Anglican Priest changes the 10 commandments

[kalt]

Well, he’s only changing one - the one about stealing.
He says that if you’re hungry, it’s OK to shoplift, but only from really big stores that can more easily afford the loss–don’t steal from small stores-that wouldn’t be nice.

rotfl

Every religion, like every family, has its embarrassing members.

 

[gcnuss]

I saw that also. I’m sure that there are others who may suggest something like that, but we don’t hear about them. Of course, then, England is the home of the legend of Robin Hood – steal from the rich and give to the poor and all that.

 

[Patrick_Cox]

Well, he’s only changing one - the one about stealing.
He says that if you’re hungry, it’s OK to shoplift, but only from really big stores that can more easily afford the loss–don’t steal from small stores-that wouldn’t be nice.

rotfl

Every religion, like every family, has its embarrassing members.

It’s an interesting one…

Assume you live in an area of extreme poverty. Your child is dying of thirst and hunger. You have tried every means to find work or obtain income, but to no avail. What would you do?

If under these circumstances of desperation you go into a shop (size of the shop irrelevant) and slip half a loaf of bread and a bottle of water into your coat and walk out, in order to feed your child, have you sinned? Let me put it to you another way, would God in any way condemn you for this action under these specific circumstances?

Are actions objectively always either right or wrong, or are they wrong only under certain circumstances? Personally I lean very much towards the latter… What are others thoughts?

God bless

 

[Contarini]

Well, he’s only changing one - the one about stealing.
He says that if you’re hungry, it’s OK to shoplift, but only from really big stores that can more easily afford the loss–don’t steal from small stores-that wouldn’t be nice.

rotfl

No change involved. His opinion is perfectly traditional and orthodox. If you are in genuine, desperate need, then taking what you need is not stealing at all. (Just as not all killing violates the Ten Commandments, so not all taking of what is not legally yours does either. I think it’s ironic that supposedly conservative Christians can come up with all kinds of reasons why it’s OK to kill, but are horrified at the idea that it might sometimes be legitimate to take what human law has not assigned to you.) By natural law everything belongs to those who most need it. Private property is a legitimate and reasonable human law to prevent confusion and disorder. But in cases of extreme need it has no force whatsoever.

Don’t believe me: believe St. Thomas Aquinas.

I will grant that the priest may be going beyond Aquinas, since Aquinas specifies that the need must be *extreme, *and cites (in the objections) a decree of canon law imposing penance on those who steal “through stress of hunger or nakedness,” arguing that this refers to a situation where the need is not urgent. The dividing line for Aquinas seems to be whether getting food or other material goods right now is absolutely urgent, or whether there is still time to find a less desperate solution. So if you are having to tighten the belt a bit, you should keep your hands off other people’s property. But if you or others are suffering from genuine malnutrition, then sure–shoplift if you have to.

Edwin

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Well, he’s only changing one - the one about stealing.
He says that if you’re hungry, it’s OK to shoplift, but only from really big stores that can more easily afford the loss–don’t steal from small stores-that wouldn’t be nice.

rotfl

Every religion, like every family, has its embarrassing members.

Oh please, you misunderstand. This is liberation theology. Sort of like, I like that Susan Boyle CD, so I am going to liberate it.

The Anglican Communion is providing more than its normal share of battiness.

 

[Lutheranteach]

A lot of the commandments seem to be flexible:

We could probably change “Thou shalt not kill” to “thou shalt not murder” and it would make more sense to many.

 

[kalt]

It’s an interesting one…

Assume you live in an area of extreme poverty. Your child is dying of thirst and hunger. You have tried every means to find work or obtain income, but to no avail. What would you do?

If under these circumstances of desperation you go into a shop (size of the shop irrelevant) and slip half a loaf of bread and a bottle of water into your coat and walk out, in order to feed your child, have you sinned? Let me put it to you another way, would God in any way condemn you for this action under these specific circumstances?

Are actions objectively always either right or wrong, or are they wrong only under certain circumstances? Personally I lean very much towards the latter… What are others thoughts?

God bless

Wouldn’t asking the owner if he could spare that half loaf and a glass of water be better? If No is the answer, try another shop, the food pantry, passersby, or the Anglican church! If every rejects you or doesn’t have anything to give, and you are truly starving, then you can take something.

I remember a case in the 70’s. The man who shoplifted from the market (a big market, so it wasn’t really all that bad. ), told the police that he was out of work and his kids were hungry. The store manager replied that apparently his starving kids have expensive taste, because he stole a pricey steak which was right next to the cheap hamburger.

The moral of his story is, if you’re “starving” and you have to steal to survive, make your last meal before prison a good one.

I know people who say they can’t afford food and recieve food money from the gov’t (us), and they have cable TV, Internet, and a cell phone.

