A
Annie
Guest
So you have been replying as if high-value, which the original poster clearly meant as expensive, meant more important than God.
So we actually agree, except on the definition of high value.
Is it "theft" to keep high-value items that were abandoned in my home?
- Status
So we actually agree, except on the definition of high value.
E
Emtguy89
Guest
Make a good faith effort to return it, if you know the people or have some way to get ahold of them. If it’s a serialized item, you could call the local police and ask them, to see if it’s reported stolen. They may also be able to contact the previous residents if they have their information (usually contacts are entered into a database where we can look up by name, address, etc). That might also help cover you legally if later on they report it stolen and come after you for it, as there will be a record of you trying to return it and of them abandoning it.
If all that fails, I don’t see any reason you can’t keep it. Maybe if it bothers your conscience you might keep it but not dispose of it in case sometime in the future you do get in touch with the long lost owners. Value is not so much of an issue, I have some inexpensive things that have sentimental value to me as they came from friends, family, a vacation, etc. Kinda like one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
On whether or not it is wrong to have something of value…there are wealthy men, kings, and emperors who are now revered as saints and officially canonized as such by the Church. Not really a matter up for debate. Meanwhile this kind of political stance borders on communism and is often repeated by those people who claim “Jesus was a socialist”. Which has been decreed numerous times by the Church to be incompatible with Christianity and even an offense meriting automatic excommunication, the reasons given by the Popes and Magisterium being pretty much in line with everything said. And no, it is not for us to interpret the Bible, or else the Magisterium would not exist. Thinking a certain way, no matter how sincere, does not make you correct.
If all that fails, I don’t see any reason you can’t keep it. Maybe if it bothers your conscience you might keep it but not dispose of it in case sometime in the future you do get in touch with the long lost owners. Value is not so much of an issue, I have some inexpensive things that have sentimental value to me as they came from friends, family, a vacation, etc. Kinda like one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
On whether or not it is wrong to have something of value…there are wealthy men, kings, and emperors who are now revered as saints and officially canonized as such by the Church. Not really a matter up for debate. Meanwhile this kind of political stance borders on communism and is often repeated by those people who claim “Jesus was a socialist”. Which has been decreed numerous times by the Church to be incompatible with Christianity and even an offense meriting automatic excommunication, the reasons given by the Popes and Magisterium being pretty much in line with everything said. And no, it is not for us to interpret the Bible, or else the Magisterium would not exist. Thinking a certain way, no matter how sincere, does not make you correct.
J
JesusReadsHearts
Guest
So what should you do? What would Jesus do in this situation? The Holy Spirit will guide you in the right direction. Find the rightful owner and if you are not able to then donate the items to the poor.
Matthew 6:19-21
Jesus will guide you in the right direction.
If you are having trouble interpreting the Scriptures on your own, ask one of your authoritative figures in the Church. Here is something to think about, though, when it comes to Biblical interpretation: “the proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien or at least secondary” (Michael Heiser) Michael Heiser and interpreting the Bible
Just a thought.
Matthew 6:19-21
Jesus will guide you in the right direction.
If you are having trouble interpreting the Scriptures on your own, ask one of your authoritative figures in the Church. Here is something to think about, though, when it comes to Biblical interpretation: “the proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien or at least secondary” (Michael Heiser) Michael Heiser and interpreting the Bible
Just a thought.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Eye of the needle was a gate in Jerusalem. When camels were passing it they had to lower themselves because it was smaller. Hence rich people have to humble themselves in order to get to Heaven.
By the way our father Abraham was beyond rich, and Kings David and Solomon were not poor either. Yet God blessed them. It is not necessarily true that ownership of high value possessions is forbidden by God or discouraged.
J
JesusReadsHearts
Guest
Due to King David’s wealth and luxury and any pleasure he could desire – that becomes his downfall
King Solomon’s greed, foreign entanglements ignited by that greed and desire for power (for he was rich) caused him to stumble. Did Solomon come to love the world more than God? YES. Did lust and greed cause him to make steady compromises with the world? Without a doubt. And ever so slowly, and perhaps imperceptibly at first, he began to turn from God. All that power/money went to his head.
How wise you were when you were young, overflowing with instruction, like the Nile in flood! Your understanding covered the whole earth, and, like a sea, filled it with knowledge. Your fame reached distant coasts, and you were beloved for your peaceful reign…. But you abandoned yourself to women and gave them dominion over your body. You brought a stain upon your glory, shame upon your marriage bed, Wrath upon your descendants, and groaning upon your deathbed. Thus two governments came into being (Sirach 47:14-21).
Jesus warned us about high-value items and riches.
By the way: “The worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.” (Mark 4:19)
“No one can serve two masters,” He said. “You cannot serve both God and Mammon.”
Saint Paul tells us that people who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap that plunges men into “ruin and destruction.” All of which led G. K. Chesterton to write: “There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck.”
"Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, then go and sell all that you own. Give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come and follow me!” Did Jesus encourage us to hold on to high-value items??? NO!
King Solomon’s greed, foreign entanglements ignited by that greed and desire for power (for he was rich) caused him to stumble. Did Solomon come to love the world more than God? YES. Did lust and greed cause him to make steady compromises with the world? Without a doubt. And ever so slowly, and perhaps imperceptibly at first, he began to turn from God. All that power/money went to his head.
How wise you were when you were young, overflowing with instruction, like the Nile in flood! Your understanding covered the whole earth, and, like a sea, filled it with knowledge. Your fame reached distant coasts, and you were beloved for your peaceful reign…. But you abandoned yourself to women and gave them dominion over your body. You brought a stain upon your glory, shame upon your marriage bed, Wrath upon your descendants, and groaning upon your deathbed. Thus two governments came into being (Sirach 47:14-21).
Jesus warned us about high-value items and riches.
By the way: “The worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.” (Mark 4:19)
“No one can serve two masters,” He said. “You cannot serve both God and Mammon.”
Saint Paul tells us that people who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap that plunges men into “ruin and destruction.” All of which led G. K. Chesterton to write: “There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck.”
"Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, then go and sell all that you own. Give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come and follow me!” Did Jesus encourage us to hold on to high-value items??? NO!
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
What he warned us is about relying on them. He warned us not to let them “choke the word”. I think every passage of that shows us that we shouldn’t fall into trap of wealth… but owning some high value items is okay.
That was answer to that exact man, not to every man ever. Abraham did not receive that advice and was wealthy as well. He was blessed by Lord to become wealthy- surely Lord wouldn’t “bless” Abraham by giving him something dangerous.
Of course, but he did not encourage us to abandon them either.
Last edited:
J
JesusReadsHearts
Guest
The two Kings and Abraham did not promote/advertise a rich lifestyle. (Old Covenant)
Jesus tells the man, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” Matthew 19:21 (New Covenant)
Although we have our differences, I love you nonetheless for we are brothers in Christ.
Jesus tells the man, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” Matthew 19:21 (New Covenant)
Although we have our differences, I love you nonetheless for we are brothers in Christ.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I love you too. Thank you for saying that.
I simply believe that material possessions are not evil in themselves- but nevertheless can lead men to evil. They should be avoided if they are tempting, if they take our attention away from the Lord. I don’t think they are good nor bad- same as many other things. Their use depends on us, and their negativity/positivity depends on their use.
P
PetraG
Guest
Let’s assume we’re talking about items that are moral to own.
When you buy a house, you own it and all its surprises, from the floor nobody knew was full of termites to the gorgeous hardwood floor nobody knew was under the ratty carpet and all the rest. It is moral to keep whatever you find.
Still, it is kind to give someone things you’re pretty sure they didn’t intend to include in a sale.
When in doubt, apply the Golden Rule. Much better sleep that way, too.
When you buy a house, you own it and all its surprises, from the floor nobody knew was full of termites to the gorgeous hardwood floor nobody knew was under the ratty carpet and all the rest. It is moral to keep whatever you find.
Still, it is kind to give someone things you’re pretty sure they didn’t intend to include in a sale.
When in doubt, apply the Golden Rule. Much better sleep that way, too.
A
Annie
Guest
JesusReadsHearts wrote this: Just because I own something does not mean it is of high value (definition-consider as very important) or I consider it of high value. God is helping me post here, not high value items.
His apparent (rather than stated) definition of a high-value item is one which drags the owner away from God, rendering all his statements tautologies.
His apparent (rather than stated) definition of a high-value item is one which drags the owner away from God, rendering all his statements tautologies.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Then we are all in agreement. I thought we were using term “high value” as something expensive or unnecessary for living which we waste money and effort on.
