Robin Hood: Good Guy or Bad Guy?

[Paradoxum]

Why is ANYTHING wrong from right ? To the Moral Relativist, nothing is objectively wrong to do for its only ones opinion if it is.

I'm not a moral relativist.

Fortunately, we can know what is objectively wrong and objectively right...unlike the secular self centered justifications for doing what is wrong regardless ; and the objective standard im speaking of is the very Person, Character, and Intrinsic Nature of God the Creator of the entire Universe and every person .

I believe in a non-theistic objective morality, and that we can understand it, and it isn't based on justifications for doing wrong.

Therefore considering the action of theft, we know it is not correct because our Creator is infinitely PURE , RIGHTEOUS, and JUST.

Well why does that make all theft wrong? And what is the definition of theft? The Bible may say theft is wrong, but what does that really mean? Such simple statements don't really tell us much.

As an adjunct to go along with this, the Creator saw fit to even give us an intrinsic Moral Conscience for us to remember that theft is wrong in addition to other more major actions ; we have the capacity to either go with our Moral Conscience ...or...whats grown to be very popular today....to willfully suppress our Moral Conscience and Gods character so we can do/act/talk/behave anyway we darn well feel like under the lame excuse of : 'there is no God' . Satanist Alister Crowley summed this perverted philosophy of moral relativism thusly : 'Do what they wilt is the whole of the law' -- in other words, embrace anarchy and indulge in whatever you feel like because you are your own god .

Well people can feel different things from their conscience. An ignorant/ delusional/ corrupt conscience can produce different feelings in different situations. Also, can does one make a distinction between conscience, and a messed up subconscious?

I can speak for others, but I generally don't try to repress my informed conscience. The conscience can be more free when it is allowed out of the box of simplistic rules, such as 'theft is wrong'.

I agree that theft is wrong, or normally wrong, but it depends upon the definition of theft.

Do you understand a bit clearer now ?

Not really.

If you still dont agree, then, would you mind if i stole something from you because you had excess then pawned it so i could get money to supplement my elderly mothers puny amount of social security she gets from our stingy U.S. Government each month ?

I agree that theft is generally wrong. So, no, I wouldn't want that done to me. Though I would understand if you stole to save their lives.

The case of Robin Hood is quite different though. Those in power didn't gain the wealth by legitimate means. They forced the poor to pay an unreasonable tax.

 

[mzungu]

In the Catholic law school I attended, we discussed two types of unjust laws: There are laws that compel unjust or immoral conduct (for example, laws that require a person to have an abortion even if that person morally objects or laws that require a person to renounce his or her faith). There are laws that allow unjust or immoral conduct (this could be said of any law that allows a person to do something that another would find immoral, but in my Catholic law school education, these would be laws that, for example, allow abortion or birth control or that allow the wealthy to exploit the poor, such as in predatory lending and so forth). I would add a third type, being laws by which the government performs some injustice on its own or another people, such as unfair or unreasonable taxation.

Do you believe that Jefferson's quote would apply to all three types?

Our Government has passed taxation laws that in many cases the tax exceeds the income. An example: If you are unemployed, own your house, own a car, and have 1 child then you have to pay 4,000 Euros Tax per year. This ammount increases the more children you have. Demographically more people die than are born in Greece yet children are considered luxury goods by the Government. Right now I have to pay taxes (over 40 different taxes) that literally exceed my income. If you own a house then you have to pay all manner of taxes every year and one of the taxes they want to add this year is you pay tax on the house you live in according to how much money you would rent it for. I earn 20,000 Euros per year and I have to pay this year 22,500 Euros!

Now tell me if I will be wrong to refuse to pay all these taxes that I cannot afford to pay. By the way the rich have tax breaks and the more you earn the less taxes you pay.

Ever since these laws came into effect we have had unemployment rise from 6% to over 35% (over 60% unemployed in the under 30 age group).

Also if you owe the government 300 + Euros you go to jail!

60 % of the electricity bill is comprised of tax and on top of that they have increased the electricity bill by 48% in two years.

All this with a Right wing Government!

Time to oil the shotgun!