These stories aren’t to deny that people are hungry, but are to point out that most people in developed countries don’t have to resort to stealing to live.

I didn’t hear all of what the Anglican priest had to say, but I wonder if he suggested that before the hungry resort to stealy, they visit the Anglican church of assistance.

 

[TheQuestioner]

No change involved. His opinion is perfectly traditional and orthodox. If you are in genuine, desperate need, then taking what you need is not stealing at all. (Just as not all killing violates the Ten Commandments, so not all taking of what is not legally yours does either. I think it’s ironic that supposedly conservative Christians can come up with all kinds of reasons why it’s OK to kill, but are horrified at the idea that it might sometimes be legitimate to take what human law has not assigned to you.) By natural law everything belongs to those who most need it. Private property is a legitimate and reasonable human law to prevent confusion and disorder. But in cases of extreme need it has no force whatsoever.

Don’t believe me: believe St. Thomas Aquinas.

I will grant that the priest may be going beyond Aquinas, since Aquinas specifies that the need must be *extreme, *and cites (in the objections) a decree of canon law imposing penance on those who steal “through stress of hunger or nakedness,” arguing that this refers to a situation where the need is not urgent. The dividing line for Aquinas seems to be whether getting food or other material goods right now is absolutely urgent, or whether there is still time to find a less desperate solution. So if you are having to tighten the belt a bit, you should keep your hands off other people’s property. But if you or others are suffering from genuine malnutrition, then sure–shoplift if you have to.

Edwin

Stealing is stealing, no matter how hungary you are. However, depending on how much you steal, the situation you are in and the attitude of those from whom you steal will be, though it may be a sin, it may not be a mortal sin. The very fact that there was a penance for stealing “through stress of hunger or nakedness” means it is recognized as wrong, though maybe not majorly wrong. And the fact that Aquanis mentions this means he too acknowledged that Church teaching.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by kalt
Well, he’s only changing one - the one about stealing.
He says that if you’re hungry, it’s OK to shoplift, but only from really big stores that can more easily afford the loss–don’t steal from small stores-that wouldn’t be nice.

I think that just as disturbing is the notion that it is ok to steal from big stores. It sounds like a political statement. Of course, mine below is, too.

Originally Posted by Contarini
No change involved. His opinion is perfectly traditional and orthodox. If you are in genuine, desperate need, then taking what you need is not stealing at all. (Just as not all killing violates the Ten Commandments, so not all taking of what is not legally yours does either. I think it’s ironic that supposedly conservative Christians can come up with all kinds of reasons why it’s OK to kill, but are horrified at the idea that it might sometimes be legitimate to take what human law has not assigned to you.) By natural law everything belongs to those who most need it. Private property is a legitimate and reasonable human law to prevent confusion and disorder. But in cases of extreme need it has no force whatsoever.

In both instances (killing and stealiong), Edwin, life often puts us in a difficult position. One may have to kill, as in a police officer. One may have to steal, as in the starving person. And we ought to ask forgiveness when circumstances force us to violate His law.

I saw that also. I’m sure that there are others who may suggest something like that, but we don’t hear about them. Of course, then, England is the home of the legend of Robin Hood – steal from the rich and give to the poor and all that.

Hi Pastor Gary,
I think a better description of Robin Hood was that he took from the government and gave to the poor. Now there’s an idea I can agree to!!

Jon

 

[melissa09]

A lot of the commandments seem to be flexible:

We could probably change “Thou shalt not kill” to “thou shalt not murder” and it would make more sense to many.

umm, lets not - because kill involves more than just murder, it involves killing someones spirit, livelyhood, etc. Murder tries to make it only one thing. And I don’t think “Well, I thought they were flexible” is really going to be an appropriate excuse

 

[rev_kevin]

Now if you and your family were homeless, living in the streets, no money, no food stamps, or government assistance because you have no address, which is a fact that they won’t help because of that, and to be honest most store owners/mangers won’t help and would throw them out. food pantries only help once a month or every 6 months and you have to have a address or they won’t help, shelters or soup kitchens are not in your area, no family to help you. I know these things to be true because 1. I work with homeless families and 2. me and my family were homeless before. What would you do? Watch your children starve or would you do whatever you can to get them some food and water even if it means stealing food to feed your family? Now they could go in a dumpster and most do but look at the health risk there, there health is already in danger and that would only all to the risk.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t condone stealing or what the Anglican Priest is doing. But be honest you would do anything you can to feed your children. I would and I believe God would see the justification in my action.

 

[Jerok]

Principle of Double Effect (Learned from Christian Moral Life class)

1: The evil effect can never be intended
2: The good effect intended must be greater than or equal to the forseen harmful effects
3 The good effects must not be achievable without the evil effects
4: The beneficial effects must follow the action atleast as immediately as the evil effects.

