God's law; The poor always with you

A possible loss yes. And a risk. A risk that maybe in the future you might need it. Im not saying interest is right, possibly there is better way such as returning with gratitude when in a position to do so. In a progressive society we need to find ways to reward achievers.

I think the ideology of having pride or satisfaction as they main reward for achieving is great but un-realistic.
I think it would take a lot of re-programming of the human DNA to feel more satisfied in giving than providing for your family for example.
Im not sure if its right to set unrealistic goals. Its one of those that look good on paper.

Yes we can teach towards such goals, away from greed, but we should not ignore the benefits of reward in society.

guidetube
A possible loss yes. And a risk. A risk that maybe in the future you might need it. Im not saying interest is right, possibly there is better way such as returning with gratitude when in a position to do so. In a progressive society we need to find ways to reward achievers.

I think the ideology of having pride or satisfaction as they main reward for achieving is great but un-realistic.
I think it would take a lot of re-programming of the human DNA to feel more satisfied in giving than providing for your family for example.
Im not sure if its right to set unrealistic goals. Its one of those that look good on paper.

Yes we can teach towards such goals, away from greed, but we should not ignore the benefits of reward in society.

When people inherit large amounts of money when a relative dies, has done nothing really to obtain that money other than show some kind of loving attitude toward the person before they died. Do we also condemn people for inheriting money? But the government taxes money or property that is willed.

But these people arguing against interest, which really is a small component of the financial situation, seem to feel it is taking advantage and everything is usury. But this is how Europe in the Middle Ages was built, banks loaned money to kings who in turn built armies or schools or cathedrals. Trade wasn't the only financial resource.

And not only that, those same kings borrowed quite a bit of money, at interest, from Jews, then turned around and persecuted them. The Church also borrowed money from the Islamic bankers of the Ottoman Empire, with interest. The problem is not that the banking system is committing usury, it really boils down to the feeling of jealousy over the fact that CEOs of banks make a lot of money, stock brokers know how to pick the right stocks and so forth.

I don't hear anyone condemning any other way of getting money for nothing. But I also never hear these same people saying that they give to charity out of their income, unless provoked by some feeling at the time to do so. How many of you give to charitable organizations on a weekly or monthly basis? I mean every week or month.

If you feel charity is so important, find a charity that you like and set up a bank draft to where they draw money from your account, you can set it up for as low as $20 a month or week. Yes, even the money received from compounded daily interest can therefore be donated to charity. Otherwise, it just leads me to believe that all this argument gets down to is "coveting thy neighbors goods". What happens if my account is overdrawn? I pay the charges.

Be charitable, make friends with the money lenders, use the money to recycle into charity.

reply to post by Akragon


Because you took a risk in lending in the first place. It is your fee for lending money you had to someone who didn't have it on the mere agreement that they would pay it back.

reply to post by Akragon


You're not differentiating between charity and lending.

When I give charity, I don't expect or want a return. When I lend, I am giving someone something so that they can use it to realize a material gain for themselves that they otherwise would not, and they are then paying me back. That's different than charity. And when I am lending to a friend, I don't have much risk. I know they're good for it. When I lend to a stranger, the risk goes up. Who knows if they'll pay me back? Banks lend to strangers.

Charity is when people have nothing and have a real need.

When you lend, the person you lend to doesn't necessarily need what you're lending them the money for which is why you want them to pay you back.

ketsuko
reply to post by Akragon

 

You're not differentiating between charity and lending.

When I give charity, I don't expect or want a return. When I lend, I am giving someone something so that they can use it to realize a material gain for themselves that they otherwise would not, and they are then paying me back. That's different than charity. And when I am lending to a friend, I don't have much risk. I know they're good for it. When I lend to a stranger, the risk goes up. Who knows if they'll pay me back? Banks lend to strangers.

Charity is when people have nothing and have a real need.

When you lend, the person you lend to doesn't necessarily need what you're lending them the money for which is why you want them to pay you back.

Exactly.

And we can't be evil by beating up those who we lend to, like the mafia does. Pope Frances just told the mafia to stop doing evil, let's see how long it takes for the mafia to respond.

