"If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

[xsited1]

That's part of the "love your enemy" doctrine that confuses many. Taken to the extreme, a Christian should love Satan. A person who refuses to work and expects to be taken care of is a bad influence and should be avoided because they are easily seduced by Satan. You try to help them as much as possible, but if they continue to refuse all help you "shake the dust from your feet as you leave a home or city that will not receive you or hear your words."

Last I checked, Jesus was a non-violent fellow. You know, golden rule, turn the other cheek, etc.

That's the word of what Paul feels. Taking what Jesus does from the bible, he would continue to help even if refused.

No, He wouldn't. Look at the last quote of mine. That's from the Bible. I take it you're not a Christian (or at least a practicing one).

 

[Modbert]

Of course, but this is a difficult concept for those who do not understand what it means to live in a free society. In this example, redistributing wealth from someone who works for a living to someone who does not want to work is stealing. This is covered in the Ten Commandments. If someone is raised expecting to be cared for by the State (read "stealing from someone else to provide for you"), they will have no idea that this is wrong and immoral.

I was just trying to clarify. Because if you like it so much, why not have it as law? Except you feel it should be a moral thing?

Except the Ten Commandments are part of the OT.

Here's what Jesus said on Wealth:

23And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

- Matthew 19:23-24 and Luke 18:24-25

19"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal,
20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
24"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

- Matthew 6:19-21, 24

24"But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
25"Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.

- Luke 6:24-25

33So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple."

- Luke 14:33

In fact, Jesus talked about how God and he will take care of you. The whole idea of working is thrown out the window.

25"Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

- Matthew 6:25

And as long as you believe:

31Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'
32For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.
34"Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.

- Matthew 6:31-34

10For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
11What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent;
12or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?
13If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

- Luke 11:10-13; - Matthew 7:7-11

In fact, Jesus talks about Labor:

27Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

- John 6:27

And on Stealing:

The Parable of the Shrewd Manager

1Jesus told his disciples: "There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions.
2So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.'
3"The manager said to himself, 'What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I'm not strong enough to dig, and I'm ashamed to beg—
4I know what I'll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.'
5"So he called in each one of his master's debtors. He asked the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'
6" 'Eight hundred gallons[a] of olive oil,' he replied.
"The manager told him, 'Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.'
7"Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?'
" 'A thousand bushels of wheat,' he replied.
"He told him, 'Take your bill and make it eight hundred.'
8"The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

The problem when trying to justify the Bible for any sort of moral or legal law is that it's really all over the place. It constantly contradicts itself on many things. If you were to take a hard look at Jesus's life, he was really Socialist since he also lived in a commune.

And speaking of The Ten Commandments:

You know the one where you're not suppose to be coveting your neighbor's goods? Doesn't any Capitalist society break that commandment constantly? In fact, if we didn't want anything except basic necessities, 90% of places would be out of business.

I'm not saying this justifies Communism, but to take a closer look at things.

 

[eagleseven]

It was Lenin's opinion that the bourgeoisie (middle class) did no work.

He was clearly wrong, which led to the eventual collapse of his Soviet Union.

More than 80 years later?

Soviet Union collapsed for many reasons. And you seemed to miss the 1936 Soviet Constitution which applies that rule to EVERYONE.

It didn't apply to anyone in what Lenin considered the bourgeoisie, nor did it apply to anyone formerly in the White Army.

The Roman Empire took nearly 500 years to fall...while the Soviet Empire didn't last even a century. As far as ideas go, Lenin's couldn't survive the long-term. His failure to understand human economies was no doubt part of cause.

Article Twelve:

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

Plus, the fact it's been applied in nearly all Socialist states.

Your response?

The Soviet Union also rhetorically outlawed murder...does this mean that all Capitalists must support murder?

There is no mention of bourgeoisie anywhere in the Bible, unless I've missed it?

 

[Modbert]

No, He wouldn't. Look at the last quote of mine. That's from the Bible. I take it you're not a Christian (or at least a practicing one).

I have looked, and I am certainly a practicing Christian. I'm going to ask that you not question my faith because we disagree on what would Jesus do. It's very unbefitting of someone.

 

[Modbert]

The Soviet Union also outlawed murder...does this mean that all Capitalists must support murder?

There is no mention of bourgeoisie anywhere in the Bible, unless I've missed it?

Once again, I guess you failed to read how Lenin said that in 1917 and how the Soviet Constitution came about in 1936. Care to tell me who was in power in 1936?

 

[eagleseven]

The Soviet Union also outlawed murder...does this mean that all Capitalists must support murder?

There is no mention of bourgeoisie anywhere in the Bible, unless I've missed it?

Once again, I guess you failed to read how Lenin said that in 1917 and how the Soviet Constitution came about in 1936. Care to tell me who was in power in 1936?

The first Soviet Constitution was finally ratified in 1924, written while Lenin was still in power. It matters not, as my point stands.

The Soviet Union also outlawed murder...does this mean that all Capitalists must support murder?


P.S. While you're pondering that, why don't ya tell me who started the Red Terror?

 

[Modbert]

The first Soviet Constitution was finally ratified in 1924, written while Lenin was still in power. It matters not, as my point stands.

The Soviet Union also outlawed murder...does this mean that all Capitalists must support murder?

Except that's not the same Constitution. Your point does not stand, it has been destroyed.

1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1936 Soviet constitution, adopted on December 5, 1936, and also known as the "Stalin" constitution, redesigned the government of the Soviet Union.

As for you trying to take a way out through that method, you're wrong. What you're doing is apple and oranges. This bible verse is in the Soviet Constitution. So if you support this bible verse to be applied into the U.S. law today, then on that subject, you are agreeing with the Soviet Union.

If you don't like that fact, too bad.

P.S.: I'm not saying that makes it right or wrong. Just makes it a fact. Very much like how many Dictators are Non-Smokers and ban Smoking doesn't make Non-Smokers evil.

 

[Modbert]

P.S. While you're pondering that, why don't ya tell me who started the Red Terror?

Already pondered and answered. Red Terror was started by Lenin, however, it is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[JW Frogen]

I am not sure about the intial premis of this thread, I work under the direction of a guy who does a whole lot of eating but not a lot of work.

We live in a mystery and try to make it rational, but death always, without exception, returns the mystery.

 

[eagleseven]

Except that's not the same Constitution. Your point does not stand, it has been destroyed.

1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You haven't even addressed my point until below. But, if we're gonna get nitpicky with Wikipedia:

These three constitutions were:

* 1924 Soviet Constitution
* 1936 Soviet Constitution
* 1977 Soviet Constitution

These constitutions had most provisions in common. These provisions declared the leadership of the working class and, in the latter two, the leading role of the CPSU in government and society. All the constitutions upheld the forms of social property. Each of the constitutions called for a system of soviets, or councils, to exercise governmental authority.

Constitution of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1936 Soviet constitution, adopted on December 5, 1936, and also known as the "Stalin" constitution, redesigned the government of the Soviet Union.

As for you trying to take a way out through that method, you're wrong. What you're doing is apple and oranges. This bible verse is in the Soviet Constitution. So if you support this bible verse to be applied into the U.S. law today, then on that subject, you are agreeing with the Soviet Union.

I also agree with the Soviet Union that murder should be illegal, people should have freedom of speech (in the soviet constitution), and freedom of religious expression (also in the soviet constitution).

Of course, Lenin and Stalin had this annoying habit of mass-killing people they didn't like, imprisoning people who opened their mouths, and torturing clergy to death.

But *gasp* all those activities just aren't allowed under the 1936 soviet constitution!

If you don't like that fact, too bad.

I have no problems with it, you're the one giggling like a little schoolgirl here.


P.S. From your own article: "Western historians and historians from former Soviet occupied countries have seen the constitution as a meaningless propaganda document."

 

[Modbert]

But *gasp* all those activities just aren't allowed under the 1936 soviet constitution!

I have no problems with it, you're the one giggling like a little schoolgirl here.

You seem to ignore the fact that Lenin's idea of the quote and Stalin's was different as wikipedia points out.

You can act like you're giggling, but you seem offended and defensive at the mere fact.

I originally just found it ironic that Conservatives were agreeing what is really one of the most basic principles of Socialism.

 

[eagleseven]

But *gasp* all those activities just aren't allowed under the 1936 soviet constitution!

I have no problems with it, you're the one giggling like a little schoolgirl here.

You seem to ignore the fact that Lenin's idea of the quote and Stalin's was different as wikipedia points out.

And this changes what, precisely?

You can act like you're giggling, but you seem offended and defensive at the mere fact.

Perhaps you misread? You're the one giggling while playing word games.

I originally just found it ironic that Conservatives were agreeing what is really one of the most basic principles of Socialism.

As xsited stated, this line has formed the core of the Protestant work ethic that this nation was founded on. It's an American value, as far back as the 1600s.

Thing is, there is nothing inherently socialist about it...rather, it was rhetorically co-opted. Lenin and Stalin used it as justification to murder all the members of the middle and upper classes in Russia...which clearly goes against Paul's orders in the passage.

Likewise, the Soviets used the battlecry "Peace! Land! Bread!" There is nothing inherently socialist about peace, land, or bread. I shouldn't have to explain this to you...

 

[Modbert]

And this changes what, precisely?

You seemed to say that the two Constitutions interpretations of the quote weren't different. Stalin clearly is applying it to everyone.

As xsited stated, this line has formed the core of the Protestant work ethic that this nation was founded on. It's an American value, as far back as the 1600s.

Thing is, there is nothing inherently socialist about it...rather, it was rhetorically co-opted. Lenin and Stalin used it as justification to murder all the members of the middle and upper classes in Russia...which clearly goes against Paul's orders in the passage.

Likewise, the Soviets used the battlecry "Peace! Land! Bread!" There is nothing inherently socialist about peace, land, or bread. I shouldn't have to explain this to you...

Difficult for something to be an American value as far back as the 1600s when America did not exist.

Lenin and Stalin did not just murder the middle and upper classes.

Socialist ideas have been around since the times of Aristotle and Plato. Modern Socialism has emerged since Modern Capitalism has emerged. As for Peace being not involved inherently with Socialism, there are many different schools of thought so to speak with Socialism.

Look up Robert Owen for example, who was a Utopian Socialist. (I actually learned about him this semester in my Western History class.) Socialism also existed long before Marx.

I'm not saying whether Socialism is right or wrong. Personally? Any day of the week I'd rather live in a Capitalist society.

If you look at the Bible, and what it says. It is not really capitalist. Again, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's goods. To use the term you did, that is inherently Capitalist.

 

[FactFinder]

This thread is out of balance. If a man will not work then he shouldn't eat but at the same time if a man cannot work due to infirmity or social/economic circumstance then we are to have compassion on the poor.

There is guidance on the whole realm of how we are to act in the areas of social and economic realms contained within scripture, incuding the responsilbilities of employers and the rich. If you familiarize yourself with them you will find that there is not a thread of communism there but how we are to love one another.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actual food is often used as a metaphor for spiritual food in the the Bible, and the original passage sounds to me as though parisioners are being cautioned that unless they work at their salvation, and instead spend their time worrying about the shortcomings of others, they will starve for want of spiritual fulfilledness.

 

[xsited1]

Of course, but this is a difficult concept for those who do not understand what it means to live in a free society. In this example, redistributing wealth from someone who works for a living to someone who does not want to work is stealing. This is covered in the Ten Commandments. If someone is raised expecting to be cared for by the State (read "stealing from someone else to provide for you"), they will have no idea that this is wrong and immoral.

