They were expecting Christ's triumphant return in 7 years.
The way they were living was not a long term solution.
:blabla:
Doesn't change the fact that God commands that, "If a man does not work, he shall not eat."
Funding and maintaining a military is one of any government's obligations. It falls under the category of "criminal justice." Likewise, building and maintaining roads, bridges, regulating air traffic, airwaves, and more is part of a government's responsibility.
Taking care of people from cradle to grave is not.
If you think that "commandment" in OT times applies to everyone in the present who is out of work or unable to work then you're being irrational at best at callous at worst. People don't live in bronze age tribes anymore where people would be required - if able - to pull their weight in order to survive. Do you suppose it applied to people who were too sick to work in those times?
Nowadays the population is exponentially larger and most people live in cities, not communes and without "safety nets" many people would be in abject poverty. Even with those in place there's people who fall through them and homelessness is a major problem in certain areas. Take them away altogether and you'd have a whole lot more. Do you have any compassion or understanding for people who are in such a situation where welfare/benefit aid is the only source of help? You do realize that a lot of people in such a predicament come from broken homes, suffer from mental health problems etc? Is it loving to just discard people as being undeserving of food because they aren't in a job?
Or are you just going to waive this off as appeal to emotion (again).
God (through Paul): "If a man does not work, he shall not eat."
God: "Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”
AB: But don't you have compassion or understanding for....!?
God (through Paul): "If a man does not work, he shall not eat."
God: "Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”
AB: But don't you have compassion or understanding for....!?
Who said you "had to"? It would be good if you did but that's still completely your choice. You didn't make an "observation". You posted two bits of scripture, the first of which had been fully addressed and then ended with a misquoted snippet of my own post.
Who said you "had to"? It would be good if you did but that's still completely your choice. You didn't make an "observation". You posted two bits of scripture, the first of which had been fully addressed and then ended with a misquoted snippet of my own post.
Hmmm...I have to wonder how this is provoking anyone. :think:
Your point is well taken, Artie. Verses quoted from the Bible which were addressed to the Jews are not evidence that can be used for the discussion at hand.
But you are quoting verses that were specifically for the Jews. Just as this one was....
Slavery was allowed by God during a particular time, but I'm sure you'd agree it is not His PERFECT will for mankind.
Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
You aren't suggesting this would be "moral", and we are to live by such things today, are you?
Just gonna leave this here...let you read it...after you read it and you still think socialism is all that and a bag of chips, we can continue.
Spoiler
Capitalism vs. Socialism
By Walter E. Williams
May 30, 2018
Several recent polls, plus the popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders, demonstrate that young people prefer socialism to free market capitalism. That, I believe, is a result of their ignorance and indoctrination during their school years, from kindergarten through college. For the most part, neither they nor many of their teachers and professors know what free market capitalism is.
Free market capitalism, wherein there is peaceful voluntary exchange, is morally superior to any other economic system. Why? Let’s start with my initial premise. All of us own ourselves. I am my private property, and you are yours. Murder, rape, theft and the initiation of violence are immoral because they violate self-ownership. Similarly, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another person, for any reason, is immoral because it violates self-ownership.
Tragically, two-thirds to three-quarters of the federal budget can be described as Congress taking the rightful earnings of one American to give to another American — using one American to serve another. Such acts include farm subsidies, business bailouts, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and many other programs.
Free market capitalism is disfavored by many Americans — and threatened — not because of its failure but, ironically, because of its success. Free market capitalism in America has been so successful in eliminating the traditional problems of mankind — such as disease, pestilence, hunger and gross poverty — that all other human problems appear both unbearable and inexcusable. The desire by many Americans to eliminate these so-called unbearable and inexcusable problems has led to the call for socialism. That call includes equality of income, sex and race balance, affordable housing and medical care, orderly markets, and many other socialistic ideas.
Let’s compare capitalism with socialism by answering the following questions: In which areas of our lives do we find the greatest satisfaction, and in which do we find the greatest dissatisfaction? It turns out that we seldom find people upset with and in conflict with computer and clothing stores, supermarkets, and hardware stores. We do see people highly dissatisfied with and often in conflict with boards of education, motor vehicles departments, police and city sanitation services.
What are the differences? For one, the motivation for the provision of services of computer and clothing stores, supermarkets, and hardware stores is profit. Also, if you’re dissatisfied with their services, you can instantaneously fire them by taking your business elsewhere. It’s a different matter with public education, motor vehicles departments, police and city sanitation services. They are not motivated by profit at all. Plus, if you’re dissatisfied with their service, it is costly and in many cases even impossible to fire them.
Spoiler
A much larger and totally ignored question has to do with the brutality of socialism. In the 20th century, the one-party socialist states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Germany under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and the People’s Republic of China were responsible for the murder of 118 million citizens, mostly their own. The tallies were: USSR 62 million, Nazi Germany 21 million and PRC 35 million (http://tinyurl.com/zafgs5p). No such record of brutality can be found in countries that tend toward free market capitalism.
Here’s an experiment for you. List countries according to whether they are closer to the free market capitalist or to the socialist/communist end of the economic spectrum. Then rank the countries according to per capita gross domestic product. Finally, rank the countries according to Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World” report. You will find that people who live in countries closer to the free market capitalist end of the economic spectrum not only have far greater wealth than people who live in countries toward the socialistic/communist end but also enjoy far greater human rights protections.
As Dr. Thomas Sowell says, “socialism sounds great. It has always sounded great. And it will probably always continue to sound great. It is only when you go beyond rhetoric, and start looking at hard facts, that socialism turns out to be a big disappointment, if not a disaster.”
Hmmm...I have to wonder how this is provoking anyone. :think:
Your point is well taken, Artie. Verses quoted from the Bible which were addressed to the Jews are not evidence that can be used for the discussion at hand.
Hmmm...I have to wonder how this is provoking anyone. :think:
Your point is well taken, Artie. Verses quoted from the Bible which were addressed to the Jews are not evidence that can be used for the discussion at hand.
Oh, so, Genesis 3:17-19 and 2 Thessalonians 3:10 are addressed to the Jews, are they? Because those are the verses I had quoted that Artie was complaining about...
But you are quoting verses that were specifically for the Jews. Just as this one was....
Slavery was allowed by God during a particular time, but I'm sure you'd agree it is not His PERFECT will for mankind.
Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
You aren't suggesting this would be "moral", and we are to live by such things today, are you?
Oh, so, Genesis 3:17-19 and 2 Thessalonians 3:10 are addressed to the Jews, are they? Because those are the verses I had quoted that Artie was complaining about...
Hey, you were not being "provoked" by me JR so if this is how you're gonna handle your new power as a mod then just crack on and give me a full blown infraction instead of a warning. If you didn't want a reaction you shouldn't have invited one by mentioning me in a post to someone else. You could have left me completely out of it.
Oh, so, Genesis 3:17-19 and 2 Thessalonians 3:10 are addressed to the Jews, are they? Because those are the verses I had quoted that Artie was complaining about...
I wasn't "complaining" about anything so quit misrepresenting me JR. I was pointing out that one of your faves doesn't apply to today and gave you a detailed response on the point and invited you to rebut it. Instead, you didn't, indirectly addressed me without any response and gave me a warning for somehow "provoking" you when you were called on it.
lain: