Starvation And Theft

[Saint Therese]

I saw on EWTN once where Fr. Mitch Pacwa said a starving person can steal food, because ultimately all things belong to God.

I think in the case of a starving person stealing food their intention wouldn't be to gain something in an illicit manner, but just to preserve their own life.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Saint Therese

[Winchester]

[quote name='BibleReader' date='17 February 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1266433062' post='2058400']
"he overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death."
[/quote]
Nice proof text. That refers to martyrdom, in all likelihood.

To sin requires a free choice. A starving man isn't exactly making a free choice.

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]I saw on EWTN once where Fr. Mitch Pacwa said a starving person can steal food, because ultimately all things belong to God.[/quote]

Amen. God Bless the man who steals my food that he may eat.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='BibleReader' date='17 February 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1266433062' post='2058400']
"Do Not Steal"

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?"

"Be faithful, even to the point of death"

"he overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death."

We are told not to worry, and through faith God will provide, and we are called not to sin even to death.
[/quote]
The Apostles and Jesus took food on the Sabbath from the fields, a violation of the LAW.
Its not a sin to steal food to keep yourself alive, thats legalism.

[KeenanParkerII]

Initially, it is us who are refraining from keeping God's law by not sharing what little we have with the poor and the hungry.

[BibleReader]

I agree that it is the fault of everyone that even one person should go hungry.

But there is no exception to the rule, thievery is wrong.
Pro 30:8-9

Also, Christ was allowed to take the corn from the fields:

Lev. 19:9-10

[Veridicus]

[quote name='BibleReader' date='18 February 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1266531658' post='2058969']
Also, Christ was allowed to take the corn from the fields:

Lev. 19:9-10
[/quote]

So it is acceptable to take food from the field corners of people who live under the Levitical Law of the Old Testament since the law stated they should grow some for the poor and strangers, but you should not take food from other people?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='18 February 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1266536998' post='2059023']
So it is acceptable to take food from the field corners of people who live under the Levitical Law of the Old Testament since the law stated they should grow some for the poor and strangers, but you should not take food from other people?
[/quote]

i also noticed that contradiction.

these who say 'no exceptions' must also be overlooking the catechism, which says that under dire situations, you can. i never even knew that clause existed in the catechism, i always just tried to argue it myself. apparently even the catholic church agrees with me on that, to the dismay of so many here.

the way i see it-- it's just not wrong, at all. i used the 'giant who owned all the earth but a small plot where a family wanted to branch off beyond that plot', adn the 'if you just sprung up on the earth and needed to eat, it's not wrong to go eat some apples'.

really, the law of man is jsut a collection of agreements. 'these trees are yours, and these trees are mine'. if an indian were to come along, who says it's wrong for him to say 'where's my part of this agreement? i wasnt part of this'. etc etc. the indian, if he had to eat, at least, should be able to- or at least if a person were to magically appear on the earth with no wehre to get food. and, in a sense, that's exactly what happens when new people enter into this world, they need some where to make ends meet. if we're going to deprive them of that opportunity, we should make up for it, and let them have something. this is the whole basis for welfare of sorts, or something.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='17 February 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1266425127' post='2058342']
My first question would be who he stole the bread from. Did he steal it from a fat, rich man, or a poor pregnant woman.
[/quote]
What difference would that really make in the situation we are discussing here?

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 February 2010 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1266425631' post='2058347']
I think its a sin that there are people who starve.
[/quote]
Yes it is, but unfortunately this goes on all over this world. Not only becuase of lack of funds, but intentionally be kept from donated staples by miliatry that confiscate foodstuffs and use it for their troops and etnic cleansing politics in some countries.

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='17 February 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1266441620' post='2058477']
Initially, it is us who are refraining from keeping God's law by not sharing what little we have with the poor and the hungry.
[/quote]

In a perfect world our monies would get to help all those who need it, this is not always the case in the world after the fall from grace.

ed

[MissyP89]

If truly staving, and the only way to avoid death would be to steal, I would do it. I would also resolve to do whatever I could to make restitution when it became possible.

[BibleReader]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='18 February 2010 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1266536998' post='2059023']
So it is acceptable to take food from the field corners of people who live under the Levitical Law of the Old Testament since the law stated they should grow some for the poor and strangers, but you should not take food from other people?
[/quote]

Absolutely. One should follow the law of the land if they don't contradict God's Law. At that time that was the ordaining law among the Jews. Furthermore Paul tells us that the law is set forth to show us as Christians what is good not show us what is wrong. It is used to condemn, to show where sin is for nonbelievers. We still find great use in Levitical law, all of it is still applicable except what was fulfilled by Christ Himself.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='19 February 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1266624300' post='2059716']
these who say 'no exceptions' must also be overlooking the catechism, which says that under dire situations, you can. i never even knew that clause existed in the catechism, i always just tried to argue it myself. apparently even the catholic church agrees with me on that, to the dismay of so many here.

the way i see it-- it's just not wrong, at all. i used the 'giant who owned all the earth but a small plot where a family wanted to branch off beyond that plot', adn the 'if you just sprung up on the earth and needed to eat, it's not wrong to go eat some apples'.