That's what Jesus was also referring to, don't beat up or harass people who borrow from you, because you just might owe a lot more to the king and he didn't kill or harass you.

I have to count all the money loaned to people as charity as they never have paid me back, so I can't demand they pay me back. But how many people loan money to friends and then end up on Judge Judy or The People's Court? Sometimes you have to forgive and forget a debt.

At least your friends pay you back.

guidetube
My point was I don't think God dictates actual laws such as "consider the poor" but possibly highlighted the main law in creation "choose good".

And if someone asks what he means by "choose good", then "consider the poor" is being offered as a practical example which points them in the right direction.

The "laws" in the Old Testament are only the starting point in what might be called an educational process.
When we get to the New Testament, there's a greater focus on the basic principles which lie behind these laws.
Jesus was prepared to sum up the "human-to-human" aspect of the law by quoting the instruction "You shall love your neighbour as yourself".
By the time we get to that level, the difference between what you are saying and what the Bible is saying disappears into not very much.

A law has retribution: What is Gods retribution if we don't "consider the poor"? Man has made their system for dealing with this.

Apart from the fact that the Bible speaks of a future judgement, which is where retribution comes in.

reply to post by ketsuko

Because you took a risk in lending in the first place. It is your fee for lending money you had to someone who didn't have it on the mere agreement that they would pay it back.

So I guess Jesus had no idea what he was talking about when he said "lend with no expectation of return"...

Gotcha

You're not differentiating between charity and lending.

When I give charity, I don't expect or want a return. When I lend, I am giving someone something so that they can use it to realize a material gain for themselves that they otherwise would not, and they are then paying me back. That's different than charity.

So when a friend comes to you "in need" of money and not for financial gain, and you lend it to them... its charity.

Gotcha... Be sure to tell the next friend you "lend" money to that its charity... and see the response you get

And when I am lending to a friend, I don't have much risk. I know they're good for it. When I lend to a stranger, the risk goes up. Who knows if they'll pay me back? Banks lend to strangers.

theres an old saying... Don't lend money to a friend.

I've personally found that to be true, 90% of the time you never get it back... I don't personally lend money to friends, I give them what they need IF I am able...

Charity is when people have nothing and have a real need.

When you lend, the person you lend to doesn't necessarily need what you're lending them the money for which is why you want them to pay you back.

And as I've said before, why do you believe you should get more money back for the simple kind act of lending someone money?

Are you afraid you might take a loss?

Its a risk right...

Asking them to repay said money is fine... when one adds interest to the debt, they're looking to profit off of the act of lending...

Again, that is selfish... which in this thread I have defined as evil

Take it as you will...

reply to post by Akragon


Is it charity when a bum corners you on the street and asks for a dollar so he can buy a bottle of booze? How many times has this happened to you?

I'm a middle-aged white woman who dresses conservatively and middle-class, even though I am now relegated to the poverty level. Do you know how many times someone has approached me, usually men a little tipsy, and demanded that I give them money because they are so broke they can't even buy a hot dog? Man, if I count it up, they would owe me a lot.

But charity shouldn't be demanded. One time I had 89 cents and a man cornered me on the sidewalk demanding me to give him all my change, when I tried to walk around him he blocked my way, still demanding my change. That's all I had on me. So why do they make you feel guilty for having money? Another time I was lost in Detroit, pulled into a gas station to ask for directions. After giving me directions, the man then asked for any money that I had to "pay" for the directions.

Is that charity?

Then there have been cases where I have given someone large amounts of money, simply because I felt they needed it. And for them, I never asked for it back. But there is a lady who kept borrowing money to buy "stuff" which later she informed me was to buy drugs with. Do I feel she owes the money back? Yes, she does.

Different situations.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Is it charity when a bum corners you on the street and asks for a dollar so he can buy a bottle of booze? How many times has this happened to you?

Many many times... and of course it is charity

But charity shouldn't be demanded. One time I had 89 cents and a man cornered me on the sidewalk demanding me to give him all my change, when I tried to walk around him he blocked my way, still demanding my change. That's all I had on me. So why do they make you feel guilty for having money?

