Christians And Looting...

[seer]

If you were in a situation like in N.O. and you had no way out and no food or water - would you loot to save yourself and family? Would you wait for God to provide food. If He didn't would you refuse to loot and starve to death?

[Piebald]

I have no problem with "looting" a grocery store if you are in a situation where you have no choice. It would be a worse crime to let your family starve.

But that doesn't nescessarily mean that you are entirely innocent.

You have to take care of your family, and when push comes to shove, you may have to do something that would ordinarily be immoral -- but, in many circumstances, one should have a store of food and water to take care of their family so they don't have to loot.

No, that is not the case for everyone (for many people it would not be very feasible or possible to have a store of food and water), but it would be the case for me and many people I know.

[infide]

If you were in a situation like in N.O. and you had no way out and no food or water - would you loot to save yourself and family? Would you wait for God to provide food. If He didn't would you refuse to loot and starve to death?

I honestly dont know. I tend to agree with deontological ethical systems which would say that looting, that is, stealing, would be morally wrong in ANY situation, no matter what the ends are.

But in certain cases, I feel that the predictors of moral behavior under these systems are not what I find to be intuitively moral, and I begin leaning to virtue or utilitarian systems. These systems dont seem necessarily inconsistant with a Christian worldview, but certainly muddy the water of apparent God-voiced imperatives. For example, Christ often remarked that the saving of human life and the betterment of one's quality of life are virtues which supercede some moral duties or obligations, which in the Case of Christ, were things like sabbath law. Thus, in some cases the ends DO justify the means, and this teleological ethical system may in fact apply to the situation in New Orleans.

So lets see if I can say what I would hope to do if i were in that situation, I believe I would take some bare necessities to keep my family alive, and later try to make reparations and explain the situation to the owners of the store. The preservation of life, in my view, is more important, than ones duty to try to pay immediately in that situation.

I heard of a story of a news crew going into a grocery store to speak with people who were taking things from it, and they came across one lady who was taking a few things she needed, and she had a bundle of flowers in her cart. When she saw the cameras she asked the reporter, "do you think i should put the flowers back?". Its the kind of thing that almost breaks your heart. The flowers would be dead before the store could reopen anyway, but it at least gives you a feel for how difficult a situation this is to resolve. Wouldnt it seem just as immoral to have a grocery store full of food going bad inside and starving people outside? Im not one for utilitarian ethics, but in this case they might be correct.

peace,
jd

[jason]

Umm ... why not just make a note of the store in question and then find the owner later (presuming they survived) and pay them for what you took ?

You are not "looting" then.

Jason

[Vivian]

Actually, Biblically it is a crime to not allow looting to meet the have nots needs for survival. It is called gleaning. Read Ruth and the stories of Jesus and His disciples gleaning fields for food.

So in fact the criminals are the store owners who close their doors to the poor, not allowing them to walk through and take what is needed for immediate survival.


vivian

[Piebald]

Umm ... why not just make a note of the store in question and then find the owner later (presuming they survived) and pay them for what you took ?

You are not "looting" then.

Jason
I think it's still looting, because most stores don't go by the honor system when it comes to paying :lol:

But it would clear you of any moral wrong, I think :smile:

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

But gleaning is not looting, it was done in full view of the harvesters. And the Bible does speak to the question of stealing in order to stay alive:

Proverbs 6:30-31 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

So it is indeed wrong, and not to be done, as in this situation that Jesus himself faced:

Matthew 4:3-4 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

This miracle was not God's way, to take his power to save his life, even, and Jesus refused, even on the brink of starvation (after 40 days without food, the body is in imminent danger of death at that point).

Now a quote by C.S. Lewis...

Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. 'That sort of talk makes them sick,' they say. And half of you already want to ask me, 'I wonder how you'd feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?'

So do I. I wonder very much. Just as when Christianity tells me that I must not deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I wonder very much what I should do when it came to the point. I am not trying to tell you in this book what I could do — I can do precious little — I am telling you Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in the middle of it, I find 'Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us.' There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly clear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are we to do?

And certainly C.S. Lewis does not include disobedience as one of the possibilities, he is asking how we are to obey, when it seems so far beyond us. And I agree! I wonder, very much, too, how I would act, and could only hope for grace, for God to "give what you command, and then command what you will" (Augustine).

God bless you,
Lee

[Thomas2003]

I think it's still looting, because most stores don't go by the honor system when it comes to paying :lol:

But it would clear you of any moral wrong, I think :smile:

Yes they do. Please consider that when you "pay" today you do so with federal bankruptcy receipts and legally discharge your debt, hence nothing is legally paid. You can't "pay" a debt at common law with another debt. See, 7th Amendment. So, the only thing we do is discharge our obligation for the obligation of someone else. The merchant holds the "notes" of the public debt and it is only by the "honor system" that he is able to pass them along because the United States and abdicated any future payment upon those notes. They are true "fiat" notes and have absolutely no value whatsoever.

Hence, leaving a personal note for future payment is identical to tendering federal bankruptcy receipts because the only hope that guy has is that another guy will take them from him. They are the debt of the United States, not "money" in the legal definition of the term.

We are all thieves and looters because we don't obey God and His law every single day we continue living in sin. We wrongly submit to the criminal and unlawful jurisdiction of leaders in a civil government that have cast off the law and subjugate us through monopoly economic power.

[seer]

We wrongly submit to the criminal and unlawful jurisdiction of leaders in a civil government that have cast off the law and subjugate us through monopoly economic power.

That is interesting Tom. According to Romans 13 are we not to submit to the ruling powers?

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience."

