Originally Posted by
Father Forkhorn
In the interest of cordiality, the answer is that nobody knows what they would have done--David's anointed as the future king, and not a beggar, and that might mean he was treated differently. What they OUGHT to do is obvious and that's give the showbread to the starving man on the basis that it's about human need.
Point is, the priests were notoriously heavy handed when it came to anything pertaining to the temple. In most cases they had to be. Just touching the ark killed people in the past. Everything there was supposed to be holy. According to Jewish scholars I have talked to, the starving man would have faced anything from beating, to death. So when you say old test law is not the same as civil law, I beg to differ. The preists were the movers and shakers at this time. They drove civil laws. I mean all one has to do is go thru Leviticus and understand this. They even explain how to take care of animals, what do do with an animal gores someone, etc, on and on. Very detailed on civil law. David was ordained by God. So maybe your right. Christ felt the need to inform the pharasees that his disciples breaking heads of grain to eat was not sinning. Even though pharasees were the civil law keepers. I mean these cats could throw you out of a village for having a sore on your head where the the hair was white in the middle. Maybe the pharasees where thinking same as you, that the disciples breaking the heads of grain could lead to anarchy.
Originally Posted by
Father Forkhorn
That underlying principle is certainly relevant to the question of pursuing game on to another's land. Law exists to meet human need. The problem here is that the hunter isn't the authority empowered to make the decision in that particular community, and if he takes that action on his own, it damages society's attempt to create needed security, order, protect property, etc. If we arbitrarily pursue against the wishes of the law, we create a situation that potentially allows any kind of trespassing. All one has to do is say they're pursuing wounded game. However a state or community decides, it's very important to do it as they say. .
Good news in 90% of the cases, it means nothing. So civil law is safe. Meaning, most of the time, most of the land owners are civil and logical. So I feel your worry about anarchy can be calmed. The other 5% give or take, well, a huge portion of that can be dealt with by first contacting the land owners before hand and working it out face to face. Its the small piece that is troublesome. Where you are up against civil disobedience or feeling horrible that you let a deer go to waste.
Originally Posted by
Father Forkhorn
The person not allowing the pursuit sounds like an ordinary (if obnoxious) landowner, but he may have very valid reasons for not allowing pursuit. I'll give you a real example of another situation: I hunt an area that borders a juvenile detention facility. A hunter chasing wounded deer onto property like that is causing a big problem for security. Same for someone pursuing wounded game onto land bordering a power plant or some other such facility.
.
I agree, as with a previous posts where I talked about hunting beside camp david, a very secure facility. If a deer managed to cross the monster fence, well, I am just going to have to feel bad about not getting a better hit on that deer. Cause I am not facing the honor guard marines to explain about deer waste.
Originally Posted by
Father Forkhorn
Again, pursuit at minimum needs to be done in the way the community says to do it. The common good is what's at stake.
I agree. Its the small percentages where its actually an issue. Respect for land owners and others go a long way.
I was tracking a gut shot doe 4 years ago and called an old man who owned the land via cell phone. He acted like I was silly for asking him if I could track it. Said he wished I would kill em all to quit eating his corn. But that call got me access to hunting his land with permit in hand.