I do believe I've already defined selfishness...

Another time I was lost in Detroit, pulled into a gas station to ask for directions. After giving me directions, the man then asked for any money that I had to "pay" for the directions

Is that charity?

please see the above reponse...

Then there have been cases where I have given someone large amounts of money, simply because I felt they needed it. And for them, I never asked for it back. But there is a lady who kept borrowing money to buy "stuff" which later she informed me was to buy drugs with. Do I feel she owes the money back? Yes, she does.

Should she return the money?

Or return it with 10% interest when she likely already doesn't have said money to return in the first place...

IF you believe she should give you extra money for your lending her money... that is usury...

and I've defined that numerous times already

Akragon
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Is it charity when a bum corners you on the street and asks for a dollar so he can buy a bottle of booze? How many times has this happened to you?

Many many times... and of course it is charity

But charity shouldn't be demanded. One time I had 89 cents and a man cornered me on the sidewalk demanding me to give him all my change, when I tried to walk around him he blocked my way, still demanding my change. That's all I had on me. So why do they make you feel guilty for having money?

I do believe I've already defined selfishness...

Another time I was lost in Detroit, pulled into a gas station to ask for directions. After giving me directions, the man then asked for any money that I had to "pay" for the directions

Is that charity?

please see the above reponse...

Then there have been cases where I have given someone large amounts of money, simply because I felt they needed it. And for them, I never asked for it back. But there is a lady who kept borrowing money to buy "stuff" which later she informed me was to buy drugs with. Do I feel she owes the money back? Yes, she does.

Should she return the money?

Or return it with 10% interest when she likely already doesn't have said money to return in the first place...

IF you believe she should give you extra money for your lending her money... that is usury...

and I've defined that numerous times already

Charity demanded is not charity, you know that.

I don't charge interest, but if I were making a business deal, then probably yes. Are you distinguishing between loans to friends or businesses? Let's say tomorrow I want to make a movie and so I have to go out and get the money. I have to ask people for money but they have to be aware that their investment might be a failure before the movie is even made. So if the movie is successful, they get their money and then some, but if it is a flop, they lose their money.

So investments are made on faith of a greater return. Playing the lottery is also a faith investment.

What's the difference in charging interest for a business that you have faith in and they have faith in? You do realize that the loans in question about usury is about business, right?

reply to post by WarminIndy


We've already established this isn't about business or banks or the people that run them...

Business is business... and in said practice pretty much anything goes to make a buck.

Its a cut throat profession

Usury hardly applies when the people dealing with the money have more money then they know what to do with as I've said previously

Back in biblical times, and even today... many people get loans just to keep their head above water, to pay bills, or get groceries... and in doing so put themselves in even more debt by getting interest added to said loans. And again as I've said before, some of these people don't have the money to return what is owed... Not to mention whatever percentage of interest that is accumulated as well

Then you get things like compound interest... where the percentage is added, and then recalculated

which returns me to what I've said on the previous page... Usury makes slaves of all of us...

Though of course things are not the same in the business world

And demanded charity is still charity... the act of giving to someone who asks of you...

char·i·ty

noun: charity; plural noun: charities
1. the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.

Of course if they demand it, you have your choice to give or not... it doesn't change the definition of the word

reply to post by Akragon


I see.

So it's charity when a carjacker steals your car, because a car has value like money and it is an investment. But you have the right to choose. So you voluntarily give them your car.

You bought your car with money and can sell it for money. So it is a financial investment. So is that charity because they demanded your car and you voluntarily give it to them? It's demanded charity, so then it must be charity by your definition.

reply to post by WarminIndy

So it's charity when a carjacker steals your car, because a car has value like money and it is an investment. But you have the right to choose. So you voluntarily give them your car.

LOL

Does that make any sense to you?

That would have nothing to do with you... You got ripped off... simple

You bought your car with money and can sell it for money. So it is a financial investment. So is that charity because they demanded your car and you voluntarily give it to them? It's demanded charity, so then it must be charity by your definition.

Im not sure how you figured that one out...