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

I'm not a moral relativist.



I believe in a non-theistic objective morality, and that we can understand it, and it isn't based on justifications for doing wrong.



Well why does that make all theft wrong? And what is the definition of theft? The Bible may say theft is wrong, but what does that really mean? Such simple statements don't really tell us much.



Well people can feel different things from their conscience. An ignorant/ delusional/ corrupt conscience can produce different feelings in different situations. Also, can does one make a distinction between conscience, and a messed up subconscious?

I can speak for others, but I generally don't try to repress my informed conscience. The conscience can be more free when it is allowed out of the box of simplistic rules, such as 'theft is wrong'.

I agree that theft is wrong, or normally wrong, but it depends upon the definition of theft.



Not really.



I agree that theft is generally wrong. So, no, I wouldn't want that done to me. Though I would understand if you stole to save their lives.

The case of Robin Hood is quite different though. Those in power didn't gain the wealth by legitimate means. They forced the poor to pay an unreasonable tax.

In order...

1. You gave a strong impression that you were a Moral Relativist by questioning why theft is wrong.

2. Where does the objective moral standard come from in a 'non-theistic (Creator)' view ? Does it come from materials ?

3. We discover why theft is wrong , partially by examining our own reaction when someone steals from us. When someone steals from you, are you indignant or neutral about it ? Why ? Is it ever permissible for someone to steal from you ? How ?

4. While its true some people can have a psychologically-backfired / reprobate moral conscience.. it isnt the norm, and we can discover right from wrong by how a moral infraction against us makes us feel and react ...plus we can learn from the consequences of immorality and bad decisions by Others . If in doubt...examine the infinite nature, character and Person of our Creator who is our Absolute Moral Law Provider but it has to be done with a non-bias mindset and a real commitment to wanting the truth THEN acting on it. Thats not something thats real popular in our secularized culture today because 'its too restrictive to our fun' and autonomy ; we dont like and demands being placed on how to live do we (?) .

5. No one is demanding you blindly follow statements that say something is wrong ; its encumbant upon YOU to discover why something is wrong or right on an objective basis so you can live in a correct, civil, approach to life apart from what you *feel like doing at any given time. Theres supposed to be a strong element of integrity, dignity, and lawfulness to how we live our lives ... and not to trump those things with a morally - suppressed conscience . In short, we are to want what our Creator wants by how we live without compromise.

6. Maybe YOU can offer up a definition of Theft , then tell us how it makes you feel when someone commits this toward you (?) .

 

[dies-l]

Our Government has passed taxation laws that in many cases the tax exceeds the income. An example: If you are unemployed, own your house, own a car, and have 1 child then you have to pay 4,000 Euros Tax per year. This ammount increases the more children you have. Demographically more people die than are born in Greece yet children are considered luxury goods by the Government. Right now I have to pay taxes (over 40 different taxes) that literally exceed my income. If you own a house then you have to pay all manner of taxes every year and one of the taxes they want to add this year is you pay tax on the house you live in according to how much money you would rent it for. I earn 20,000 Euros per year and I have to pay this year 22,500 Euros!

Now tell me if I will be wrong to refuse to pay all these taxes that I cannot afford to pay. By the way the rich have tax breaks and the more you earn the less taxes you pay.

Ever since these laws came into effect we have had unemployment rise from 6% to over 35% (over 60% unemployed in the under 30 age group).

Also if you owe the government 300 + Euros you go to jail!

60 % of the electricity bill is comprised of tax and on top of that they have increased the electricity bill by 48% in two years.

All this with a Right wing Government!

Time to oil the shotgun!

So, to direct that to my question. Is that tax code immoral in that it unjustly taxes you? Or, is it immoral in that it keeps you from providing for the basic life needs of your family? If your numbers are right, I would say that both are true. In the case of the latter, disobedience is an obligation. In the case of the former, the issue is more debatable, but one could argue that civil disobedience would not be immoral.

 

[wmpratt]

I wonder if people would have as many problems with Robin Hood if what he did was described in different words: eg: Recovering from the greedy the rightful property of the poor.



