Religion
Related: About this forum2 TH 3:10 ",that if any would not work.. This verse seems to upset some people, would anyone care to
explain why? Can you explain the reasoning behind why it seems so harsh and unfeeling to you?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” "
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Here on DU people have gotten upset over that?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It also looks like advice to try and help those who need help, but to shut them out if they appear to be unteachable or completely unreceptive to your advances.
I don't really see anything harsh or unfeeling. What is your take?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)A couple of posters have pointed out how some conservatives have taken this out of context to use as a hammer to batter the poor and others who need or receive help to make it seem like 'will not' and 'can not' are the same. The comments I was refering to made it seem as if that attitude was a basic of "Christian charity", another of the evils of Christianity evidently.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)The operative word is unwilling to work, not unable to work. Seems pretty reasonable in a community that is supposed to be ensuring that its neediest members have their basic needs met.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)The verse in its context seems to be an attack on people who joined early Christian communities as hangers-on without intending to contribute anything. It is not intended as an instruction as to how society as a whole should be organized. However, it is used by right-wingers as an attack on welfare; and that *is* harsh and unfeeling. Especially as it is generally coupled with the assumption that anyone who isn't working is *choosing* to be idle, even though there are several jobseekers to every job.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)What part of "unwilling" do you not understand.
And what relevance is your quote to us?
tama
(9,137 posts)for money. 
Jim__
(14,082 posts)But, certainly the King James Version: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat can be interpreted to be harsh. It really depends upon the interpretation of would; it could be interpreted in such a way as to imply people who are unable to work should not be fed. Even that version, in the context of the verse, doesn't seem to mean that; but the isolated verse could easily be interpreted to be harsh.
tama
(9,137 posts)??ὶ ?ὰ? ὅ?? ἦ??? ??ὸ? ὑ?ᾶ?, ??ῦ?? ??????έ?????? ὑ?ῖ?, ὅ?? ?ἴ ??? ?ὐ ?έ??? ἐ??ά?????? ???ὲ ἐ???έ??.
My translation: "You know, when we were visiting you, we told you that if somebody does not want to work, he shouldn't eat either."
In Greek the meaning is perfectly clear, the problem is in the KJ. And to clear any suspicion, the meaning of the last part is "get a meal [from the parish]", not "left starved".
Jim__
(14,082 posts)My understanding has always been that the KJV is a bad translation.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,336 posts)A contemporary usage - Shakespeare:
"Heaven would that she these gifts should have,
And I to live and die her slave."
It's not a bad translation; it's just that common English has changed over a few hundred years.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)SBL Greek New Testament from BibleGateway.com
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)or how the message is interpreted by their minister.
I've read some crazy interpretations in the newer, easier to read bible's.
tama
(9,137 posts)is that they usually leave it to theologians and/or allow theologians to participate in the group of translators and boss around. That leads to power of theological/dogmatic traditions of interpretations (often based on Vulgata) overruling the translation process of original Greek (and Hebrew) source into target language.
Translations of Bible are usually done in violation of translators ethics as I see them.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)is enough to prove your point, since there wasn't a word in the original Greek or Hebrew for such things. (BTW, the word homosexual was introduced into the bible in 1953).
tama
(9,137 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Just wanted to point out, I specifically picked KJV and NASB as examples, the other two I just went from the top of the list provided on that website.
King James Version:
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=KJV
New American Standard:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=NASB
Amplified Bible:
10 Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=AMP
Common English:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=CEB
This site explains why they think it was translated to homosexual even though that word didn't exist.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
tama
(9,137 posts)Vulgata translates ἀ???????ῖ??? "masculorum concubitores", which supports the interpretation 'male prostitutes', which is my best guess.
And as said, the word does not appear in Strato's Musa Puerilis or other sexual Greek sources. BTW paiderastes would not refer to "homosexuals" but the active (penetrating) participant of the male-boy relationships, the boy being referred as 'eromenos'. "malakoi" refers to males behaving like females, and Greek sexual norms and attitudes attested in literature cannot be understood in terms of hetero- and homosexuality, but the patriarchal values of male dominance and superiority of the penetrator and inferiority of the penetrated.
Anyway, from my modern point of view, the whole passage is just horrible, no matter how the words are interpreted and translated.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)and other passages that refer to these types of behavior as something that has to do with sexual orientation. It's kinda like saying rape is equivalent to making love.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)First off, define the word work in relation to the verse.
The RW has co-opted the verse to mean 'If you don't have a job and get a regular pay check, you do not deserve to eat' and that is where the problems come in.
