He that will not work...

Shall not eat. John Smith 1607, Jamestown Virginia. I've just spent the week in Colonial Williamsburg. Lots of 17th and 18th century history here. Discuss.

Visiting places like that makes me think of this:

How much did the tour guides tell you about what they ate?

[YT="It's What's For Dinner!"]?v=8GdzbCIxkzo[/YT]

So John Smith should have said - "He (or she) that will not work shall be eaten."


Off topic - Makes for an interesting reimagining of the A-Team. Being led by John "Cannibal" Smith would well explain the disappearance of Amy Amanda Allen.

Considering that I believe the gentleman was quoting St Paul ...

It is a pity that we don't instill this value into the young children. Instead of telling folks that they are "entitled" to everything on a silver platter, encourage them to work for it.
And no, I'm not thinking or even suggesting that folks be denied their inheritance. If anyone has been recently watching the PBS series about the great castles, it is now shown that the inheritors are being taught that what they inherit is a trust for the future.

funny, Lenin used it as well.

here's some more bible on the subject,

Who'd have thought Marx was such a proponent of Christian virtue?

I went there last year just about this time. Didn't spend the whole week at Colonial Williamsburg though, I also went to other places in that general area.

On that same vacation I went to Washington D.C. - the one place on our trip that I never want to see again.

And that while they starved, they dug for gold...

Silly people? Because there's nothing in Acts about forcibly taking from worldily richer Christians and giving to the financially poorer. It all appears to have been voluntary, with a system in place to see that the funds were distributed well.

what's being forcibly taken from "worldly richer" folks now?

Did they tell you about John Casor?

Probably not.

I am always amazed by the way this passage is used. Some pertinent facts, that need to be taken into account in order to understand it:

1) This was never taught anywhere as a "Christian value." It was practiced in one city for a short time, that's all.

2) The reason, apparently, was that they thought there was no need to hang on to resources like land, because they expected Jesus would be back soon, so instead of everybody working for a living, those who had things sold them and everyone lived off them. That will be plenty to provide for everyone until the end of the world, right?

3) That city, 20 years later, was where the Christian community was the poorest in the whole Roman Empire, and had to be helped by the generosity of Christians from other places.

4) The later Christian teaching was to help those who are poor due to circumstances beyond their control, but that those who were poor simply because they didn't want to work when they could do so should not eat. It is hard to believe that there was no relationship between that teaching and the example of what had happened earlier in Jerusalem.

So those who want to use this as an example of socialism do so at their own peril: It is an example of how squandering resources in order to provide for everyone results, in the long run, in poverty for everyone.

Ah. So that "sell all thou hast and give to the poor" bit was like a ballloon mortgage...its failure is the consumer's fault for not reading the fine print.

If you do not pay your taxes, even the U.S. federal govt. has a nasty habit of throwing you in jail.

that'd be the "render unto Caesar..." part, wouldn't it?

Yes.

But just because you are obligated to conform to govt. tax laws does not mean it is right for the govt. to forcibly take it in the first place for the purpose of compensating people who make no effort to earn their way.

I have no problem with supplementing someone's income. If someone is stuck at a very low paying job for a year or so or unable to find a job at all it seems reasonable.

But I think ALL govt. benefits (aside from someone being more than 50% disabled) should have a definite end point and lifetime limit.

I posted that an hour ago and tafkats hasn't called me a racist for it yet.

You guys are slipping.

Seriously, lose the BS part that people don't want to work (it's not untrue, but I don't believe it's a majority either) and we're looking at things nearly the same way.

why bother?
we already know you're a racist.

I just find it interest that white people could arrive in a country teeming with game, fish, and berries and manage to starve to death.

Now it feels like Wrodforge again.

so then what was your motivation behind that random tidbit of info?

Given his defense of the more typical situation of slavery, he seems to be saying "It was okay for whites to enslave blacks; it's only bad when it's the other way around."

Amended in light of Post #25:

What he really means is "One black man did what 400,000 white men were doing, so it's okay."

It ain't all whitey's fault and it's time to stop using that excuse. It's old, worn out, and has gotten blacks nowhere.

When Whitey owns up to the things that are his fault - you can start with segregation - get back to us.

sorry, just not seeing it that way. Seemed more like you were trying (yet again) to justify slavery as a "right", this time basing it on the fact that free blacks could own the indenture (although lets face it, there isn't much of a difference) of others.

I think the vast majority of people are willing to work.

What they aren't willing to do is work "just for the hell of it". That is, if they can get stuff for not working they will not work.

that is a staggeringly huge distinction.

Oops. Stupid cultists.