Larger Than Life

Please See LINK For the Rest of the Article

Confused as to where to post this item - (wrestled with myself that this would make a good fit for ‘Bizarro News Items’), I opted rather to place this within ‘Ethics & Morality in RE: Culture’ as I thought it more appropriate there. Unto the subject matter;

Now you might think I posted this item in order that I may condemn the above named Anglican minister (a one Timothy Jones), for giving such seemingly irresponsible advice to his congregation. . .

Not quite. That you might recall (if you follow all the threads within this forum), I once re-counted a tale in which my wife’s grandfather was once arrested, tried and convicted for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family (yep, I‘m talkin‘ about America here) - Given a choice before the judge, he was given the most reasonable option (sic.) that he may choose prison (or) front-line combat duty. He chose the latter, (which) to his misfortune, turned out to be his death sentence.

Don’t mean to re-hash the above, but I felt the story applied; Given a choice that a man or woman would steal to provide for themselves & their family or see starvation so that the laws of the land be preserved, which would you do?

Please choose poll option that you feel applies, you may register commentary below.

I’ve already entered my vote.

TIA.

Joe (Bigsky770)

_________________
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

- - Groucho Marx

I saw this story a couple of days ago - think it was on the Beeb.

I voted "Theft is wrong. ALWAYS. No Excuses." Reason being because imo it just IS wrong. If you steal, the person you steal from then suffers in place of yourself, so all you are doing is transferring your own suffering to somebody else, which cannot possibly be right in my opinion, no matter how right it might seem at the time.

I suppose there's another argument that it could depend on who you are stealing from - for example if you steal from a mega-rich organisation, especially one that routinely steals from the general public, such as a bank, that's ok because they are a bunch or criminals anyway, can easily afford their loss and deserve whatever loss they suffer, but my view is that in its purest sense, stealing is STILL wrong, because two wrongs don't make a right.

As far as the priest is concerned, my view he is out of order because, as mentioned in the article, there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not steal," and that is PERIOD. Not "thou shalt not steal, except in certain circumstances that make it ok" or whatever, but a plain and simple "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL." So for the priest to offer advice against that commandment means he is not following the procedures that have been laid down for him to educate his congregation with, (and that he should be following himself in order to set the correct example,) namely the Bible.

_________________
Pobody's nerfect

What disturbed me in this instance was that this had come from an Anglican minister - One whom otherwise would be expected to detail the meanings of certain commandments rather than publicly opine contrariness to them. To myself this seemed an eye-opening statement admonishing ‘Big.Gov’ for the lowly state this had impressed upon the common man. . .Can it be doubted? this was exactly the intent he had in mind?

As for what the commandments state specifically, we find ourselves in contravention to them nearly every day. “Thou shalt not kill”, though we have wars that do, as well people who find themselves in the unseemly position of having to take a life in order to save a loved-one from an armed assailant. “I am the Lord your God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me”, though it could be argued we legally maintain an upper 3% of society that idolize money. Keeping the Sabbath day holy (no work) though it occasioned Christ to argue with the Pharisees’ - “Would you not snatch your mule from a well on the Sabbath?”

If we are to believe that last line, (that biblical account) - might it seem that Jesus was offering a provision for a breaking of the rule? I think it does. Does it not follow that there could be certain provisions for those other “Commandments?” I think so, IMHO.

Joseph Fletcher founded the theory of “Situational Ethics” in the early 60’s with his treatise “Agapē love” - Fletcher believed that there are no absolute laws other than the law of Agapē, and all the other laws were laid down in order to achieve the greatest amount of this love. This means that all the other laws are only guidelines to how to achieve this love, and thus they may be broken if the other course of action would result in more love. In his “Six Fundamental Principals”:



Keeping the above in mind - As I used that recollected tale of my wife’s grandfather:



A man driven to do something he normally wouldn’t (act of theft) to feed his starving family, he did for love. Same man, taken before the judge, given the choice of serving in the military where he may send money back to them providing for their survival (though he may, and eventually did, meet with death), more love. As for “Justice”, I assert that in the end of this sordid tale, there was none on the part of the arbitor - The judge in this case having dutifully played the part of Pontius Pilate to the very end as per the defendant. What the rendering of this lacked in justice was replaced with LOVE - The sacrifice of a life. What greater love than this?

Now - Whom do you think the Reverend Tim Jones’ was preaching to? The flock, or the government?

Joe (Bigsky770)

_________________
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

- - Groucho Marx

A very noble post, Joe.

IMO, when you're shoplifting, love doesn't enter the equation at that particular moment. I voted that theft is wrong, period.