What do you mean by conclusions are subjective? You don't believe in objective morality?

How would he check how much each person lost? He took from those who took the money by force in the first place, then gave it to the needy. What is wrong with that?

No one appointed him, but then no one really appointed anyone back then. It's not as if they lived in a relatively just democratic state. It is about self-defence, and the defend of others from the greedy.

I don't know if Robin Hood even existed, so it only matter what the story says about who he gave it to.

The premises you stated "rich", "tax evaders", "rich who steal from the poor" , all are subjective. A question of semantics really. Even "objective morality" can be subjective in it's definition. The definition of "rich" as well. It comes from the assumption that wealth equals criminal. Just because a person has wealth does not mean they came into it by nefarious means.


As long as a person did not break any laws how can it be ok to steal from them?

Robin Hood did exist but if we follow the fairy tale. Then it could be said he was more rebel than a champion of justice.

 

[Bethesda]

Read the story.

The rightful King (Richard) went abroad on crusade. His brother (John) usurped power, raised taxes illegally for his own use, and got his friends, including the infamous Sherrif of Nottingham, to collect the money for him. Those friends collected for the King, plus a cut for themselves, all totally outside the law. This is not the same as lawful taxation; it was extortion. John is not a lawful tax gatherer, he is a thief. He does not have the authority to raise the levels of taxation, and his friends did not have the authority to steal more on top.

Robin of Loxley objected, and as a result his lands and property was taken from him, and he was declared an outlaw. He went into the forest to live with the other outlaws, who, inter alia, ambushed those carrying the extorted money to the thieves. They took the money and gave it back to those who had been robbed of everything they had, and who had no means of living left to them.

Meanwhile the King had been captured, and an immense ransom asked for. His brother, who had no reason to pay this ransom and lose his power, refused to pay it. Robin went to the poor of the land, and asked them to give what they could. Between them they raised the necessary ransom, sent it abroad and the King was released.

When the King returned he pardoned Robin and the outlaws for any crimes they might have committed, and restored Robin's lands to him. He stopped the unfair taxation levels, set more reasonable taxes, and made sure the thieving stopped.

Therefore there is no question; according to the story Robin was a good guy.

yes I think the Yanks don't get it - we in Europe have a long tradition of this kind of thing at a time when - well they were in Europe too! And don't get started on Knox and Calvin and the rebellion against govt!

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

yes I think the Yanks don't get it - we in Europe have a long tradition of this kind of thing at a time when - well they were in Europe too! And don't get started on Knox and Calvin and the rebellion against govt!

The objective standard of morality isnt based on what continent you live on ! Its based on Gods character, nature, and Person and in case a person doesnt know what that looks like...he even put it into clear understandable definitions as found in the holy inspired Word of God, The Bible ....and that is for you in Europe, Me in America, and the Guy whos eating Tiger for dinner right now out in the African Jungle . No one is excluded . So...now we have an objective standard for the entire world, if our dear Subject who was an expert with his bow and arrows chose to take ANYTHING that belonged to Another ... it is considered stealing and that makes our favorite Marksman whos every Boys idol , a bonified THIEF plain and simple. And...it makes no difference whatsoever if he stole from a corrupt Government, Entity, or the worlds nastiest Buggar -- hes a Thief period because he violated Gods infinite nature of purity/righteousness/and morality .... not Hitlers standards, not your standards, not my standards, but the OWNER of the entire Universes standards for correct living.

Any questions remaining ?!

 

[Bethesda]

The objective standard of morality isnt based on what continent you live on ! Its based on Gods character, nature, and Person and in case a person doesnt know what that looks like...he even put it into clear understandable definitions as found in the holy inspired Word of God, The Bible ....and that is for you in Europe, Me in America, and the Guy whos eating Tiger for dinner right now out in the African Jungle . No one is excluded . So...now we have an objective standard for the entire world, if our dear Subject who was an expert with his bow and arrows chose to take ANYTHING that belonged to Another ... it is considered stealing and that makes our favorite Marksman whos every Boys idol , a bonified THIEF plain and simple. And...it makes no difference whatsoever if he stole from a corrupt Government, Entity, or the worlds nastiest Buggar -- hes a Thief period because he violated Gods infinite nature of purity/righteousness/and morality .... not Hitlers standards, not your standards, not my standards, but the OWNER of the entire Universes standards for correct living.

Any questions remaining ?!

Oskar Schindler ensured that the shells his factory made would not work - a flawed man no doubt but one who in many ways did more than the many Evangelical Christians (I'm not incl in this the heroes of the White Rose movement) who by their inaction allowed a corrupt and evil govt to do more evil.
And of course both your ancestors and mine stole the American Indians land (and we also stole the lands of many others) - not engaging in moral relativism but what does God think about that infringement of his standards

 

[mzungu]

 

[keith99]

Read the story.

The rightful King (Richard) went abroad on crusade. His brother (John) usurped power, raised taxes illegally for his own use, and got his friends, including the infamous Sherrif of Nottingham, to collect the money for him. Those friends collected for the King, plus a cut for themselves, all totally outside the law. This is not the same as lawful taxation; it was extortion. John is not a lawful tax gatherer, he is a thief. He does not have the authority to raise the levels of taxation, and his friends did not have the authority to steal more on top.

Robin of Loxley objected, and as a result his lands and property was taken from him, and he was declared an outlaw. He went into the forest to live with the other outlaws, who, inter alia, ambushed those carrying the extorted money to the thieves. They took the money and gave it back to those who had been robbed of everything they had, and who had no means of living left to them.

Meanwhile the King had been captured, and an immense ransom asked for. His brother, who had no reason to pay this ransom and lose his power, refused to pay it. Robin went to the poor of the land, and asked them to give what they could. Between them they raised the necessary ransom, sent it abroad and the King was released.

When the King returned he pardoned Robin and the outlaws for any crimes they might have committed, and restored Robin's lands to him. He stopped the unfair taxation levels, set more reasonable taxes, and made sure the thieving stopped.

Therefore there is no question; according to the story Robin was a good guy.

That is the story from the earlier films.

It seems the earliest ballads made no mention of Richard. So the tale of Robin Hood has changed a lot over the centuries.

Overall Richard was a pretty poor King. Perhaps a great Knight, but a lousy King. The root of any high taxes in the real world was the amount Richard spent on the Crucades. When Richard died England was in real financial trouble, which his brother John was finally able to resolve.

That raises an interesting question, is a supporter of a legitimate but poor ruler a good guy?

EDIT: And the idea that Robin was from the nobility is a rather late addition to the tale, several hundred years after both the earliest ballads and the liekly time of a true historical figure.

http://www.history.com/topics/robin-hood

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Oskar Schindler ensured that the shells his factory made would not work - a flawed man no doubt but one who in many ways did more than the many Evangelical Christians (I'm not incl in this the heroes of the White Rose movement) who by their inaction allowed a corrupt and evil govt to do more evil.
And of course both your ancestors and mine stole the American Indians land (and we also stole the lands of many others) - not engaging in moral relativism but what does God think about that infringement of his standards ??

That is an easy answer as to what God thinks of that particular example you gave ; according to his infinite character of purity, honesty, righteousness...with additional collaboration of his prescribed 10 Commandments plus Ones intrinsic moral conscience that he infused into all of us.... he would be greatly disappointed and consider it a Sin of rebellion and disobedience .

You see...many people thruout history have done things even in the NAME of God as 'justification' for implementing certain actions based on what they deem correct to do...but that does not mean they are OF God ; and therein lies the difference.

As for taking a stand against a corrupt Government that willfully disobeys Gods character and nature ... God would have us take a proactive stand WITHOUT resorting to ways that violate his nature and character (our objective moral base) ; he would have us civily and lawfully come against such Godless Governments or Groups to implement changes but not to fight fire with fire otherwise we are no better than our Foes. The whole idea is to work toward peace , restore civility , desire righteousness ...because those elements are the catalyst we all so desperately need in our lives as a whole.

 

[dies-l]

That is the story from the earlier films.

