St Paul`s letter to the Thessalonians

realitykeeper

Here is an excerpt from 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12:

... you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, ... if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12, NASB)

This seems to be a fairly right wing perspective which I share. I think fairness and equality are generally different but sometimes people think by achieving equality they achieve fairness.

It may be equal for everyone to eat but it is not fair if the work that made the food available was carried out by only some of those able to work.

This indicates that socialism is a mistake.

Mancomb Seepgood

It's a warning against idleness, not a manifesto for unrestrained capitalism. It's a stretch to say that it indicates that "socialism is a mistake" (socialism can mean many things, anyway). Plenty of people live well while doing very little work, on the basis of inherited wealth, rental income or dividends.

Interestingly this verse is referred to in the Soviet Constitution of 1936:

ARTICLE 12. 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."

The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."

jippo nolan

Do unto others as they do unto you,but get the boot in first!

Skommando

The Kingdom of God is not left, right or even centrist.
Some people will do anything to try and twist scripture to fit their preferred human politics and lust for more power and money.
Scripture should be read in context and balance, where Christ gave many warnings about the consequences of not helping the poor, and how unlikely the rich would be to ever enter the kingdom of God. You cannot serve money and God, and the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

uck51js9zml2yt

I actually referred to that passage in answering a college exam question 20 years ago.i got a distinction.

There is a difference between people who can't get a job to those who don't want to get one.
We should support those who can't work for whatever reason. But those who won't work should be given a kick up the backside.

realitykeeper

Skommando wrote: »

You cannot serve money and God, and the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

No but I can serve the idle by pointing out that idleness is a sin.

Skommando

How about the idle rich who live off other peoples labour ? how are they served by ignoring all the warnings about wealth you left out ?

you boasted about this passage in scripture serving your right wing views. There is no left or right politics in the kingdom of God.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

Here is an excerpt from 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 . . . .This indicates that socialism is a mistake.

It doesn't indicate anything of the kind. It's not about that at all.

The first point to bear in mind is that most people, most of the time, eat but do not work. Every society has a "dependency ratio" which is the ratio of the total number of people in that society to the number of workers in that society. This ratio is always greater than one. Children don't work; students don't work; the retired don't work. And even among those of working age there are those who don't work because they are ill; because they are disabled; because they are unemployed; or because they are dependent partners of workers who have chosen not to work. And all these people eat bread and drink beer produced by the workers.

The question every society has to face is, well, who will we feed? Cases like children and the disabled are no-brainers; of course they must be fed by those who can feed them. And cases like students and the retired are to some extent a matter of self-interest. If, as a society, we support students, we'll in due course be a better-educated and hopefully wealthier society. If we provide a decent retirement income for the elderly, that encourages workers who are reassured that, when their time comes, they too will be be supported.

After that, it's a question of values, but Christian values are generally supportive. In the first place, the gospels constantly warn of the dangers of accumulating wealth, or of spending it selfishly. It's presented, in fact, as the single biggest obstacle to salvation. If you are fortunate enough to have wealth, the best thing you can possibly do with it is to use it to support those in need. The healing of the sick, the feeding of the hungry, showing hospitality to the stranger, etc are all presented as central concerns of Christian life. And we know - because the Acts of the Apostles says so - that the early Christian community shared their wealth in common, and used it to support widows, orphans and the needy.

realitykeeper

Skommando wrote: »

How about the idle rich who live off other peoples labour ? how are they served by ignoring all the warnings about wealth you left out ?

you boasted about this passage in scripture serving your right wing views. There is no left or right politics in the kingdom of God.

Our Lady of Fatima referred to Russia spreading her errors around the world. At the time, Russia was communist.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

Our Lady of Fatima referred to Russia spreading her errors around the world. At the time, Russia was communist.

The apparitions at Fatima took place six months before the Bolshevik revolution.

But, if you take the view that they nevertheless refer to Russian communism, then as Mancomb Seepgood has already pointed out, the Soviets shared your interpretation of 2 Thess 3:6-12.

In other words, the interpretation of the text that you are encouraging us to adopt is the very error against which Our Lady of Fatima warned.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

In other words, the interpretation of the text that you are encouraging us to adopt is the very error against which Our Lady of Fatima warned.

Hardly. Communism is a form of enslavement. Is it any wonder they try to stop people escaping.

