Looting

[Woody]

The looting in Peru brings up a question.

Would you steal if you were in a disaster and had no food or water?

[Bravus]

It's Chile, I believe, but good question.

Heard a report on the radio this morning that people were forced out of their homes by the earthquake 2 days ago with nothing but the clothes on their back. They have no food and water. Some even have money in their wallets to buy, but no shops have re-opened. So they're taking what they need from destroyed buildings.

You bet I would (though making sure others in tougher situations got what they needed first): no matter what our society says, human life is a higher value than property rights. I'd be happy to pay for what I took later, when society was re-established, but in the mean time, when the will to buy is there but the ability is simply absent, yes, I would take what was necessary (not a flatscreen!)

[Woody]

Quote:

It's Chile, I believe

Is there a difference?

Okay. I was wrong.

Good point.

[Woody]

Quote:

I'd be happy to pay for what I took later, when society was re-established,

Would you be willing to leave a confession of the crime along with an IOU ?

[phkrause]

Good question Woody. Not sure I would or wouldn't! Like Bravus though, if I did take something I would most definitely repay later.

pk

[SivartM]

I don't know if I could loot... I'm not very good at breaking the law. Which is a good thing, but might not help me much in disaster situations...

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote:

It is better to die than to sin. EGW

[Aliensanctuary]

Don't most stores carry insurance on the stuff inside? So maybe the building losses and damaged or stolen goods are covered by insurance.

[GreatLakesGramma]

If you're taking merchandise, it's still stealing. But I'm not sure I'd consider taking food and water from wherever it could be found, in a disaster situation, should properly be called stealing. Not if it's a matter of survival.

[aldona]

If you're taking merchandise, it's still stealing. But I'm not sure I'd consider taking food and water from wherever it could be found, in a disaster situation, should properly be called stealing. Not if it's a matter of survival.

I think the Bible does give us some guidance on this - isn't there a verse somewhere that states that if we are hungry and passing through a neighbour's field or orchard, it is permissible to take some produce (technically stealing) but only enough to satisfy our hunger?

That's what Jesus and the disciples did when walking through a grain field. Note that the Pharisees did not rebuke them for stealing, but for violating the Sabbath.

If circumstances were so desperate that the choice is between "stealing" food and starving to death, then I would take the food. But I think I would want to go back and reimburse the grocery store (or wherever I got the food) at a later date when life goes back to normal and we have money and incomes again.

aldona

[phkrause]

ALDONA

JESUS was not stealing it was custom to get grain

after the owner harvest it.....the book of RUTH points

this out

also why would JESUS want us to steal when one

of the 10 commandments says thou shall not steal

dgrimm60

Good point dgrimm

pk

[TWNolan]

I think the Bible does give us some guidance on this - isn't there a verse somewhere that states that if we are hungry and passing through a neighbour's field or orchard, it is permissible to take some produce (technically stealing) but only enough to satisfy our hunger?

That's what Jesus and the disciples did when walking through a grain field. Note that the Pharisees did not rebuke them for stealing, but for violating the Sabbath.

I had heard that the fields and orchard took a Sabbath every 7 yrs, and what ever was naturally grown there (wheat or apples) was to be for the wild animals and the poor. so there would be no steeling there

[Nan]

Looting is often accompanied by destruction of the properties,

breaking things up, setting fire....taking what is necessary for

survival does not need to be violent.

[phkrause]

Looting is often accompanied by destruction of the properties,

breaking things up, setting fire....taking what is necessary for

survival does not need to be violent.

Good point Nan

pk

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: aldona

I think the Bible does give us some guidance on this - isn't there a verse somewhere that states that if we are hungry and passing through a neighbour's field or orchard, it is permissible to take some produce (technically stealing) but only enough to satisfy our hunger?

That's what Jesus and the disciples did when walking through a grain field. Note that the Pharisees did not rebuke them for stealing, but for violating the Sabbath.

I had heard that the fields and orchard took a Sabbath every 7 yrs, and what ever was naturally grown there (wheat or apples) was to be for the wild animals and the poor. so there would be no steeling there

That's true TW, but it wasn't limited to just every sabbatical year. See the book of Ruth. Unfortunetly the Jews didn't do this for very long. Hence the captivities of Israel and Judea. I think I remember Pastor Batchelor saying that the years of captivity equaled the exact time of all the sabbaths that the land did not get when they lived there.

pk