It seems the earliest ballads made no mention of Richard. So the tale of Robin Hood has changed a lot over the centuries.

Overall Richard was a pretty poor King. Perhaps a great Knight, but a lousy King. The root of any high taxes in the real world was the amount Richard spent on the Crucades. When Richard died England was in real financial trouble, which his brother John was finally able to resolve.

That raises an interesting question, is a supporter of a legitimate but poor ruler a good guy?

EDIT: And the idea that Robin was from the nobility is a rather late addition to the tale, several hundred years after both the earliest ballads and the liekly time of a true historical figure.

The Real Robin Hood — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

Therein lies the problem with a discussion, such as this, about the moral implications of a fictional and largely folkloric tale. First, we have to come to an agreement as to which version of the story we are to use. Then, we need to check our assumptions about the fictional world in which the story takes place.

In my opinion, if the story is about an illegitimate ruler stealing money from the poor, and in comes old Robin to take the money back and give it back to its original owners, then sure Robin's an okay guy. But, if the story is about old Robin stealing from the rich, because they are rich, and giving to the poor, because they are poor, then I would not hold the same opinion of him.

 

[Paradoxum]

In order...

1. You gave a strong impression that you were a Moral Relativist by questioning why theft is wrong.

Sorry if I was unclear. I brought up the question to see why you thought it was wrong.

2. Where does the objective moral standard come from in a 'non-theistic (Creator)' view ? Does it come from materials ?

No. It comes from the objectivization of the subjective. ie: You can consider something bad from an subjective point of view (a bad day is when stuff happens that you don't like). This is applied to all people from an objective point of view, and aided by empathy. eg: You shouldn't steal from someone out of greed, because they would consider it a bad thing to happen to them.

That is a very very simplistic and weak version of it. Just to give you an outline of what I mean.

3. We discover why theft is wrong , partially by examining our own reaction when someone steals from us. When someone steals from you, are you indignant or neutral about it ? Why ? Is it ever permissible for someone to steal from you ? How ?

This partly agrees with my understanding of the moral. We first learn about good and bad from our subjective experience of being wronged.

If I had done something immoral to get the money it might be. eg: If I had stole it from them first, they could steal it back.

There may be other reasons, but I haven't thought and read about theft enough to be sure.

4. While its true some people can have a psychologically-backfired / reprobate moral conscience.. it isnt the norm,

I would say that all peoples conscience is messed up to different degrees, caused by our culture and upbringing. Normal people used to be ok with various immoral things in the past... do you really think that normal people today couldn't be wrong about some issues?

What we feel to be wrong is very much influence by our culture, upbringing, community, knowledge, and critical thought abilities.

and we can discover right from wrong by how a moral infraction against us makes us feel and react ...plus we can learn from the consequences of immorality and bad decisions by Others . If in doubt...examine the infinite nature, character and Person of our Creator who is our Absolute Moral Law Provider but it has to be done with a non-bias mindset and a real commitment to wanting the truth THEN acting on it.
Thats not something thats real popular in our secularized culture today because 'its too restrictive to our fun' and autonomy ; we dont like and demands being placed on how to live do we (?) .

I don't believe in God, but if there is a God, God is Love. And I try to conform my morality to love now anyway.

I doubt it is that people simply don't like your morals. They may just simply think your morals are wrong. If you are referring to sex (which I think you are), they may think that sex outside of marriage is perfectly acceptable.

For example, I don't merely dislike your attitude towards sex, I think it is clearly false. It is nothing better than an incorrect tradition of thought. I'm not in favour of randomly having sex with strangers though. It seems unwise.

5. No one is demanding you blindly follow statements that say something is wrong ; its encumbant upon YOU to discover why something is wrong or right on an objective basis so you can live in a correct, civil, approach to life apart from what you *feel like doing at any given time. Theres supposed to be a strong element of integrity, dignity, and lawfulness to how we live our lives ... and not to trump those things with a morally - suppressed conscience . In short, we are to want what our Creator wants by how we live without compromise.

If you believe on an objective basis... can you justify your morals without reference to the Bible?