Work has a broad meaning that covers more than just being 'employed' by some other entity. In the early church (and this applied only to the church and not the governments outside the church) you might spend a few hours helping out your fellow brethren and eat with them because you helped with the cause. SOME people just wanted to hang out in the church and put nothing at all in.
I think the biggest problem I have is how the RW will grab this quote and totally disregard the words of Jesus about the sheep and the goats (and the workers in the vineyard). Note that the verse was talking about people in the church only and their contribution to the church.
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Compare this to the verse you cite. The RW will tell the hungry to 'work' for their food - well what happens when jobs are not there? Let's look at verse 11:
For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
Here we see that verse 10 was directed at those would could, but did not. In our society many are willing to work but cannot - to the RW if someone does not work they should suffer, even if through no fault of their own. But Jesus pointed out that such is a sin.
And many do 'work' - but not for a paycheck. They can take care of their kids (which is hard work), preach to others, keep their homes clean, volunteer at their local church, etc.
Look at 44 above again:
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
The RW will use the verse you cited on judgement day to say to the lord "They didn't work, so they deserved to go hungry".
The RW has made work into something that produces goods and profits, but back then work meant many different things.
At one time we are all in together, were looking out for one another, and gave to each according to their ability.
tama
(9,137 posts)is not work, making money work for you is not work, it's exploitation. Work is what puts food on the table and satisfies other basic needs. In the physical sense of exergy, not just by manipulation of symbols.
I have a friend who works with the Adivasi people of India, and he once asked about their political system and role of their chiefs. He was told that if a chief starts to think that he is a Big Man who does not need to work - ie. do physical labor like others - to feed the family, but should be fed by others who work, he will not be a chief for a long time but promptly deposed.
That's how I understand the deeper meaning of the passage, early "church" learning to live like the Adivasi, not like subjects of wannabe emperors, capitalists, etc.
Needles to say, the modern hippie and anarchist movement and the ecovillage etc. movements they morphed into (including the Occupy movement), share a lot with early Christians - before they were made into state religion and worship of emperors, money, popes etc. institutions. Of course the problems that Paul refers to are present also in the modern movements of communalism I mentioned, but in my experience the prevailing attitudes are patience, tolerance and compassion towards those products of modern society who lack the practical skills and experience and often carry the burden of bad social conscience because they can't contribute as much as some others in the practical matters.
And in this regard, Matthew 6:26 contains much more deeper wisdom and truth than Paul's pragmatic considerations as a community organizer.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)
Igel
(35,332 posts)Both in NT exegesis and understanding political discourse.
Many don't want to take context into account in either place.
There are those who think the Bible says, "If you don't have a job you should starve." It's hard to tell those apart from those who think it says, "If you don't want a job, you should starve." (Quibbles over "have a meal" are fairly pointless: You continue to insist on not working for several weeks, missing several weeks' worth of meals, and you starve.)
I say it's hard to tell those apart. That's because context matters and we ignore context.
More than a few look at people receiving outside help and say that if they can't find a job, well, that has to be okay. Others notice that some--perhaps just a salient few--won't take work they think is humiliating or "beneath" them. You take the job you get, if you want to continue to be eligible for Xian charity.
Some will say there are no people that would refuse to work. I personally knew one. The church I was in helped him and his family. Provided a house and utilities. The only service was living in it. Provided a stipend to help them with food. But the husband refused to take a job that didn't place him in a supervisory position making a certain amount of money. We'd help him find a job and he'd quit after a day. "I didn't like the boss." "My boss didn't know as much as me." "They wanted me to be the assistant instead of the boss on the crew." After a year or more of this the church members paid for him to go away for months and be certified as some sort of technician. He came back, had job interviews and repeated his work-a-day-then-quit routine. Finally the church told his family if he didn't leave they'd all have to leave: He simply would not work. His response was that they'd all leave. He went out for something and when he came back the locks were changed and his wife and kids were still inside, holding the key. He left. He wouldn't take care of his own household. And, when push came to shove, put his own pride over the welfare of his children. There are a fair number of people I've known like that--they regard kids as possessions, they regard themselves as more important than their families. This is far from a majority of people. But over the decades I've run into probably dozens, if not scores. It's just that most aren't that obdurate or blunt about their deservedly special place in society.
Now, how many of those citing this particular verse have just those who would not work in mind, I can't say. I don't know how many erroneously think that a lot of people on welfare just won't work when most of them just can't find any job.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)"Work" to eat. I was thinking about the OT and the 7 years of plenty and then of drought.
'Job' wise the people who harvested the wheat and such were out of work for 7 years, and yet were able to eat because as a society they put away enough grain. Plow makers, harvesters, etc would not have had jobs (and were probably not trained in stone masonry, etc).
Kind of like unemployment insurance.