1: It is not intended to steal, but to save your family’s life. Your purpose is not to steal, but you have to to achieve it.

1. Saving your and your family’s life is a greater good than the bad of the person losing their property - and you should take it from someone who has plenty.

3: If the family could find other ways they should, but apparently they are out of options.

4: The saving of the lifes follows immediately.

Therefore, when your family or yourself are starving, it is a morally acceptable act to steal enough food to live.

 

[gamewell45]

It’s an interesting one…

Assume you live in an area of extreme poverty. Your child is dying of thirst and hunger. You have tried every means to find work or obtain income, but to no avail.

God bless

One of the downsides of a capitalistic society. That being said, I think under those circumstances while its illegal and sinful, on the day of resurrection, I’m sure God would show compassion and mercy.

 

[rev_kevin]

umm, lets not - because kill involves more than just murder, it involves killing someones spirit, livelyhood, etc. Murder tries to make it only one thing. And I don’t think “Well, I thought they were flexible” is really going to be an appropriate excuse

As far as the kill thing, it don’t say only humans, thats only implied, we kill all the time, every single one of us. for example we all kill insects all the time but murder is something we intend to do to another person.
Now my Bible says you shall not murder. Now Jesus explained that hateful anger breaks this commandment . Have you ever been so angry with someone who mistreated you that for a moment you wished that preson were dead? Have you ever fantasized that you could do someone in? Jesus’ teachings concerning this law demonstrates that we are all capable of murder in our hearts. Even if we are legally innocent, we are all morally guilty of murder and need to ask God’s forgiveness.

 

[melissa09]

Principle of Double Effect (Learned from Christian Moral Life class)

1: The evil effect can never be intended
2: The good effect intended must be greater than or equal to the forseen harmful effects
3 The good effects must not be achievable without the evil effects
4: The beneficial effects must follow the action atleast as immediately as the evil effects.

1: It is not intended to steal, but to save your family’s life. Your purpose is not to steal, but you have to to achieve it.

1. Saving your and your family’s life is a greater good than the bad of the person losing their property - and you should take it from someone who has plenty.

3: If the family could find other ways they should, but apparently they are out of options.

4: The saving of the lifes follows immediately.

Therefore, when your family or yourself are starving, it is a morally acceptable act to steal enough food to live.

I’ve heard my priest speak about this and I think he even teaches a class similar to the one you have taken. Thanks for the information!

 

[Bill_Pick]

Well, he’s only changing one - the one about stealing.
He says that if you’re hungry, it’s OK to shoplift, but only from really big stores that can more easily afford the loss–don’t steal from small stores-that wouldn’t be nice.

rotfl

Every religion, like every family, has its embarrassing members.

Im think you may see a letter from Roman on this one

 

[Bill_Pick]

Well, he’s only changing one - the one about stealing.
He says that if you’re hungry, it’s OK to shoplift, but only from really big stores that can more easily afford the loss–don’t steal from small stores-that wouldn’t be nice.

rotfl

Every religion, like every family, has its embarrassing members.

AP Have you been at it again with the commandment You know better and do not touch LOL

 

[peary1]

Well, he’s only changing one - the one about stealing.
He says that if you’re hungry, it’s OK to shoplift, but only from really big stores that can more easily afford the loss–don’t steal from small stores-that wouldn’t be nice.

rotfl

Every religion, like every family, has its embarrassing members.

Yeah, he’s kind of “over the edge”. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Well, he’s only changing one - the one about stealing.
He says that if you’re hungry, it’s OK to shoplift, but only from really big stores that can more easily afford the loss–don’t steal from small stores-that wouldn’t be nice.

rotfl

Of COURSE he’s only changing ONE. That’s the way liberals (and Satan) operate. They move slowly, but steadily, one small move at a time. Remember what the Bible said about the SERPENT in the garden (Gen 3:1)? Then, before you realize it, it has wrapped itself around your neck and begun squeezing tightly. And THAT, my good Christian friends, is the reason I walked away from the Anglican Communion.

The commandment in question is from Exodus 20:15, and it reads:

“Thou shalt not steal.” - (KJV)
“You shall not steal.” - (NASB, ESV, NAB, NJB, etc.)

Theres NOTHING here about mitigating circumstances. If ANY person ADDS to this commandment in ANY WAY, he is altering the Word of God and HE is then sinning. Its NOT for us to ADD nor TAKE AWAY from the Word. Therefore, to STEAL is to VIOLATE God`s Commandment.

The ONLY question here is whether or not GOD will take into account the circumstances on the day of judgement. As we come to know Christ, we may have every reason to believe that He will be compassionate… but each and every violation of this commandment must be dealt with on its own circumstances and BY GOD ALONE. It`s NOT up to individuals to make blanket, public, PERSONAL statements on what does or does not constitute sin.