6. Maybe YOU can offer up a definition of Theft , then tell us how it makes you feel when someone commits this toward you (?) .

Well I don't have a particular definition in mind. Things like this should be done after research on the subject of the definition of theft. If I tried to do it now I might leave something out. Also, it might not be totally black and white.

The premises you stated "rich", "tax evaders", "rich who steal from the poor" , all are subjective. A question of semantics really. Even "objective morality" can be subjective in it's definition. The definition of "rich" as well. It comes from the assumption that wealth equals criminal. Just because a person has wealth does not mean they came into it by nefarious means.

If they are very rich then it is probably the product of an unjust system. They might not have personally done anything wrong, but the system as a whole could be wrong.

I'm not against people being rich though. I agree that the words need to be defined more.

As long as a person did not break any laws how can it be ok to steal from them?

Well it partly depends if the lawmakers are legitimate. If a tyranny takes over, taxes everyone massively, and gives it all to his friends, then it could be justified to steal it back.

If you are starving to death, then it could be acceptable to steal from a rich person to save your life.

It depends of the socio-economic system in place, and various other things.

Robin Hood did exist but if we follow the fairy tale. Then it could be said he was more rebel than a champion of justice.

A rebel against an illegitimate regime can be a champion of justice.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Sorry if I was unclear. I brought up the question to see why you thought it was wrong.



No. It comes from the objectivization of the subjective. ie: You can consider something bad from an subjective point of view (a bad day is when stuff happens that you don't like). This is applied to all people from an objective point of view, and aided by empathy. eg: You shouldn't steal from someone out of greed, because they would consider it a bad thing to happen to them.

That is a very very simplistic and weak version of it. Just to give you an outline of what I mean.



This partly agrees with my understanding of the moral. We first learn about good and bad from our subjective experience of being wronged.

If I had done something immoral to get the money it might be. eg: If I had stole it from them first, they could steal it back.

There may be other reasons, but I haven't thought and read about theft enough to be sure.



I would say that all peoples conscience is messed up to different degrees, caused by our culture and upbringing. Normal people used to be ok with various immoral things in the past... do you really think that normal people today couldn't be wrong about some issues?

What we feel to be wrong is very much influence by our culture, upbringing, community, knowledge, and critical thought abilities.



I don't believe in God, but if there is a God, God is Love. And I try to conform my morality to love now anyway.

I doubt it is that people simply don't like your morals. They may just simply think your morals are wrong. If you are referring to sex (which I think you are), they may think that sex outside of marriage is perfectly acceptable.

For example, I don't merely dislike your attitude towards sex, I think it is clearly false. It is nothing better than an incorrect tradition of thought. I'm not in favour of randomly having sex with strangers though. It seems unwise.



If you believe on an objective basis... can you justify your morals without reference to the Bible?



Well I don't have a particular definition in mind. Things like this should be done after research on the subject of the definition of theft. If I tried to do it now I might leave something out. Also, it might not be totally black and white.



If they are very rich then it is probably the product of an unjust system. They might not have personally done anything wrong, but the system as a whole could be wrong.

I'm not against people being rich though. I agree that the words need to be defined more.



Well it partly depends if the lawmakers are legitimate. If a tyranny takes over, taxes everyone massively, and gives it all to his friends, then it could be justified to steal it back.

If you are starving to death, then it could be acceptable to steal from a rich person to save your life.

It depends of the socio-economic system in place, and various other things.



A rebel against an illegitimate regime can be a champion of justice.

Your replies are predicated on 'there is No personal Creator' , as you admitted to . Do you really see everything as coming along , blindly by accident , without a shred of personal intelligent intervention ? I dont believe you have enough faith to believe that if you really gave it some thoughtful consideration .

But playing the devils advocate, what kind of evidence WOULD make you become a Believer in a personal theistic Creator ? And would the evidence example that you choose be enough to warrant you surrendering your life to the personal Creators authority, if the evidence came to be a reality ?

 

[lismore]

Read the story.

Your summary was very good and I agree.

But unfortunately the story does not have a happy ending. Richard the Lionheart was killed in another of his wars and his brother John became King.