Glenster

realitykeeper wrote: »

we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it,

raping kids seems pretty undisciplined,

and demanding 10% of everyone's salary so that a bunch of old men can buy new silk hats doesn't sound like paying your way.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

The apparitions at Fatima took place six months before the Bolshevik revolution.

But, if you take the view that they nevertheless refer to Russian communism, then as Mancomb Seepgood has already pointed out, the Soviets shared your interpretation of 2 Thess 3:6-12.

Not so, if fact the October Revolution happened within days of the miracle of Fatima which was also in October of that year. I doubt the Bolsheviks were quoting scripture when they devised their manifesto. Any similarity is just a mirror image, the diabolic opposite of the divine.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

Not so, if fact the October Revolution happened within days of the miracle of Fatima which was also in October of that year. I doubt the Bolsheviks were quoting scripture when they devised their manifesto. Any similarity is just a mirror image, the diabolic opposite of the divine.

No, a mirror image is reversed. The Bolshevik policy wasn't the reverse of the interpretation that you are trying to extract from 2 Thess 3; it was precisely the same as it.

The devil may quote scripture for his own purposes, realitykeeper. You're trying to seduce us into Bolshevism by quoting St. Paul at us, but it won't work!

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, a mirror image is reversed. The Bolshevik policy wasn't the reverse of the interpretation that you are trying to extract from 2 Thess 3; it was precisely the same as it.

The devil may quote scripture for his own purposes, realitykeeper. You're trying to seduce us into Bolshevism by quoting St. Paul at us, but it won't work!

How can quoting St Paul (or doing anything else) seduce you into Bolshevism? This assumes you actually require seducing Peregrinus.

Peregrinus

Well, here you are, parrotting the Soviet constitution at us, and presenting it as an interpretation of St. Paul. We're not that easily fooled, you know!

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Paul's letters to the Thessalonians are some of the most encouraging reading of the Bible. Paul does rebuke them for not working in 2 Thessalonians but more because he is concerned about their Christian walk. Paul isn't discussing politics here but he discussing about the spiritual welfare of the Thessalonians.

In the first book there are a lot of encouragements. Some of the most encouraging of any New Testament letter. Chapter 1 tells us about how they turned from idols to serve the living and true God in the first book and he says that the gospel had sounded from Thessalonica to Achaia and to Macedonia in Greece but also to the known world. Paul further is encouraged by claiming that they believed the Bible for what it really is the word of God and not the word of men in chapter 2. Paul according to Acts had only been there for three Sabbath's before getting chucked out of Thessalonica and the Thessalonians were persecuted. Paul is hugely concerned for them but yet they had believed all that time.

Paul isn't giving the Thessalonians a rollicking as a politician for not working. No, like a father who wants to see his kids prosper spiritually. That's clear in chapter 1 if 1 Thessalonians. It's also the same in 2 Thessalonians. The only difference is that Paul seems to have spent more time with them by 2 Thessalonians. The issues are believing that the day of the Lord had already happened and work coming second. There is an assurance of judgement for those who oppose the Lord Jesus and the hope of rescue.

However it isn't a book about the welfare state. It is a book of riches concerning God's Son and how He works in His people. We need to listen to the whole thing.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, here you are, parrotting the Soviet constitution at us, and presenting it as an interpretation of St. Paul. We're not that easily fooled, you know!

I think it was manconb seepgood who introduced the Soviet constitution to the thread, not I. So I present St Paul as St Paul. If you are being fooled it is not by me.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think it was manconb seepgood who introduced the Soviet constitution to the thread, not I. So I present St Paul as St Paul. If you are being fooled it is not by me.

You didn't "present St. Paul as St. Paul"; you presented St. Paul as a political tract addressing contemporary political issue of which Paul would have been completely ignorant. You told us that it presents "a fairly right-wing perspective", that it addresses the tension between fairness and equality and that it "indicates that socialism is a mistake". None of that is from St. Paul; it's all from realitykeeper. St. Paul never heard of socialism.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

St. Paul never heard of socialism.

No but he knew what it was because it is sin. He knew the commandment Thou shalt not steal. He knew sloth was the 4th deadly sin.

Peregrinus

You're still at it, realitykeeper. You're still citing St. Paul in support of political positions which are dear to you but about which St. Paul certainly had no opinion. You may be of the view that socialism, or what you consider to be socialism, is a combination of theft and sloth, but you cannot for an instant expect to be taken seriously when you tell us that was St. Paul's opinion.

