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

[xsited1]

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.

Yep. Dogbert is derailing the thread because of his limited understanding of scripture and capitalism. He believes that what he is posting is relevant and pertinent to the OP, but he can't see that it is just a series of nonsensical tangents. Hopefully he will take to heart what we are trying to tell him.

 

[Modbert]

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.

I never wanted you to justify it being a law, I'm simply asking what is your purpose behind this. I mentioned the Ten Commandments, not because they aren't relevant, in fact Jesus said the old word was relevant now more than ever. I mentioned it because of the differences between the two books, which you can't deny.

Again, you should of asked me to clarify like I asked you, instead of going off and assuming.

I'm not saying Jesus was more of a Socialist than a Capitalist because he lived in a commune only. That was one piece of evidence. Jesus would of looked down upon the capitalists of today.

As for that last part, I brought that up to prove my point above.

I'm not trying to justify stealing. Nor am I trying to take this off topic. I made a joke about the irony of it and went off from there. Allie makes a great point about food in the bible, as I've shown through some of the quotes I've used.

 

[Modbert]

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.

No, you assumed I didn't know something so basic about Christianity. We may have different viewpoints about certain topics in Christianity, but that doesn't make either of us any less Christians. What you're doing also is committing a logical fallacy, by attacking the messenger obviously.

 

[Modbert]

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?

Christ drove the moneychangers out of the temple, but he didn't kill them. The fact he reserved his anger for the moneylenders should be telling.

The concept of Welfare was around long before the current modern setup. It wasn't until the 60's that the current form of Welfare really began to come about.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Christ drove the moneychangers out of the temple, but he didn't kill them. The fact he reserved his anger for the moneylenders should be telling.

The concept of Welfare was around long before the current modern setup. It wasn't until the 60's that the current form of Welfare really began to come about.

I was unaware that you couldnt be considered violent unless you killed someone. I guess I should use that argument in court. Im sure alot of my formerly considered violent clients would love to get out because the court was mistaken as to their violence.

I stand by my position. the current system of government welfare is satanic, IE inspired by satan. It is meant to keep people down rather than lift them up. True charity is individual and it involves lifting people up.

 

[Modbert]

I was unaware that you couldnt be considered violent unless you killed someone. I guess I should use that argument in court. Im sure alot of my formerly considered violent clients would love to get out because the court was mistaken as to their violence.

I stand by my position. the current system of government welfare is satanic, IE inspired by satan. It is meant to keep people down rather than lift them up. True charity is individual and it involves lifting people up.

I wasn't saying he wasn't violent in that instance. However, in general, Jesus Christ was non-violent. How many times in the bible was he violent? Do you have a count? I would ask you not take my points out of context whether purposely or ask me to clarify.

Now see, that position is different from what I was saying. If we are arguing that the current system of Government welfare is satanic and whether Welfare is satanic in general is two different things. You make a interesting point to say the least.

 

[Kalam]

Here's the entire relevant portion of what is supposed to be Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians. This is the passage as it appears in my NIV Bible:

Warning Against Idleness

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

The author's position is rather clear. However, we're left with several questions concerning the authenticity of this letter and its legitimacy as a source of moral guidance for Christians. A perusal of Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians will reveal that the second says many of the same things and appears to be little more than a revised version of the first. Many Biblical scholars have raised doubts about the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians for this reason; they do not believe that it was written by Paul. Here's a similar passage from 1 Thessalonians:

Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.

Several differences here are of particular importance. The two epistles are divergent in that the second condemns idlers more harshly and states that they "shall not eat," while the first merely instructs the Thessalonians to "warn" them while making sure to "be kind to each other" and to avoid "pay[ing] back wrong for wrong." If allowing a person to starve because they do not work is not tantamount to paying back wrong for wrong, I'm not sure what is. It certainly is not an example of acting kindly. Therefore, I'd contend that the OP's passage has no true basis in Pauline teachings.

 

[Kalam]

Evidence that to a Christian, the western concept of government welfare is satanic.

Welfare certainly seems to be supported by the Gospels; whether or not it is organized by the government seems to be of little importance.

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again 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."

See similar accounts in Luke 18 and Mark 10. Also:

Paying Taxes to Caesar

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

 

[Kalam]

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

According to the Gospels, they have a proclivity for excess and sin.

Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, 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." - Luke 18:24-25​

 

[xsited1]

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.

I never wanted you to justify it being a law, I'm simply asking what is your purpose behind this. I mentioned the Ten Commandments, not because they aren't relevant, in fact Jesus said the old word was relevant now more than ever. I mentioned it because of the differences between the two books, which you can't deny.

Again, you should of asked me to clarify like I asked you, instead of going off and assuming.

I'm not saying Jesus was more of a Socialist than a Capitalist because he lived in a commune only. That was one piece of evidence. Jesus would of looked down upon the capitalists of today.