Then the extortion became legal because the unhinged loon John was now the monarch. He hunted Robin Hood and his men down. But some of the nobles managed to goad John into signing a Magna Carta, which was promptly ignored by the following homicidal Kings of England.

The moral of the story, not only was Robin Hood correct to do what he did, he should have tied Prince John to a target and used him for shooting practice.

 

[lismore]

But, if the story is about old Robin stealing from the rich, because they are rich, and giving to the poor, because they are poor, then I would not hold the same opinion of him.

If the rich have enough to get by then naturally they should give to those who are in need.

We need a thousand Robin Hoods in today's greedy world.

As the bible says:

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.

(James 5:1-5)

 

[Bethesda]

That is an easy answer as to what God thinks of that particular example you gave ; according to his infinite character of purity, honesty, righteousness...with additional collaboration of his prescribed 10 Commandments plus Ones intrinsic moral conscience that he infused into all of us.... he would be greatly disappointed and consider it a Sin of rebellion and disobedience .

You see...many people thruout history have done things even in the NAME of God as 'justification' for implementing certain actions based on what they deem correct to do...but that does not mean they are OF God ; and therein lies the difference.

As for taking a stand against a corrupt Government that willfully disobeys Gods character and nature ... God would have us take a proactive stand WITHOUT resorting to ways that violate his nature and character (our objective moral base) ; he would have us civily and lawfully come against such Godless Governments or Groups to implement changes but not to fight fire with fire otherwise we are no better than our Foes. The whole idea is to work toward peace , restore civility , desire righteousness ...because those elements are the catalyst we all so desperately need in our lives as a whole.

Would you therefore not have agreed with sheltering Jews in Nazi Germany as that was against their law - 'lawfully' surely can't be defined by a corrupt and evil govt that calls good things illegal and cruelty, prejudice and hatred good and lawful. I work in the criminal justice system and think a lot about such issues (as well as having a particular interest in Christian resistance to Nazism in WW2) so btw I am not trolling or being provocative.
Your own country rebelled against my country and didn't do things civilly - in my own country a great Christian (Oliver Cromwell) stood against the tyranny of the monarchy

'You see...many people thruout history have done things even in the NAME of God as 'justification' for implementing certain actions based on what they deem correct to do...but that does not mean they are OF God ; and therein lies the difference.' Your view of course - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox might take a different view.

 

[Paradoxum]

Your replies are predicated on 'there is No personal Creator' , as you admitted to .

Well my morality isn't based on there being no God. A theist could accept my morality.

Do you really see everything as coming along , blindly by accident , without a shred of personal intelligent intervention ? I dont believe you have enough faith to believe that if you really gave it some thoughtful consideration .

Evolution does appear to have happened. I have no more reason to reject it than any other scientific theory. It does seem quite amazing that all this came from gas clouds, but true.

We are all made of star dust, don't ya know.

Even if I wasn't sure of evolution, it wouldn't necessarily make me a theist. No God of the gaps for me.

But playing the devils advocate, what kind of evidence WOULD make you become a Believer in a personal theistic Creator ? And would the evidence example that you choose be enough to warrant you surrendering your life to the personal Creators authority, if the evidence came to be a reality ?

Perhaps some sort of obvious healing to someone I knew had a genuine illness or injury. Healing someone who lost a leg would be good, but that is quite alot to ask. I would say some sort of divine revelation, but then I wouldn't know if it was just a brain illusion. Perhaps if God/Jesus appeared to a number of people at once (including me).

I'm not sure though. It is pretty hard to prove a non-material being. There is a good chance I would become a Christian again though. It would of course depends on what that God was like, and how that made me feel.

 

[elephunky]

*blind post*

I don't think this is necessarily an either/or question. I am inclined to think that he was both.

 

[dies-l]

If the rich have enough to get by then naturally they should give to those who are in need.

We need a thousand Robin Hoods in today's greedy world.

As the bible says:

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.

(James 5:1-5)

I agree that the rich (which includes you and me) should share generously with the poor. But, there is a huge difference between asking a person to willingly share their resources and stealing from that person.