And, for the record, St. Paul did not know that sloth was the fourth deadly sin. The classification and categorisation of sins in this way happened several centuries after Paul's time, and the familiar list of seven sins, of which sloth is the fourth, is a medieval invention. But if you can believe that Paul held opinions about socialism you will have no difficulty convincing yourself that he had the seven deadly sins at his fingerips.

The bottom line, realitykeeper, is that you are citing St. Paul in support of your distinctly modern, distinctly secular political programme. Leaving aside the anachronism involved in supposing that Paul could have opinions about socialism and the arrogance involved in assuming that, if he did, they would agree with yours, if you take the trouble to read the letters of St. Paul you'll realise that nothing could be further from his purpose than commenting on secular politics. One of Paul's principal themes is the insistence that worldly concerns are a distraction. He is simply not interested in either challenging or supporting the wordly social or political order; he regards it as a complete irrelevance, and he thinks Christians should be focussed on entirely different issues.

You may agree with Paul as to what a Christian's priorities should be, or you may disagree with him. But you cannot expect to be taken seriously if you simply ignore Paul's views on this, and attribute to him views about contemporary political issues which on the abundant evidence of his own writings he absolutely, certainly, did not hold and would not have held.

You need to take responsibility for your own political views, and stop trying to persuade us (and possibly yourself?) that they are biblical. They are not.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're still at it, realitykeeper. You're still citing St. Paul in support of political positions which are dear to you but about which St. Paul certainly had no opinion. You may be of the view that socialism, or what you consider to be socialism, is a combination of theft and sloth, but you cannot for an instant expect to be taken seriously when you tell us that was St. Paul's opinion.

And, for the record, St. Paul did not know that sloth was the fourth deadly sin. The classification and categorisation of sins in this way happened several centuries after Paul's time, and the familiar list of seven sins, of which sloth is the fourth, is a medieval invention. But if you can believe that Paul held opinions about socialism you will have no difficulty convincing yourself that he had the seven deadly sins at his fingerips.

The bottom line, realitykeeper, is that you are citing St. Paul in support of your distinctly modern, distinctly secular political programme. Leaving aside the anachronism involved in supposing that Paul could have opinions about socialism and the arrogance involved in assuming that, if he did, they would agree with yours, if you take the trouble to read the letters of St. Paul you'll realise that nothing could be further from his purpose than commenting on secular politics. One of Paul's principal themes is the insistence that worldly concerns are a distraction. He is simply not interested in either challenging or supporting the wordly social or political order; he regards it as a complete irrelevance, and he thinks Christians should be focussed on entirely different issues.

You may agree with Paul as to what a Christian's priorities should be, or you may disagree with him. But you cannot expect to be taken seriously if you simply ignore Paul's views on this, and attribute to him views about contemporary political issues which on the abundant evidence of his own writings he absolutely, certainly, did not hold and would not have held.

You need to take responsibility for your own political views, and stop trying to persuade us (and possibly yourself?) that they are biblical. They are not.

Two points:
Firstly, I am not a secularist. I am a Catholic/Christian in the original sense.

Secondly, far from attributing views to St Paul, I am extrapolating from the message of St Paul, in order to see how the message relates to today`s world.

Skommando

realitykeeper wrote: »

No but he knew what it was because it is sin. He knew the commandment Thou shalt not steal. He knew sloth was the 4th deadly sin.

What about stealing taxes from ordinary people to enrich bankers developers and bondholders ? We don't hear you complaining about them. You seem quite happy to give your money to them. You really have a hard on for money and a hatred of the less well off don't you ? Despite all the warnings in scripture about it over and over, you'll try to find any interpretation to justify the love of it. Camels and needles come to mind. Christianity is not politics or left or right. Yes there are some spongers on the dole, but do you really think they are worse than billionaire spongers and political cronies, also corruptly living off the taxes of others, only to a far greater scale.

Thinkingaboutit

Frank Duff of the Legion of Mary was alert to people deploying politics which seemed to fit with their understanding of the Faith, or seemed to fit how it was preached to them. A Catholic attaching strident politics to social issues like poverty or abortion, alienates and distances us from the people who most need to be reached. It must be avoided. Both the preacher exhorting his flock to vote for Donald Trump or the Marxist Jesuit priests who in Latin America on the 1970s took up arms against rightwing military regimes are wrong. We cannot avoid being political in some fashion, but strident politics distorts the Gospel and it repels people, people who most need to be reached.