of which is; a person in the service of another.
And in this sense, literally or allegorically, I am a servant to my pupils in that I serve them and their needs.
This does not in any way put me below those I serve in status or otherwise.
It merely implies that I serve a purpose, which in this case is to educate my pupils.

Let me make another comparison that might be easier to relate to in this context.
I recently asked my pupils what would happen if principal at my school went to strike as compared to what would happen if the cleaning staff went to strike.
Which of them would be missed first?
Well, since my pupils are well aware that we can, and have, run the school for months on end while being between principals, the conclusion gave itself.
We can manage without a principal, but we can't manage without someone keeping the school clean.

I know that some people think that washing floors and cleaning for others is a low status job, but I am very much aware that without a lot of these 'low status' jobs the world simply stops working.

Which is not the case when it comes to most executive directors.

 

[jarofthoughts]

allegorically speaking for sure.

As mentioned, there are many ways to serve others.

but that does not mean we should be have others grovel over us because we are too lazy to do our own chores.

I don't expect anyone to grovel at all, and most certainly not for me, but if I pay someone to do a job to which they have agreed, I expect them to do it.
No more, no less.

 

[Revoltingest]

If someone is willing to pay for groveling, & someone else is willing to grovel
for pay, then who among us has the moral authority to say no to them?

 

[Pegg]

allegorically speaking for sure.

but that does not mean we should be have others grovel over us because we are too lazy to do our own chores.

This just fuels the human corruption that Jesus was sent to destroy.

can you not see that?

some people are into that sort of thing because they think a lot of themselves

But i think generally most people are not like that. And i certainly dont think that every rich person is like that either. Most people who have a lot of money have probably worked very hard to get it... so they've likely served others to become rich.

 

[Draka]

I just love how the word "servant" is being treated like a bad word. Something to be ashamed of. Ashamed of being, ashamed of employing. What of "public servants" then? "To serve and protect" and all? What about people who work cleaning up after others in public areas or hotels? Should a person staying at a hotel on a vacation or business trip feel ashamed for letting a housekeeper in their room to clean up after them? Should we go and ask the front desk for our own vacuum and cleaning supplies so that we may clean up after ourselves? Are we just lazy "gentry" if we don't? And then, what is the difference between the woman on a business trip who has to stay in a hotel room while she works and goes back and forth to meetings and the woman who is working at home and coming and going to meetings and has no real time to scrub her house? Why should one place be alright to be cleaned up after in and the other is not? Especially if she is paying for the cleaning and someone is willing to do the work for the money being paid?

 

[nnmartin]

The scenarios you paint are similar but different, to the household skivvy.

This has already been discussed, yet you and others, choose to fall back on your facile analogies, in order to justify your exploitation, ego and hypocrisy.

Have you not heard of the Silver Rule - it is very similar to the Wiccan Rede and Biblical code.

'do not do to others what you don't wish done to yourself' - or words to that effect.

 

[Karl Streicher]

One of my concerns I have had in the past when choosing a house is "how much work do I really want to do?" I figure if I can't take care of it myself to my standards within my schedule then I have no reason to own it. As far as having maids and butlers I would find it strange, I like my privacy but for those that have bought beyond their capabilities or desires of maintenance and you wish to employ helpers then that is your right, you have money they provide a service

 

[Kathryn]

The scenarios you paint are similar but different, to the household skivvy.

This has already been discussed, yet you and others, choose to fall back on your facile analogies, in order to justify your exploitation, ego and hypocrisy.

Have you not head of the Silver Rule - it is very similar to the Wiccan Rede and Biblical code.

'do not do to others what you don't wish done to yourself' - or words to that effect.

If I need a landscaper, or gardener, or housekeeper, and someone wants to apply for that job, and we agree on a mutually beneficial arrangement, and I treat that person with respect and honesty and appreciation, how on earth is that in violation of the Golden Rule?

 

[nnmartin]

would you be happy with cleaning someone else's toilets for minimum wage or less?

how about working in a factory for $2/day?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I strongly disagree it causes degradation and laziness. If you go about calling them "servants" and do not pay them fairly, then yes it is degrading. Buts it is an honest living, and can be an asset to those who are very busy or away from home for extended periods of time. Actually if things go my way when I'm done with school and teaching and counseling for a living, I will probably hire someone to do some cleaning around my own house because therapists may have high-risk patients and be on call and teaching is certainly not a job that is over when class lets out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

would you be happy with cleaning someone else's toilets for minimum wage or less?

I actually have cleaned toilets for minimum wage. While it's not a pleasant job, it's really not that bad and there are easily a million things that are worse.

 

[s2a]

What do you think of the idea of having servants?

If you could afford it , would you have them?

I am thinking of servants such as butlers, cleaners, chefs, door openers etc..

House cleaners, gardeners, and caterers/chefs for hire…sure. But as full time staffed “servants”? Nah.

Would you really want to have these people in your home attending to your every need, and what do you think of those people that have such staff?

No, and I really don’t think about it much at all. I certainly don’t begrudge anyone that has the monetary wherewithal to employ people to do routine tasks and chores, but it’s also highly unlikely I’ll ever have the need to manage a 149 room castle or 100 acre estate either. If and when that time ever comes, I may reconsider

another question, should they be allowed at all in the first place?

“Allowed”?

Really? What skilled trades would merit banning or prohibition? Auto mechanics? Plumbers? Electricians? Carpenters? I could see the issues some might have with hookers… but c’mon.

If I’m a bazziliionaire and own 100 cars, would it not be prudent and wise to have a full-time mechanic on my payroll?

 

[ChristineES]

If you really think about it, anyone who has an employee for any reason could consider that employee a servant. That would mean that we are all servants in one way or another.

 

[Kathryn]

would you be happy with cleaning someone else's toilets for minimum wage or less?

how about working in a factory for $2/day?

I wouldn't pay someone minimum wage to clean my toilet. And I wouldn't run a factory employing anyone working for less than a living wage.