What I mostly wanted to contribute was that analogy of camel and eye of the needle is not properly understood in our cultural context, as in Jewish cultural context it meant something else. Bible can be indeed tricky.
J
JesusReadsHearts
Guest
“His apparent (rather than stated) definition of a high-value item is one which drags the owner away from God, rendering all his statements tautologies.”
“Apparent” and “exact” definition are two different things.
“Definition of high-value- Definition of place a high value on”
: to consider as very important
Sentence: A lot of teenagers place a high value on being popular.
I always refrain from using the eisegetical analysis of a text
As I have stated above to the OP: Here is something to think about, though, when it comes to Biblical interpretation: “the proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien or at least secondary” (Michael Heiser) Michael Heiser and interpreting the Bible
I am sorry you do not like my answers but the Holy Spirit compels/guides me to interpret the Scriptures using the rules of exegesis (keeping this in mind: the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible). You can disagree and insult me all you want but guess what? I still love you for we are children of God.
“Apparent” and “exact” definition are two different things.
“Definition of high-value- Definition of place a high value on”
: to consider as very important
Sentence: A lot of teenagers place a high value on being popular.
I always refrain from using the eisegetical analysis of a text
As I have stated above to the OP: Here is something to think about, though, when it comes to Biblical interpretation: “the proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien or at least secondary” (Michael Heiser) Michael Heiser and interpreting the Bible
I am sorry you do not like my answers but the Holy Spirit compels/guides me to interpret the Scriptures using the rules of exegesis (keeping this in mind: the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible). You can disagree and insult me all you want but guess what? I still love you for we are children of God.
J
JesusReadsHearts
Guest
Word Studies in the New Testament:
24. Camel — through a needle’s eye (κάμηλον διά τρύπηματος ῥφίδος). See on Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25. Compare the Jewish proverb, that a man did not even in his dreams see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle. The reason why the camel was substituted for the elephant was because the proverb was from the Babylonian Talmud, and in Babylon the elephant was common, while in Palestine it was unknown. The Koran has the same figure: “The impious shall find the gates of heaven shut; nor shall he enter there till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle.” Bochart, in his history of the animals of scripture, cites a Talmudic passage: “A needle’s eye is not too narrow for two friends, nor is the world wide enough for two enemies.” The allusion is not to be explained by reference to a narrow gate called a needle’s eye.
Vincent, M. R. (2002). Word studies in the New Testament. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
What is Jesus saying? it’s easier for a literal camel to go through the eye of a
literal surgical needle (and Luke uses the word for “surgical needle” in the Greek
text) than for a rich man to go to heaven. That’s the reason that the disciples don’t say, “Oh, you mean this camel that has to get down on its knees?”
No. They say, “This is impossible!” And Jesus, of course, then says, “Yes, it’s
impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
In Summary-When Christ compared the rich man entering the kingdom of God as more difficult than “a camel to go through the eye of a needle” the hyperbole was used to warn the wealthy that they must have faith in him without reliance upon their own possessions, actions, and status as rich people.
24. Camel — through a needle’s eye (κάμηλον διά τρύπηματος ῥφίδος). See on Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25. Compare the Jewish proverb, that a man did not even in his dreams see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle. The reason why the camel was substituted for the elephant was because the proverb was from the Babylonian Talmud, and in Babylon the elephant was common, while in Palestine it was unknown. The Koran has the same figure: “The impious shall find the gates of heaven shut; nor shall he enter there till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle.” Bochart, in his history of the animals of scripture, cites a Talmudic passage: “A needle’s eye is not too narrow for two friends, nor is the world wide enough for two enemies.” The allusion is not to be explained by reference to a narrow gate called a needle’s eye.
Vincent, M. R. (2002). Word studies in the New Testament. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
What is Jesus saying? it’s easier for a literal camel to go through the eye of a
literal surgical needle (and Luke uses the word for “surgical needle” in the Greek
text) than for a rich man to go to heaven. That’s the reason that the disciples don’t say, “Oh, you mean this camel that has to get down on its knees?”
No. They say, “This is impossible!” And Jesus, of course, then says, “Yes, it’s
impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
In Summary-When Christ compared the rich man entering the kingdom of God as more difficult than “a camel to go through the eye of a needle” the hyperbole was used to warn the wealthy that they must have faith in him without reliance upon their own possessions, actions, and status as rich people.
