Justifications

[Elok]

And Ned, what do you mean Manecheism? That's the doctrine that the world is in the grip of EQUAL and opposite forces, with the equal part being the bit that traditional Christianity balks at. That God and Satan are working against each other is a point that few, if any, Christians would contest.

[Ned]

Manicheans saw everything in absolute terms with no shades of gray. I could provide you links, but there was a battle of doctrines in the Roman Empire between Catholism and Manicheaism that forced the Catholics to effectively become much more strict in their views about doctrine, sin and redemption. The whole concept of chastity of priests came as a result of Manicheaism. Priests could not both be servants of God and married at the same time. No shades of gray.

I read a book on how different Irish Catholicism was from Roman Catholicism on these issues. I believe the concept of confession and redemption began in Ireland, IIRC.

But when I read your first post on absolutes in morality, I was instantly struck with just how Manichean it was.

[tanelorn]

Also, wealth is in no Christian sense a sign of divine providence, but a buren, rather.

Wasn't it Jesus Christ who asked the rich to distribute all their wealth (not just someexcuse of a charity) to the poor, and follow him?

Wasn't it Jesus Christ who said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?

Charity may give one a good refund, but it doesn't save any souls by itself, nor does it ease ones conscience, assuming one has one.

If the guy from the post above gave some of his blood money for charity, he would save his soul or have a righteous conscience, before the Lord?

Ofcourse, if it is God's will, camels may go through needle-eyes and rich may save their souls...

But what happens if it is God's will that the poor man may steal the loaf of bread, and the loaf owner's children may starve, in turn?

Ofcourse, the commandments say one must not steal and leave it at that, period. However, according to "the left" as you put it, the rich steal from society, so when you take the loaf of bread, it is not theft, it is socialization of assets, giving the loaf of bread back to the society= the children

Let's not get started on the instances in the Bible where those in grace "steal" by divine right, or get robbed to be tested by God

When in Genesis Jacob "appropriates" the firstborn rights of his older brother for a plate of lentil, or when he "steals" the flocks and daughters of his father in law (for which Jacob worked for all his life, and the flocks are the product of his toil), it is 100% ok because God willed it so. Of course I believe it is so.

It is ok for Jakob to appropriate the result of his labor, but a poor man doesn't have the right to steal a lousy loaf of bread, to feed his children and the working class shouldn't enjoy some benefits out of the proffit it generates

Then again, God might be a communist, after all.
(This is not meant intentionally in a blasphemous way at all, just a figure of speach.)

You see what happens when you mix the Divine with human society...

[Sandman]

Of course it's right to steal bread to feed you starving family. "Sorry kids, but you're going to have to die because I don't want to violate my belief system."

[Ned]

I once was in the seminary studying to be a priest. I was struck by just how communist it was to be a member of the catholic clergy. All were equal, no one had more than others, etc., etc., etc.

Sandman, et al., I have no doubt that the concept of charities was instituted so that the poor would not have to resort to theft to live.

I have no problem with the government helping charities in providing for the poor. What I do have a problem with is the concept that the poor have a right to steal rather than depending upon charities or government benefits. The premise is wrong because it does not present the problem in the complete context.

[tanelorn]

Manichaism was an ofshoot of ancient Persian Zoroastrianism, in line with Mithraism, which was contemporary with early Christianity. It influenced heressies like the bogomils in the east or the catharii in the west, against which there was a crusade in the middle ages. In Catholic tradition, I think it was st.Augustine that wrote against them, or was it against neo-platonism?

What does latin have to do with anything? Jesus preached in Aramaic, but the original Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse were all written in Hellenistic Greek, which was the common language of the area, not latin. Latin translations came later, and noone ever disputed that, as far as I know.
Bad translations in medieval vulgata brought about such misconceptions like the "city uppon a hill" that was the mark of the Mayflower pilgrims. The original says "city uppon a mountain", which would not be such a big deal, if there were more than enough similar examples.
The word for charity is "eleos" in the original. It is the same for mercy.

If the loaf owner is merciful and gives his fellow man the loaf, to feed his children, as a benefit there is no social tension?
Will he have to depend on others mercy to survive?
What if the poor guy can't find a job to work honestly for the loaf, because there has to be unemployment in the economy to keep wages low?
If there is employment and fair wages, there is no need for charity or theft.

[Ned]

Originally posted by tanelorn
Manichaism was an ofshoot of ancient Persian Zoroastrianism, in line with Mithraism, which was contemporary with early Christianity. It influenced heressies like the bogomils in the east or the catharii in the west, against which there was a crusade in the middle ages. In Catholic tradition, I think it was st.Augustine that wrote against them, or was it against neo-platonism?