really, the law of man is jsut a collection of agreements. 'these trees are yours, and these trees are mine'. if an indian were to come along, who says it's wrong for him to say 'where's my part of this agreement? i wasnt part of this'. etc etc. the indian, if he had to eat, at least, should be able to- or at least if a person were to magically appear on the earth with no wehre to get food. and, in a sense, that's exactly what happens when new people enter into this world, they need some where to make ends meet. if we're going to deprive them of that opportunity, we should make up for it, and let them have something. this is the whole basis for welfare of sorts, or something.
[/quote]

I have two problems here. First, your logic allows none of man's laws to be declared on Christians, when the bible clearly tells us that we are to follow the powers to be, provided they don't make you sin; and secondly, considering it was the law, that meant that a part of every farmer's field was public domain, there is nothing to argue as far as right and wrong go here, there was no theft, thus no proof saying this allows theft in dire circumstances. Do you suppose that all things now belong to everybody? Are we to force others into this communistic sort of thinking (not that I don't think it would be great but that runs over the right for people not to participate).

[quote name='MissyP89' date='22 February 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1266818770' post='2061024']
If truly staving, and the only way to avoid death would be to steal, I would do it. I would also resolve to do whatever I could to make restitution when it became possible.
[/quote]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel you need to make restitution when you feel that what you are doing is justified?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote][quote]the way i see it-- it's just not wrong, at all. i used the 'giant who owned all the earth but a small plot where a family wanted to branch off beyond that plot', adn the 'if you just sprung up on the earth and needed to eat, it's not wrong to go eat some apples'.

really, the law of man is jsut a collection of agreements. 'these trees are yours, and these trees are mine'. if an indian were to come along, who says it's wrong for him to say 'where's my part of this agreement? i wasnt part of this'. etc etc. the indian, if he had to eat, at least, should be able to- or at least if a person were to magically appear on the earth with no wehre to get food. and, in a sense, that's exactly what happens when new people enter into this world, they need some where to make ends meet. if we're going to deprive them of that opportunity, we should make up for it, and let them have something. this is the whole basis for welfare of sorts, or something.[/quote]


I have two problems here. First, your logic allows none of man's laws to be declared on Christians, when the bible clearly tells us that we are to follow the powers to be, provided they don't make you sin; and secondly, considering it was the law, that meant that a part of every farmer's field was public domain, there is nothing to argue as far as right and wrong go here, there was no theft, thus no proof saying this allows theft in dire circumstances. Do you suppose that all things now belong to everybody? Are we to force others into this communistic sort of thinking (not that I don't think it would be great but that runs over the right for people not to participate). [/quote]

i accept that we are to abide by man's laws, usually. and for anyone to claim that me saying 'usually' and allowing for exceptions, is wrong, is only fooling themselves and probably wouldnt even buy it. ie, if the requires that a person lay down and die, not even a chrsitian would follow it. besides the point that ti's just common sense to say not all laws must be followed, there's the idea of laws taking precedent over each other, like the supremeecy clause of the constitution makes the constitutio trump local laws-- here the law is divine law, which trump the law of man.
and, no, i dont think a person can simply say 'i hereby trump this law through my divinely inspired thinking'- that person is only fooling himself. when it's okay to trump and when not is a matter of good judgment. christians if following God will figure it out, if it's important enough to be made known for sure, if it's God's will.

the indian example and other example- im not advocating that every part is pulic land, or it's communistic. these 'liberal' ideals i have, only come into play when a person cannot eat, not te rule of thumb and really just the exception, by far. if ya want to say it's not theft to beghin with, sure, it's not theft to begin with-- ive always said that ti's nt 'stealing' (i define it as 'takign what you're not entitled to' as opposed to 'taking what another has custody over'). but, i dont think im talking for no reason- to ask if it's okay to commit theft is the poit of this thread, and im saying it's okay and saying why. and, if we assume it's theft to begin with and thus wrong, then there's no poit even talking about this stuff- that' no the poit of this thread, and so im saying it's okay to commit theft sometimes and saying why. to follow your logic wold lead us to a thread with no point.

people force othes into their sstem all the time- if you live in the US you live by their rules. i assume you think it's okay to enforce laws like that, so i dont see why we wouldnt here. i do see value, in letting a hermit live alone etc-- but even i tend to think all who live here must pay something. if they are a hermit without much property, the poor sholdnt be bothering them anyway, perhaps i could make exceptios to forcing them to participate. if the hermit expets to have a croutons tone of property and land--- he's gonna have to play by our rules though, that's just the way it is.

Edited February 27, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[BibleReader]

DairyGirl...

The bible is very clear on how things are to be done. We are to abide by man's law always, the only exception being when it causes us to sin. It doesn't matter what people think, and who would and wouldn't "buy it" but rather what is right. In Revelation, the bible tells us that if we need to lay down our life to serve Christ, then the Holy Spirit will give us the strength to do so, and just because the majority of people wouldn't think so or do so, doesn't make something right or wrong.