J
JesusReadsHearts
Guest
Kings were tolerated by God, as was their wealth, because - after all - a person who rules and considers him/herself “high and mighty” is the KIND of person who wants to collect a lot of high-PRICED items to amuse themselves AND to help them feel superior. God is not “into” this kind of thinking, and he DID NOT want there to be kings who ruled the Israelites. The people demanded it, so it was their worldliness that manifested the worldly kings. It’s not like God said, “Hey Solomon, you are rich and greedy with a lust for power: JUST the kind of dude I want to elevate to kingship!” XD
A
Annie
Guest
To place a high value on turns value into a noun and high into an adjective.
The term used by the OP was “high-value” as one adjective. It was quite apparent that he meant that they were either (probably) expensive or (possibly) potentially of high sentimental value to someone.
There was no indication that the OP considered the items as more important than God. Thus we are all confused by your continuing to argue against a proposition that does not exist, or which you attribute to others in order to maintain your points.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
Here is what Catholics and all who believe in God are called to:
From: Ignatian Retreat in Daily Life - Principle and Foundation
–St. Ignatius as adapted by Joseph Tetlow, S.J., Choosing Christ in the World
From: Ignatian Retreat in Daily Life - Principle and Foundation
J
JesusReadsHearts
Guest
"Is it “theft” to keep high-value items that were abandoned in my home?"
This sentence is straight-forward
"It was quite apparent that he meant that they were either (probably) expensive or (possibly) potentially of high sentimental value to someone."
You are referring to a different grammatical structure all together. The sentence does not call for “probability”. When talking about the present, modal verbs of probability express a guess or suggestion.
“Possibly” does not work either: Modal Verb + Base Verb
May/Might/Could/Must + Base Verb
"There was no indication that the OP considered the items as more important than God."
I agree that there was no indication that the OP considered the items as more important than God. I am merely pointing out Jesus’ teachings about earthly riches vs. Spiritual treasures in Heaven. Perhaps you should seek guidance from your local clergy.
This sentence is straight-forward
"It was quite apparent that he meant that they were either (probably) expensive or (possibly) potentially of high sentimental value to someone."
You are referring to a different grammatical structure all together. The sentence does not call for “probability”. When talking about the present, modal verbs of probability express a guess or suggestion.
“Possibly” does not work either: Modal Verb + Base Verb
May/Might/Could/Must + Base Verb
"There was no indication that the OP considered the items as more important than God."
I agree that there was no indication that the OP considered the items as more important than God. I am merely pointing out Jesus’ teachings about earthly riches vs. Spiritual treasures in Heaven. Perhaps you should seek guidance from your local clergy.
Last edited:
J
JesusReadsHearts
Guest
Thank you for sharing. God Bless. 
P
PetraG
Guest
The original question was not whether it was moral to own the items at all. (If that were so, the question of whether it would be theft to keep them would be moot, wouldn’t it?) No, the question was whether it is moral to consider the items as part of the sale, since they weren’t removed prior to the last day to vacate before the new owner took possession.
If the point of view were reversed, I would consider items I abandoned in a home I sold to be the rightful possessions of the new owner. I had agreed to remove all my belongings prior to the day the new owner took possession. The new owner has every right to assume that anything not taken by me was left for the new owner to dispose of as he or she saw fit. If the new owner called me to verify that I had not left some valuable item or items by mistake, I would consider that not only very considerate, but a great kindness. The owner would have every right to keep what was found in the house or to give it away.
A third possibility, however, is that the items were left in the house by someone other than the owners, and that they had not been given sufficient warning that they needed to remove their things ahead of time. Even though that responsibility is on the original owner, it would also be decent to ask whether there was anyone who would appreciate notification to pick up the items. That contact information might be difficult to obtain, though, if the original owner had allowed someone else’s things to be left behind on purpose.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Oh so that would mean that in the end it is possible anyway. So, again, Lord calls us to reject wealth that would be our master. If indeed wealth itself was the problem, God would not bless people with wealth (Abraham, Joseph etc). It seems that to clean mind everything is still clean- including wealth. But if it makes you sin, we ought to “cut it off”.
OP clearly found some items and they were expensive, but I doubt anything suggests they are valued to him over God or anything like that. It seems he is referring to price of the items.
- Status