Spirituality
26 Sep 07
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by duecerIf a person is starving to death, and cannot obtain food by begging, borrowing, or getting it from a foodbank, nor traveling to another location that offers it freely, then he has a good case for stealing it. It is an act of self-defense.
are you saying that sin can be rationalized?
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes. If he didn't do so, he would be committing suicide, and that would be a greater sin.
If a person is starving to death, and cannot obtain food by begging, borrowing, or getting it from a foodbank, nor traveling to another location that offers it freely, then he has a good case for stealing it. It is an act of self-defense.
Of course i'm being ironic. There's no such thing as a "sin" for non-religious people. There is "law". He would be breaking the law, of course.
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoIn that case, is it moral to have laws that prevent people from getting food ,even though they are in dire need?
Yes. If he didn't do so, he would be committing suicide, and that would be a greater sin.
Of course i'm being ironic. There's no such thing as a "sin" for non-religious people. There is "law". He would be breaking the law, of course.
27 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoOk, forget about 'sin' for the moment.
Yes. If he didn't do so, he would be committing suicide, and that would be a greater sin.
Of course i'm being ironic. There's no such thing as a "sin" for non-religious people. There is "law". He would be breaking the law, of course.
In the US, there are laws [in some states] that compel hospitals to treat critically wounded patients, even if they have no insurance or means to pay. We have the idea that society ought not to let people just die out, no matter how penniless they are.
The same could apply to my hypothetical starver [admittedly, in the US, it's hard to imagine anyone starving to death]. He has, or ought to have, the right to live. As long as he is not taking food away from a person as needy as himself, or causing physical harm to others, the law should not condemn him.
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitMy original intent with this thread was to point out those issues. Yes, in America (arguably the richest country in the world), we have people with little to no food, and few opportunities to obtain "proper"nutrition.
Ok, forget about 'sin' for the moment.
In the US, there are laws [in some states] that compel hospitals to treat critically wounded patients, even if they have no insurance or means to pay. We have the idea that society ought not to let people just die out, no matter how penniless they are.
The same could apply to my hypothetical starver [admittedl ...[text shortened]... rson as needy as himself, or causing physical harm to others, the law should not condemn him.
So I ask people of faith, and even athiest', does our society have a moral obligation to end hunger(and not be feeding people leftover crap, but healthy nutricious food)?
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by duecerSounds like you assume Atheists would not be concerned with helping the needy? That is an awful assumption. Atheists I know are very ethical people who simply reject claims that they need to be saved.
So I ask people of faith, and even athiest', does our society have a moral obligation to end hunger(and not be feeding people leftover crap, but healthy nutricious food)?
I think the world would be a much better place if everyone simply followed the golden rule, "do unto other's as you would have them do unto you".
I don't think it is a good issue to push on the federal government though.
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallperhaps you misunderstood my post, I meant to be inclusive of the "community" in responding to this crisis(locally and globally).
Sounds like you assume Atheists would not be concerned with helping the needy? That is an awful assumption. Atheists I know are very ethical people who simply reject claims that they need to be saved.
I think the world would be a much better place if everyone simply followed the golden rule, "do unto other's as you would have them do unto you".
I don't think it is a good issue to push on the federal government though.
If the federal govt(s) isn't the vehicle, then what is?