I'm not talking about legalities - remember Jesus was crucified for his stance against the system.
2007-03-16 21:59:01 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes. The right to life is more important than the right to property. If the rich live among the starving, it is a reasonable moral compromise to take from the rich to give to the poor.
2007-03-16 22:03:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Do you think Jesus would break into some rich guy's house and steal stuff to feed the poor? Sure, Jesus isn't only my own personal savior, he'll also bust out a crow bar to steal stuff from rich people. That sounds like the Jesus I know and love.
2007-03-17 05:02:53 · answer #2 · answered by Jack S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Two wrongs never make a right. Neither does the end justify the means. It is never right to steal. It is fine and good to stand for what is right. Jesus was never against the system. This was the complaint of his followers who wanted him to act as the messiah they expected and overthrow the Romans. Jesus took a stand against individual wrong doing, and was openly critical of religious hypocrisy. We can appeal to the rich and hope that they will help through seeing the rightness of doing so.
2007-03-17 05:09:07 · answer #3 · answered by ima_very_cool_cowboy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, who would reap the reward or the punishment? First, the punishment is stealing, regardless of if it is for a "good cause". Second, the reward is giving something to someone. But yet how can a thief be rewarded? The reward certainly would not go to the rich person, because they did not willingly give in the first place. And the poor person cannot be rewarded because they are accepting something that is not truly theirs. It is a wholly bad concept.
2007-03-17 05:22:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No sweetie, go make your own money. Leave the rich hardworking people to enjoy theirs. I am not implying that all poor people are lazy or that all rich people are hardworking but all i am saying is go get your own. If i love your gucci bag, i don't steal it, i save enough money to buy mine. In the case of the poor, do what you have to do (student loans, 10 yrs of education, starting from a cleaner to work your way up, coming up with some idea that makes alot of money) whatever it takes to honestly get the money they have. I think that if you want it badly enough, the system allows you to make enough money to be able to buy yourself a gucci bag once in a while (or once in a blue moon)
2007-03-17 05:17:50 · answer #5 · answered by uz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through and eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven.So the rich are really poor,and the poor are rich maybe not in money and maybe right now they are not but wait till its all over.Remember the rich man and Lazarus.The rich man did not even hardly give the poor man the scraps from the dog ,But when the rich man died he went to hell.the poor man went to heaven.Jesus is with the poor.Do you know why? i will tell you why.We are always hurting and we have to have Jesus otherwise we couldn't survive.The rich have no use for Jesus.They think they have everything.The rich steal from the poor.Jesus tells us when they slap one cheek turn and let them slap the other,and us that are poor listen to Jesus more because that is all we have .I would rather be poor and have Jesus than rich and not have Jesus in my heart.
2007-03-17 05:13:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
YEs.... Poor Needs It More Than The Rich. So I Say take that Money. Robin Hood Would Agree.
2007-03-17 05:03:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anish 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is a problem of conventional morality versus moral maturity. On one hand, it would be frowned on by society and therefore morally wrong. On the other hand, it is morally just, however the right decision is not always a good decision. And often, justice hurts others. So, this is just a yes and no problem that can not be answered.
2007-03-17 05:24:22 · answer #8 · answered by filia_san 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the situation, if the rich are as they are becuase of the exploitation of the poor sure. If the slaves are starving there is no moral reason for them not to butcher and eat the slavers.
2007-03-17 05:16:55 · answer #9 · answered by Zarathustra 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess we can put it this way..
Is it morally acceptable to rob from the rich to feed the poor?
and
Is it morally acceptable to rob from the poor to feed the rich?
Both are strange, can we accept both?
The question itself is the answer :)
2007-03-17 07:47:59 · answer #10 · answered by Eric Chua Yanshan Maynas 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