The good book introduced us to the story of the master and hi 3 subordinates. Based on individual talent, he assigned the talents to each of them.
Particularly striking is the case of the servant that got only 1 talent- he went on to hide the talent. When the master returned, he displayed a passive confrontation and returned his 1 talent to him.
Stripping from the story the severe punishment pronounced on he poor servant. There seems to be valuable lessons from the actions of the 1-talent-servant and the talent master.
Having reasons for actions / Being Responsible
"... that you are a hard man, who reaps where you have not sown..." the logical construct of his argument is quite striking.
The event B (refusal to trading with the talent) happened because of event A ( his perception of his master).
How often do we need one logical construct from peers and found emptiness. Some just throw up their arms with no fruitful explanations.
Not to talk of others that will shift the blame to extra-terrestrial forces or animals ( Remember the 36 million snake and the recent 70 million monkeys)
Is the 1-talent man better than you too?