*Was Robinhood Justified Or Just Common Criminal?*

[Care4all]

Stealing is stealing. Period

Motive may end in sympathy for some but it doesn't change the act.

Simply not true, if you follow the Bible. The Bible states that if you are poor and hungry and you go in to some rich farmer's fields and eat some of the veggies and fruits he has grown to feed yourself, THIS IS NOT STEALING, this is NOT considered theft according to God, but to you, this would be....so who should I believe? You or the Bible verses on this?

Where in the Bible is this found?

proverbs 6:30 for starters says this:


Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;


BUT that is not the passage of scripture i am referring to, I still need to continue my search to find it.....

the passage I am still looking for says some thing like this.....

if a hungry man comes to your field and eats from your crops in your field to fill his need, it is okay....but if this man takes any of the food away with him....it is theft.....

 

[kaz]

Yes, which is exactly why it's patently ridiculous for the left to use robin hood to justify legal authority.

I haven't seen that, but I know a couple lefties here that might try to spout some stupid shit like that so I'll take your word for it.

Read the thread

 

[blastoff]

Justified? Who knows? But criminal? What's criminal about running around the woods in tights with a bunch of other guys?

 

[Vaard]

Simply not true, if you follow the Bible. The Bible states that if you are poor and hungry and you go in to some rich farmer's fields and eat some of the veggies and fruits he has grown to feed yourself, THIS IS NOT STEALING, this is NOT considered theft according to God, but to you, this would be....so who should I believe? You or the Bible verses on this?

Where in the Bible is this found?

proverbs 6:30 for starters says this:


Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;


BUT that is not the passage of scripture i am referring to, I still need to continue my search to find it.....

the passage I am still looking for says some thing like this.....

if a hungry man comes to your field and eats from your crops in your field to fill his need, it is okay....but if this man takes any of the food away with him....it is theft.....

umm, you do realize what proverbs 6:31 says right?

 

[Dragon]

Robin Hood, in the legend, was a rebel against a tyrannical, oppressive nobility. As the people had no legal means of redressing their grievances (the government was wholly in the pocket of the grasping aristocracy), illegal means were the only ones available. The goal of the rebellion was to restore good government and bring justice to the people, stopping the excesses of the cruel, greedy nobility and their corrupt King John.

I wrote a novella some months ago about a Robin Hood in a science-fiction context, a very wealthy man deliberately adopting the Robin Hood persona and fighting against a regime comparable to our own corporatocracy taken to extremes. You can find it here: Smashwords - Robin - A book by Brian Rush

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Too steal or not to steal, that is the question.
2. If a thief steals and then gives lets say half of it to his poor com-padres, then the giving away makes everything pass the smell test?
3. If I measure out evil with stealing their belongings, then give away lets say, fifty percent, then does that make my evil, good?
4. Why is it, most people over the ages can't see this?
5. Robin Hood was no Hero, he was a crook.
6. Of course we have so many crooks in the world, so thats why Robinhood is painted as one of the *good guys*.
7. No one has a right to some one else's belongings, if you lack in things, go to work, and earn those things.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Vaard]

Robin Hood, in the legend, was a rebel against a tyrannical, oppressive nobility. As the people had no legal means of redressing their grievances (the government was wholly in the pocket of the grasping aristocracy), illegal means were the only ones available. The goal of the rebellion was to restore good government and bring justice to the people, stopping the excesses of the cruel, greedy nobility and their corrupt King John.

I wrote a novella some months ago about a Robin Hood in a science-fiction context, a very wealthy man deliberately adopting the Robin Hood persona and fighting against a regime comparable to our own corporatocracy taken to extremes. You can find it here: Smashwords - Robin - A book by Brian Rush

well, that depends......


there are two versions of robin hood......

the first was that he was yoeman who took to robbing the risch and give to the poor because of a oppresive nobility......

the other was that robin was a nobleman who was wrongly stripped of his lands and title by the other nobles and took to robbingthe rich and gave to the poor out of rebellion of the deeds done to him.....


king john and maid marion and all the rest was added centuries later........

 

[konradv]

Justified? Who knows? But criminal? What's criminal about running around the woods in tights with a bunch of other guys?

Substitute camo for tights and you've got the militia movement!

 

[Contumacious]

Was Robin Hood Justified Or Just Common Criminal?*

Well , it depends on whom you ask.

If you ask, someone like me , who is over 60, who works 50 or more hours a week since I was 17 y/o then I'd say that any one who steals from me is a common criminal who deserves death.