There is no common sense in saying not all laws are to be followed. That gives reason for people to take judgement on what is and isn't to be followed, both in the Law of God, and the law of man, nothing has given you the power to decide what can and cannot be followed. It is true that you will find in man's law, the need to have laws that supersede other laws, this is an object of imperfection, and also on the basis that man's law is not based on Divine Law. I also agree that God's Law always trumps man's law, but I see in no place where God's allows us to steal, whether or not in danger of life or limb.

Through God's word and wisdom are the only ways we can know when God's Law will trump man's, not just by intuition or because it feels right. The second you take the biblical thinking out of your reasoning you declare the bible a work in need of improvement, furthermore, by this thinking, you will find that the bible no longer has meaning to you because you have decided that you are now smarter than the bible. If it is God's will, I believe it will be clearly defined to you either through faith, Godly wisdom, or directly through His word.

I tend to agree with your "liberal" ideas. I think that if everyone participated in an equally helping communistic sort of society, things would be a lot better off; but through history we know that this will not happen until Christ returns. If it is a [i]rule[/i] however then it is always in play, rules just don't come and go based on how a person feels. If it is wrong to steal, then it is always wrong to steal; then again if it is okay, then it is always okay.

I'm trying to show you that the example given, Christ eating out of the fields, is not an example that proves hunger gives cause to take. Why, because doing it in the way described in the bible is justified through the law. You can call it something else, but God gives right to ownership, especially where man has allocated it. Even when Christ needed the donkey to ride the triumphal entry, He told His disciples to explain why the donkey was needed, and furthermore it implies consent. The example provided is irrelevant to this discussion.

Just because you call it something else doesn't make it right either. If you need to change the name of something so that you can feel justified in doing something, you need to find where the bible would justify doing the same thing. Death is no the end, through Christ we have conquered death, threat of death, by no means, gives us right to break any of the laws set forth by the Holy Scriptures.

Edited February 27, 2010 by BibleReader

[dairygirl4u2c]

"The bible is very clear on how things are to be done. We are to abide by man's law always, the only exception being when it causes us to sin."

how doest the bible clearly say this?
im genuinely interested, not being rhetorical.

"The bible is very clear on how things are to be done. We are to abide by man's law always, the only exception being when it causes us to sin. [...] It is true that you will find in man's law, the need to have laws that supersede other laws, this is an object of imperfection, and also on the basis that man's law is not based on Divine Law. "

just to clarify, you think divine law only supercedes when the divine law says that we are not to sin but man law wants us to sin? reading the second sentence there wold lead one to conluce that you think supremecy is okay sometimes even beyond when one is sinning or not (which would contradict your first sentence, but)... and if that's te case, id argue for all the reasons i did above, that it is okay in rare circumstances.

----

also, i dont think the bible says what you say 'clearly'. true, im not one to necessarily say the bible is infallible, but i am one to defer to it almost always and treat it as if it is. i dont think ive even called into question the bibles inerrancy here, so i dont know why you bring that point up. i dont think im being unbiblical, that's why i ask you to provide the proof.

i agree, voluntarily entering into those communistic type settings are best, but even if not voluntarily,then at least when one must eat, i argue based on my understanding that it's okay. given you havent rovided biblical support yet, and given you seem to think never 'stealing' is the right thing no matter the situatio-- i'd like to hear what your reasoning is, just you talking about it as if it were you explaining why the rule is waht it is.



as to the 'jesus eating in the field' stuff, it seems like that's only proof of my side. i dont see how it's proof of your side. what in the law justified it? i genuinely want to know. i remember the story, i think, and the issue was whether they were to be doing that stuff on sunday- and he said they could. that he went into someone's field seems more lberal than even im coming off. he wasn't starving. i just write this story off, case we dont know the details, though. it seems to support my ideas, more, though.

and i dont think im just being semantical. the bible etc is inherently semantical so it's part of the game. 'thou shalt not kill', or even if it's 'thou shalt not murder'. only a lawyer could tell you what it means to 'kill' or 'murder'-- does self defense count, does 'just war' count? etc etc. it takes common sense, and good judgment. i use that argumentatio for defining 'steal', per 'thou shalt not steal'.
i argue it's the natural law. my ideas may be novel, but that's oftne the way God's andor naturl law works- people's experiences are clouded by political or cultural stuff instead of true wisdom. the general rule shallows the exceptions. the exceptios are contemplated on as if theory, when anyone in their right mind would steal, and do so rightly, if they had to.
im open to being wrong though, if the bible says i am.

just for te record, even im not advocating pure communism. just in minor exceptions.

Edited February 27, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

but to clarify, yes there are times when charity is warranted. jesus didn't advocate getting the government involved, when the man on the street asked for money. ie, if the system is inhernetly sound, but the man is down on this luck, charity is warranted. im not sure if the man would be jhustified to steal or not, id guess not. when the system is flawed, though, the man should steal, and charity is not the solution- government is.
sometimes whether the system is flawed, or the man is just down on his luck... is hard to slice. but, that's the standard that shold be used. 'charitable bootstraps' v. 'governmental bootstraps' (or entitelment bootstraps, though that word is loaded)- if we're going to tell people to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, it's a moral imperitive that they have bootstraps to pull themselves up to begin with.