I mean Tom, Paul must be including the Roman government here - quite a wicked system...

[smaller]

If you were in a situation like in N.O. and you had no way out and no food or water - would you loot to save yourself and family? Would you wait for God to provide food. If He didn't would you refuse to loot and starve to death?

A person who needs a glass of milk is ill advised to sit in the middle of a field and wait for a cow to come and stand beside them.

[Vivian]

Hi everyone,

But gleaning is not looting, it was done in full view of the harvesters. And the Bible does speak to the question of stealing in order to stay alive:

Proverbs 6:30-31 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

So it is indeed wrong, and not to be done, as in this situation that Jesus himself faced:

Matthew 4:3-4 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

This miracle was not God's way, to take his power to save his life, even, and Jesus refused, even on the brink of starvation (after 40 days without food, the body is in imminent danger of death at that point).

Now a quote by C.S. Lewis...

Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. 'That sort of talk makes them sick,' they say. And half of you already want to ask me, 'I wonder how you'd feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?'

So do I. I wonder very much. Just as when Christianity tells me that I must not deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I wonder very much what I should do when it came to the point. I am not trying to tell you in this book what I could do — I can do precious little — I am telling you Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in the middle of it, I find 'Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us.' There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly clear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are we to do?

And certainly C.S. Lewis does not include disobedience as one of the possibilities, he is asking how we are to obey, when it seems so far beyond us. And I agree! I wonder, very much, too, how I would act, and could only hope for grace, for God to "give what you command, and then command what you will" (Augustine).

God bless you,
Lee



Thanks Lee.

Do you feel that those two verses apply to the question raised in this thread?

The first is about a thief who steals for necessitiies, a thief - not a normally non criminal - taking what he needs to survive. Remember the story of Jesus in field with his disciples? They were taking fruit off of the trees to eat. The issue for them was not thievery, but doing so on the Sabbath. In Judaic law one is allowed to carry from another's field or orchard whatever he can carry in his hands, assuming it is for his personal consumption.

The second verse from the temptation of Jesus is talking of Jesus being tempted to use his powers as a Son of Man to meet mere human sensory needs, for himself, going against God's Will.

This has deeper and much different implications.

I agree with your conclusion though, we don't know what we would do in the dire situations that have occurred in NO.


viv

[NeilUnreal]

I think the problem is the use of the word "looting" to refer to two very different thing: 1) taking things for economic gain, sometimes with the threat of violence, and 2) appropriating necessities required for immediate survival, especially where those necessities are not otherwise being used or distributed.

The first is clearly wrong. The second is not wrong, but the person who did the taking should make a good-faith effort to repay what was taken when that becomes possible.

Disasters are times when the normal rules of life may be suspended. This suspension can be done in a way that leads to violence and anarchy, but it can also be done a way that mitigates the disaster. The difference is largely one of motive: mayhem and economic gain vs. saving life.

The right to secure one's life is a basic right that we recognize in many ways, including the right to kill in self-defense when immediately threatened. I think one can make an argument that a Christian has a duty to forego the right to kill even in self-defense. But taking a loaf of bread out of an abandoned store is not taking a life.

I am reminded of two things Jesus said. This when talking about hunger:

"Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

And this when talking about killing in self-defense:

"Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

So clearly, Jesus' economy is clear: my life is worth more than food, but my life is worth less than the life of another. So, in terms of the present situation, this would be my interpretation:

1) Looting for economic gain and mayhem: wrong.
2) Appropriating immediate survival needs: OK if done peacefully.
3) Self-defense: allowed, but not optimal for Christians.

-Neil

[Piebald]

Hence, leaving a personal note for future payment is identical to tendering federal bankruptcy receipts because the only hope that guy has is that another guy will take them from him.


Well, that was a good argument. However, the people at WAL*MART, Target, and Sears, were unimpressed :frown:

[lee_merrill]

Hi Viv,

The first is about a thief who steals for necessitiies, a thief - not a normally non criminal - taking what he needs to survive.
I think someone who steals is a thief, though! Just as (in the passage in Prov. 6) a person who commits adultery is an adulterer, and need not be a Casanova, a person who murders is a murderer, and need not be a hit man.

In Judaic law one is allowed to carry from another's field or orchard whatever he can carry in his hands, assuming it is for his personal consumption.
I agree, and thus this would be fine, and not stealing, and I think Prov. 6:30 was written with these exceptions in mind, and people were asking if we could steal to save our life, and Prov. 6:30 talks about someone stealing food because he is starving.

This would include people who were not professional thieves, I think!

So stealing is forbidden, and looting is stealing, even if we don't bring a box to put stuff in...

The second verse from the temptation of Jesus is talking of Jesus being tempted to use his powers as a Son of Man to meet mere human sensory needs, for himself, going against God's Will.

This has deeper and much different implications.
But isn't this just what the opening post was asking? Should we take measures that people would consider questionable, in order to save ourselves? Jesus seems to be confronted with just this choice here, though I agree that this account has further depths to it.

I think "man's extremity is God's opportunity" is appropriate here! We will see no miracles, if we always take the way where we can see a proper bridge, I would say. We won't learn flying...

I agree with your conclusion though, we don't know what we would do in the dire situations that have occurred in NO.
Yes...

2 Corinthians 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God...

Blessings,
Lee

[Agent Yoshi]

If you were in a situation like in N.O. and you had no way out and no food or water - would you loot to save yourself and family? Would you wait for God to provide food. If He didn't would you refuse to loot and starve to death?

I would "loot", BUT I would make sure to pay them back and make a list of what I took so that I would be able to.