We can discuss this for ours on end, but we still will disagree. In my world, things are the opposite: how can the world NOT take care of those in need? Why do we let things get so far as to find people in need to steal?

But in your world such a person is called a socialist or worse.

_________________
My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.. (F. Zappa)
"How ironic... You eat vegetarian and speak baloney" -- Bucky Catt
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.

A man who wouldn't steal to feed someone else, if that was the only option, is not sufficiently thoughtful of the demands of his duties.

Just my opinion there.


Come on, what are you guys saying, you would starve under any and all circumstance, rather than steal?. Well, ok, bizzare, but good on you for sticking to your principles. We will admire the skinny but principled corpse you leave behind, and I guess no one would criticise you either. Men have died for lesser causes.

But you are saying, stealing is wrong even if it is to save a life?

The people in concentration camps were wrong to steal from the guards if they could?.

The people of Soviet Russia were wrong to steal from the corrupt government?.

You would be wrong to steal to feed your family if you had the choice of feeding them tonight, or burying them tomorrow?.

Property is theft comrades!, property laws only existed in the first place, because the Barons had got their stealing in first, and best, and wanted to call the game quits before others got some.

Do you know that once, a serf was branded for a thief not just for theft outright, but if he allowed ANY loss of his master goods?. If a wind came, and blew away the grain before it could be threshed, the serf was a thief.

Trust me, your masters, the banking and business establishment have no hesitation in stealing from you in their turn.

And:



Now that we've had some fresh input from a new member, perhaps these insights will help us view the issue a bit deeper (the working words here ‘sufficiently thoughtful’ applied) and we won’t be in danger of ‘going around in circles’, neither realizing another’s POV. . .

Stopping for a moment, focus. Imagine its’ you in this situation, hypothetically, that is.

You have a wife and three children - No job, no money. Times are tough, America yet on the tail-end of “The Great Depression”, so begging for pennies and nickels isn’t quite the success - yet you managed to get a few coins together. Problem is, you’re a few cents shy a loaf of bread and the owner won’t allow credit, having been burned one too many times. . .

But you have an alternate plan. The loaves of bread are right there on the counter in paper sacks; Every few minutes the store owner - temporarily distracted, turns his back - at the right moment, you can slip one underneath your coat. . .Chances are, you could do it and no-one would be the wiser. . .

You can’t go home to that apartment another day and face your family - those longing eyes, not again - you feel anguished, acutely aware their need - tap water only quells the hunger pangs a short while before they return, you can’t fail them this time. The children’s silence, having learned not to ask for food that isn’t there - merely serves to augment that anguish.

Its’ only a loaf of bread yet its’ something. Something is better than nothing. . .
_____________________________________________________________

We’re not discussing a childhood dare here, the selfish theft of a toy or trinket for ones‘ own amusement. We’re talking about a loaf of bread, an essential. As what Apteryx entered, seeing yourself within that situation, (‘sufficiently thoughtful’ ) thinking it through before you make any judgment calls, critical.

For my part, if I were dealing with a situation as that posted above, I could not see myself making a choice to do nothing when the last option (theft) remains. For your family? (which) you love so dearly?

As a matter of fact, I feel confident (knowing you the way I do), placed in a like situation, you’d turn.

Now that’s just my opinion, but there it is.

Joe (Bigsky770)

_________________
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

- - Groucho Marx

I waited - purposefully - knowing that sooner 'er later, SOMEONE would come
up with a short (albeit amusingly sick, though thought-provoking) production that best
explains how twisted things have become, emphasizing the paradox forwarded the original
posting in this thread. Tip 'o the hat to Analyzer o'er @ Market Ticker Forum for the following:



Oh, and - it hardly ends there. As explained in another thread, (Worst oil spill in history),
we’re witnessing a like spectacle - where a corporation (BP) who has made large
contribs. in the form of donations to various politicos, get carte blanche control
over a situation they actually have no control (and are as well clueless) as to how to stop.
(Please read last post. It is connected) - And well displays how a mega-corporation
may turn wrong ‘into’ a disingenuous right - supposing they are possessing ample money supply
to throw at enough dirty politicians rather than a focus upon the actual problem.

CIP: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal - put into the position of breaking the law in a sense, thus
infuriating the Coast Guard, BP, as well as the Obama administration - has had to take
matters into his own hands to salvage as much of the coastline as he can.

Does anyone here still wish to argue the point that ‘two wrongs don’t make a right?’ Or -
does one rather adapt as a matter of survival?

At what point does law become so distorted - than becoming no longer the right thing to do?

Joe (Bigsky770)

_________________
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

- - Groucho Marx