What does latin have to do with anything? Jesus preached in Aramaic, but the original Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse were all written in Hellenistic Greek, which was the common language of the area, not latin. Latin translations came later, and noone ever disputed that, as far as I know.
Bad translations in medieval vulgata brought about such misconceptions like the "city uppon a hill" that was the mark of the Mayflower pilgrims. The original says "city uppon a mountain", which would not be such a big deal, if there were more than enough similar examples.
The word for charity is "eleos" in the original. It is the same for mercy.

If the loaf owner is merciful and gives his fellow man the loaf, to feed his children, as a benefit there is no social tension?
Will he have to depend on others mercy to survive?
What if the poor guy can't find a job to work honestly for the loaf, because there has to be unemployment in the economy to keep wages low?
If there is employment and fair wages, there is no need for charity or theft.

You make a good point here why there has to be a social safety net for those who are both temporarily and permanently out of work. From an economics point of view, however, it is more efficient to have private businesses competing with one another in all aspects of a business than to have guaranteed employment by state owned businesses. Thus welfare is better than socialism.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by tanelorn

Then again, God might be a communist, after all.
(This is not meant intentionally in a blasphemous way at all, just a figure of speach.)

You see what happens when you mix the Divine with human society...

You leave it at 'Thou shall not steal' but it goes deeper, because that is not the only commandment that is relevant.

'Thou shalt not covet'. Communism is inherently covetous, it depends upoin a people saying that 'They have more than we, let us take it by force' Were I poor I like to think that I could depend on my faith. That I could say 'Thy will be done' and go on living my life as is best, emulating Job. Trying my hardest and serving my God. I can only pray that should the Lord test me in this way that I will be strong. But it will be hard for my greatest weakness is my love of money. It's something that I fight constantly against, but it's my sin.

I pray also that should I see a man stealing bread that I would have the Christian valor to stop him and purchase it for him (It wouldn't be too hard, I've done similar things in the past) I am strongly against theft, done by any party.

Of course I'm only 16, so lord only knows where I'll go. But he does know, so I can sleep confidently.

according to "the left" as you put it, the rich steal from society, so when you take the loaf of bread, it is not theft, it is socialization of assets, giving the loaf of bread back to the society= the children

The rich steal from society? Since when was profit stealing? I am reminded of any measure of parables in which Jesus commended profit, but he also commended charity, so we are to make our money and give it away.

Because it is not ours, but God's all things are God's (Psalm 24, verse 1) and we have no claim on them no matter how hard we work for them, how entitled we feel, how cheated we feel when we do not receive.

I can give my riches, knowing they were never mine, I can build a monument, knowing that it will never be mine. I can make a great many things in my image, but they will never be mine and my life has degraded to a futile worship of myself.

But enough advice for the wealthy, the impovershed and their kleptomania, that's what we're talking about. If God gives you a burden, take it. If it seems too much remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Do not steal, but save in your days of prosperity and guard yourself against it. Do we not save the water which falls when there are floods, knowing that there will be drought one day? Have faith.

An easy thing for me to say, so far from discomfort, I confess. But, God's will be done, should I be tested I will practice as I preach.

[SKILORD]

[Potentially Irrelevant]

Another interesting note on socialism:

During the days of the Roman Republic campaigning officials would often bribe the plebs with bread and money, this is seen as a great corruption on their Republic.

But at least they used their own bread.

[David Floyd]

Of course it's right to steal bread to feed you starving family. "Sorry kids, but you're going to have to die because I don't want to violate my belief system."

No, actually, it's more like "Sorry, kids, but because I refuse to act immorally, and because we can't provide for ourselves or find anyone else to voluntarily help us, we're going to have to die."

One doesn't have a right to stay alive, if that life is bought by violating the rights of another. All the "right to life" means is that you can't kill me, not that I can't die through natural means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, actually, it's more like "Sorry, kids, but because I refuse to act immorally, and because we can't provide for ourselves or find anyone else to voluntarily help us, we're going to have to die."

Which is not much better at all.

[David Floyd]

Which is not much better at all.

Yeah, dying certainly sucks.

[Sandman]

I fully advocate ignoring property rights and acting 'immorally' in this situation. I would rather be alive and immoral than dead and moral in this case.

[David Floyd]

I'm sure you would.

[Rogan Josh]

I think it would be immoral for the father not to steal bread to feed his kids.