On the other hand a parasitic tax consumer would love the criminals.


Now the original Robin Hood (1938) starring Errol Flynn was a Libertarian flick since Robin Hood returned TAX MONEY to its lawful owners.

Now , that's my Robin Hood.

.

 

[zzzz]

Criminal. Period!

The law is the law and no one is above the law.

 

[manifold]

Criminal. Period!

The law is the law and no one is above the law.

It's fitting that you have a black & white avi.

 

[kaz]

5. Robin Hood was no Hero, he was a crook.
6. Of course we have so many crooks in the world, so thats why Robinhood is painted as one of the *good guys*.
7. No one has a right to some one else's belongings, if you lack in things, go to work, and earn those things.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So a taxpayer getting back money they worked for and government took is government's money and if they take it back they are a crook because they have no right to someone else's belongings. Wow, that's all I've got. Wow.

 

[Care4all]

Where in the Bible is this found?

proverbs 6:30 for starters says this:


Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;


BUT that is not the passage of scripture i am referring to, I still need to continue my search to find it.....

the passage I am still looking for says some thing like this.....

if a hungry man comes to your field and eats from your crops in your field to fill his need, it is okay....but if this man takes any of the food away with him....it is theft.....

umm, you do realize what proverbs 6:31 says right?

as i said in my post, THIS WAS NOT the verse i was looking for....

and also, it is speaking about a person who TAKES from another and leaves with it! THAT is stealing.....

the verse i was looking for is talking about a person who goes in to someone elses field or vineyard and eats while there, stuffing their face till content....that is A-OK, even it not being their farm and even without the farm owner's permission..... that is not stealing, BUT if they left the neighbors farm, and took food with them, it was wrong.

I am presuming if they took more than was needed to fill them up from hunger, then that is where the stealing would take place.

I found the passage!

Deuteronomy 23: 24-25

24When you come into your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, as many as you please, but you shall not put any in your vessel. 25When you come into the standing grain of your neighbor, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain.

i'd be happy to further the conversation with you or Katz n dogz, when i return....but busy working now!

care

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. All this talk about grapes being eaten but not gathered into baskets is not what this thread is dealing with.
2. I don't think Robinhood was ever accused of sloughing off in some old farmers field munching grapes.
3. Robinhood was into armed robbery, he didn't just ask for the bounty, he threatened, under the point of an arrow, you give it or you die.
4. I don't know why Chris brought that into this conversation???
5. Chris, hey, whats up with that?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

5. Robin Hood was no Hero, he was a crook.
6. Of course we have so many crooks in the world, so thats why Robinhood is painted as one of the *good guys*.
7. No one has a right to some one else's belongings, if you lack in things, go to work, and earn those things.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So a taxpayer getting back money they worked for and government took is government's money and if they take it back they are a crook because they have no right to someone else's belongings. Wow, that's all I've got. Wow.

1. I don't know what your asking.
2. I don't think anyone else does either.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Cowman]

You said that I was "intellectually dishonest" because I said taxes are "simply a redistribution of wealth." I showed you my quote I didn't say that. The quote you quoted. If it was a mistake, you didn't read my post when you responded to it, man up and admit it. If you can't admit your mistakes, you're a liar or just a coward.

Answer me this then. If taxes are raised on the top percentage of wealthy people in this country... would you consider that stealing?

You referenced stealing from people who earned it and giving it to people who don't. The definition of that from many conservatives is taxing the rich because obviously it's going straight to the poor.

You called me "intellectually dishonest" for saying that taxes are all redistributing wealth when in my quote you included in your statement you had me saying that they are actually not all redistributing wealth.

Once again you show yourself to be a dickless shemale who won't just own up to a mistake. If you simply admit your mistake, I'm man enough to move on. But the intellectually dishonest one in this conversation is Y-O-U.

Uhh, if you don't believe any of the things I've said thus far... and because you keep persisting with this I'll assume that's the case, then I am more than willing to admit a misunderstanding.

It sounded very much to me like you were one of the people who are always saying that this talk of raising taxes on the rich is redistribution of wealth.If that's not the case, it was a misunderstanding and I was wrong. I was trying to GOAD an actual opinion out of you after that because you still don't entirely be willing to say yes or no.

And what the hell is with this dickless shemale insult? That's pretty weak. Why don't you throw out something that stings next time. Dickless shemale. Though actually I don't really think any type of vulgar insult out there would really offend me. I've heard it all and I have a very raunchy sense of humor.