1 Tim 5:8

[Van Arsdale]

1 Timothy 5
8If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. /NIV
How can a really poor person do this? Does this mean that poor people that can't do what this Scripture teaches are worse than unbelievers? Could someone just show me what the Scriptures teach on this - not opinions?
Thanks. 111503

 

[Crazy Liz]

First of all, read this verse in context. The chapter is mainly about who should be financially supported by the church and who should not. There are several classes of dependent people mentioned. Those unable to care for themselves should be cared for by their families, if they have any. Younger widows should remarry, rather than depend on the church. Those who are supported by the church should not live idle or hedonistic lifestyles, but have done good in the past and continue to do what good they can.

IOW, the whole chapter is dealing with people who for some reason are not supporting themselves, much less their families. These people are in no way condemned. The verse you cited has nothing to do with someone unable to support self or family, but rather with those who think it's the church's job, not their own, to support their older relatives who are unable to support themselves.

 

[Van Arsdale]

Thanks. Could you give me some advice on what do I say when someone uses a Scripture like that for evil? 112203

 

[Ben_Hur]

There are things other than finances we provide our family....

 

[Crazy Liz]

Thanks. Could you give me some advice on what do I say when someone uses a Scripture like that for evil? 112203

Maybe you could say more about using a scripture for evil. Knowing only the question you asked, I can imagine, but I could make a big mistake advising on the basis of a guess.

Generally, when I suspect someone's motives, I like to ask open-ended questions first. Try to get the person to explain. Assume good motives as long as you can. Eventually, I can usually come up with a question or suggestion that will test the person's motives. Assuming the person is sincere and open to learning while you adopt the same stance is a good way to keep the peace and influence a person toward his/her higher motives.

For yourself, though, I would suggest you study God's attitude toward the poor. I did a word search in the Blueletter Bible (www.blueletterbible.org) for verses containing the words "poor" and "needy" in the same verse. Two pages of verses came up. You can click on each reference to see its context. It's an excellent resource. One thing I noticed is that most of the scripture references either refer to God's compassion for the poor and needy or instruct those who have means as to how to assist the poor and needy. There are also some verses in Proverbs that contain wisdom about avoiding unnecessary poverty.

 

[Van Arsdale]

What I mean is: when someone, like Satan, uses a Scripture, like 1Tim5:8, to cause another to do evil, could you give me some useful advice on what to say at those times? Thanks.

One common example is when false brothers and false sisters frequently use Scriptures like Jn3:16 and Eph 2:8,9 to say things like, "Now that I´m saved I can lie, steal, use obscenities and kill as many people as I wanted, then kill myself and I would still go straight to heaven because I ´believe´ and I´m ´saved by grace´".
Does anyone know what I mean now? Thanks. 112603

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think part of the answer is to look at the whole of scripture to see whether the single verse is being twisted by taking it out of context.

 

[Ferahgo-Under-God]

What I mean is: when someone, like Satan, uses a Scripture, like 1Tim5:8, to cause another to do evil, could you give me some useful advice on what to say at those times? Thanks.

One common example is when false brothers and false sisters frequently use Scriptures like Jn3:16 and Eph 2:8,9 to say things like, "Now that I´m saved I can lie, steal, use obscenities and kill as many people as I wanted, then kill myself and I would still go straight to heaven because I ´believe´ and I´m ´saved by grace´".
Does anyone know what I mean now? Thanks. 112603

I agree with Crazy Liz here, you need to look at the whole of the scripture to see what it means "in context". Also, I like to point out that in order to truly be saved you have to WHOLLY put your whole faith in God. The key word is "Wholly". If a person sais they are saved, but willingly lie, cheat, steal, and murder, then they are most likely "talking the talk but not walking the walk".

hope that made sense!

 

[First Echelon]

The bible can be twisted any way you wish.

That is the beauty of its ambiguity.

 

[Ferahgo-Under-God]

The bible can be twisted any way you wish.

That is the beauty of its ambiguity.

Ummm, could you please be a bit more specific? I have yet to find any way to twist the Bible to fit your own needs. It would help if you cited examples so we know exactly what parts you are talking about!

 

[First Echelon]

The entire bible is ambiguous.

Why do you think there are debates?

Why do you think everyone isn't Christian?

If the Bible were perfectly clear and undeniably correct, then everyone would be Christian.

Thou shalt not kill

Is war always wrong?

 

[Ferahgo-Under-God]

Well, first, there are debates on everything in Earth, people even argue whether 2+2 really equals 4. No matter what you are given, you will never find 1 concrete system that everyone will accept. Some will usually deny it just to prove they can.

War is not always wrong, but killing is, there is always another way I beleive. I am not against war, but I think that it does not have to involve killing hundreds, thousands, or even a single person to be held. If a non-christian reverts to murder, there is never a case where killing him/her is the only option.

 

[First Echelon]

How can you not be against war if you say that killing is always wrong.

Hypocrisy.

 

[Ferahgo-Under-God]

Did you not read what I just said?

War does not mean killing, that is just how it is typically carried out on this planet in the matters of which we hear about. War is merely conflict between 2 or more parties, and does not have to be murder, it can merely be a test of wits. (ex: 2 sides think they should each own a certain oil feild, first legal ownership of land is looked for, if none is found, the 2 find a mediator they are BOTH happy with, and present their cases as to why they should have it. The mediator decides who gets it. If people would all just accept this kind of system, and actually live with it when they lost, war as we know it could dissapear forever, but war itself would still survive!)

another confusing messege!

 

[Atrilial]

God tells us not to murder, but murder is not war. War does include killing, but sometimes death is nescessary in our imperfect twisted society, though we should always search for a better way. And never should we set out to kill or start war, or do anything, without intense prayer and god's consent.

 

[First Echelon]

I was not attempting to be proven wrong.

I was showing an example of the ambiguity of the Bible.

The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, why do you think there are so many religions focused around the bible and Jesus as the redeemer?

My point was not killing is justified in modern society, I was only pointing out a possible argument where a verse of the bible is used in a situation other than pointing out what is right.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Did you not read what I just said?

War does not mean killing, that is just how it is typically carried out on this planet in the matters of which we hear about. War is merely conflict between 2 or more parties, and does not have to be murder, it can merely be a test of wits. (ex: 2 sides think they should each own a certain oil feild, first legal ownership of land is looked for, if none is found, the 2 find a mediator they are BOTH happy with, and present their cases as to why they should have it. The mediator decides who gets it. If people would all just accept this kind of system, and actually live with it when they lost, war as we know it could dissapear forever, but war itself would still survive!)

another confusing messege!

Please don't try to redefine war so as to include every kind of conflict, even peaceful ones. War is a small subset of conflict. Playing with definitions the way you did leads to doublespeak, which is the instrument of hate.