I was just trying to clarify. Because if you like it so much, why not have it as law? Except you feel it should be a moral thing?

...

Where to begin? You've obviously spent a lot of time on your post which I suppose is commendable, but you're really missing the boat on several things. For example, you want me to justify that it should be law. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Love thy neighbor" is most certainly moral, yet should we make it a law? Don't be silly. Of course not. Then you mention that the Ten Commandments are part of the OT as if to say they don't apply to Christianity (which you didn't explain, so I just have to guess). This shows a complete lack of understanding of Christianity which is a big topic in and of itself. I was recently discussing something similar on USMB which will help with your understanding if you are interested: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/96480-yesterdays-sermon-4.html#post1771113.

Then you say the Bible contradicts itself on many things. Not really. Again, you're probably confusing the OT and the NT teachings. And then you say Jesus was a Socialist because he lived in a commune. (That one made me snort.) So one indication of a Socialist is that you live in a commune? Wow!

Finally, you talk about my sig line and say "Doesn't any Capitalist society break that commandment constantly?" Yes, it does. You seem to have a problem with that or think that I should have a problem with that. I live among humans which are ultimately free to make their own choices. I plan on keeping it that way.

You're getting off-topic on many things trying to tie this into to Communism. I've explained my position very clearly, but you keep pushing and getting more off-topic. Stealing is stealing. Don't try to justify it.

 

[antagon]

redistribution of wealth is an economic policy. in most application, it has little to do with the bible, morality or charity, democrat or republican, even if that's how some politician or philosopher puts it for effect.

ok, so the idea of pulling your own weight is mandated by communism and rewarded by capitalism. that distiction is where communism's gone wrong. do you see the biblical quote as a declaration of the way things are, the way they should be, or a hurdle to overcome? i believe it to be the first. the russians felt it was the second, by what i've been informed reading above... and our society, infact all great capitalist mixed economies, see it as the latter.

the point of capitalism, among supporting expression of supply and demand, is the support for distribution of the fruits of capital, such that in this great country, if a man will not work, he shall eat, notwithstanding.

 

[Avatar4321]

This is the passage in context:

10For even (T)when we were with you, we used to give you this order: (U)if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.

11For we hear that some among you are (V)leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like (W)busybodies.

12Now such persons we command and (X)exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to (Y)work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.

13But as for you, (Z)brethren, (AA)do not grow weary of doing good.

14If anyone does not obey our instruction (AB)in this letter, take special note of that person (AC)and do not associate with him, so that he will be (AD)put to shame.

15Yet (AE)do not regard him as an enemy, but (AF)admonish him as a (AG)brother.

So much for being considered "Satanic" Avatar.

I fail to see how the system is any less satanic because we are supposed to love our brethren. Nor do I see how acknowleging the destruction our current system can do to a soul is somehow regarding someone as our enemy. You're so called context, makes no sense whatsoever since I am talking about the system and you are talking about individuals. Ive made no comment on individuals. Nor do i think any individuals are necessarily satanic.

So much for you understanding anything about the passage.

 

[Avatar4321]

Last I checked, Jesus was a non-violent fellow. You know, golden rule, turn the other cheek, etc.

That's the word of what Paul feels. Taking what Jesus does from the bible, he would continue to help even if refused.

I wonder if the moneychangers in the Temple agreed with your viewpoints of Christ.

How does using satanic institutions help people when we are to be encouraging them to work for their bread?

 

[xsited1]

No, He wouldn't. Look at the last quote of mine. That's from the Bible. I take it you're not a Christian (or at least a practicing one).

I have looked, and I am certainly a practicing Christian. I'm going to ask that you not question my faith because we disagree on what would Jesus do. It's very unbefitting of someone.

The fact that you didn't know something so basic about Christianity lead me to believe that you knew little about Christianity. You might want to look it up again.