As for that last part, I brought that up to prove my point above.

I'm not trying to justify stealing. Nor am I trying to take this off topic. I made a joke about the irony of it and went off from there. Allie makes a great point about food in the bible, as I've shown through some of the quotes I've used.

My purpose for posting this? That seems to be obvious to everyone else. It's simply this: if you are capable of working but choose not to, you shouldn't eat. Period. Nothing about Communism, Socialism or Capitalism. I can appreciate the political direction you've taken this thread, but this is a very basic concept that applies wherever you are.

The NT obviously would not exist without the OT. The OT ultimately paves the way for the Savior. Yes, they are different books and yes it is important to consider both.

Jesus would have looked down upon capitalists today? That's a stretch. I would have agreed with you if you had said, "Jesus would have looked down upon some capitalists."

There's no irony here except what you and man have created. Again, this is a simple concept.

 

[Modbert]

Therefore, I'd contend that the OP's passage has no true basis in Pauline teachings.

There are several other criticisms of the 2nd one. However, you touched upon the majority of the main points.

 

[Kalam]

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

Meaningless or not, would you disagree that the Soviet constitution reflects the tenets of Marxism-Leninism?

 

[Modbert]

Jesus would have looked down upon capitalists today? That's a stretch. I would have agreed with you if you had said, "Jesus would have looked down upon some capitalists."

There's no irony here except what you and man have created. Again, this is a simple concept.

I can agree with that. However, I think he'd be upset with all capitalists, though not looking down upon all of them.

 

[xsited1]

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.

No, you assumed I didn't know something so basic about Christianity. We may have different viewpoints about certain topics in Christianity, but that doesn't make either of us any less Christians. What you're doing also is committing a logical fallacy, by attacking the messenger obviously.

You didn't know something basic about Christianity. And which messenger am I attacking? You didn't provide a message except to say "Taking what Jesus does from the bible, he would continue to help even if refused." That isn't supported by scripture as I pointed out. The only logical fallacy being committed here is that you are posting things that are not based on scripture while believing that they are.

 

[amrchaos]

Quick question

The way I read it, it says that a person who refuses to work shall not eat.

What happen to people who are willing to work, can find no work, Should we let them starve?


In other words, what does a man live off of while he is learning to fish?? Dirt? Worms? Grass?

 

[xsited1]

Quick question

The way I read it, it says that a person who refuses to work shall not eat.

What happen to people who are willing to work, can find no work, Should we let them starve?


In other words, what does a man live off of while he is learning to fish?? Dirt? Worms? Grass?

That's been covered in the thread. Obviously, we should not let them starve. That is supported in both the OT and NT.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Evidence that to a Christian, the western concept of government welfare is satanic.

No, evidence that laziness need not be rewarded.

 

[amrchaos]

Quick question

The way I read it, it says that a person who refuses to work shall not eat.

What happen to people who are willing to work, can find no work, Should we let them starve?


In other words, what does a man live off of while he is learning to fish?? Dirt? Worms? Grass?

That's been covered in the thread. Obviously, we should not let them starve. That is supported in both the OT and NT.

But is this not a form of Welfare? Or is this a "Work Program" or "Study Program" in which the concept of Welfare only applies to people that do no work and do not search for woerk or learn a livable skill??

 

[GEORGE ORWELL]

Second Thessalonicans 3:11 says that if a man is not willing to work, he shall not eat. This Scripture has been used by all Oligarchs to justify Slavery, while they themselves live on the labor of others. What about Jesus Christ himself? Did he ever work in his whole life? He went around preaching and gabbing the Word which men are still fighting to interpret. There is no record of any of the Apostles ever working. Evidently they may have done so, but once getting into the group, gabbing took over, and no real work was done. The Acts also clearly states that as the Hierarchy increased, those in charge did not work, but had others work for them. There is no real solid record that Paul, who some claim wrote Thessalonicans, ever worked, except working for the Synagogue at Jerusalem, which in turn depended on the hard labor of others. Little wonder Paul approved of Slavery. Having others work for him. This is a perfect proof text for the Bankers, who all got free money after bungling it away through speculation. He who says the above words should himself prove some tangible proof he is following his own prescription. There is none to show that any of the early Christian writers ever did work. [/B]

 

[eagleseven]

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

Meaningless or not, would you disagree that the Soviet constitution reflects the tenets of Marxism-Leninism?

I would disagree, as Lenin, in his time, blatantly violated the tenants of the Soviet constitution, and Stalin murdered the authors of the constitution in the Great Purge.

In other words, the Soviet constitution is Hadith to the Sunnah (Lenin's life) and the Koran (Lenin's writings). Given how many Russians still worship Lenin, the comparison has multiple connotations.