IF someone demands you give them money... you can simply say no and walk away... IF they prevent you from walking away, that is forcible confinement...

IF someone steals your car... You don't have a choice in the matter, unless you witness it happening... then of course you have a choice of either attempting to stop them, and risking injury or worse... OR calling the cops

Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

It seems a lot of members love to do that with me...

Akragon
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So it's charity when a carjacker steals your car, because a car has value like money and it is an investment. But you have the right to choose. So you voluntarily give them your car.

LOL

Does that make any sense to you?

That would have nothing to do with you... You got ripped off... simple

You bought your car with money and can sell it for money. So it is a financial investment. So is that charity because they demanded your car and you voluntarily give it to them? It's demanded charity, so then it must be charity by your definition.

Im not sure how you figured that one out...

IF someone demands you give them money... you can simply say no and walk away... IF they prevent you from walking away, that is forcible confinement...

IF someone steals your car... You don't have a choice in the matter, unless you witness it happening... then of course you have a choice of either attempting to stop them, and risking injury or worse... OR calling the cops

Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

It seems a lot of members love to do that with me...

Akra

I am trying to follow your train of logic.

So if a bum asks me for money and won't leave me alone until I give it to him, that is charity. But a carjacker demands my car and I give it to him, then it's not charity.

A car is like money, and it can be bartered like money. It has value.

But you are a guy, maybe you have more of an option of walking away. Take it from my perspective, a very short woman, and oftentimes women are expected to extend certain social interactions. Perhaps you should stand back and watch how men and businesses are with your girlfriend. Even if they don't flirt, which many times the expectation is that women should accept the flirting, watch how she is treated.

While you might perceive it as charity, to me it is an intrusion of my private space. And the expectation to give them money because I am a woman is heightened. I think most women on here can relate to how women are expected to do things, that men wouldn't necessarily be.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I am trying to follow your train of logic.

So if a bum asks me for money and won't leave me alone until I give it to him, that is charity. But a carjacker demands my car and I give it to him, then it's not charity.

A car is like money, and it can be bartered like money. It has value.

I don't see how that would be charity...

It is defined as an act of selflessness... IF you actually decided to give this "bum" the money hes demanding it is still charity... but not if you feel that you don't have a choice in the matter.

Charity can not be given by force... only by free will

In that case it is still your choice to give this bum the money he wants, but again... IF you're pressured or feel threatened by this person its more a case of extortion then charity

But you are a guy, maybe you have more of an option of walking away. Take it from my perspective, a very short woman, and oftentimes women are expected to extend certain social interactions.

No one has the right to force you into anything my dear... Don't let your stature limit your abilities... I've known quite a few short women that would kick my ass all over the map... Not that I would fight back anyways, but just because you're a woman does not mean you can't do damage... You do have one advantage over all men... Use it If you feel it necessary...

I hope you know what I mean

Perhaps you should stand back and watch how men and businesses are with your girlfriend. Even if they don't flirt, which many times the expectation is that women should accept the flirting, watch how she is treated.

I've seen it happen lots of times before... Though I find it highly unlikely it would happen while I was standing there... There would be immediate repercussions... Im very protective of those I care about

While you might perceive it as charity, to me it is an intrusion of my private space.

Correct...

And the expectation to give them money because I am a woman is heightened. I think most women on here can relate to how women are expected to do things, that men wouldn't necessarily be.

I don't entirely agree with that... Perhaps because you are smaller then others, you feel threatened by things others are not... but again, there is never a reason why you should have to hand something over because of that feeling...

reply to post by WarminIndy


My point is possibly they have been giving something that was not the givers to give. I also feel that, as others seem to be saying, that it would be better to pass down proper morals and a better life rather than wealth. By passing on large wealth, a wealth accumulated most probably at the expense of others is also passing on the attitude that keeping that wealth at the expense of others is OK. By passing on good morals such as sharing we not only better society but better the person.


reply to post by DISRAELI

We should teach us about the possibility of being judged by God, that our true feelings maybe visible to others beyond our existence, that nothing is missed and even that there might be retributions for bad choices. Just because there is a possibility of being judged and receiving punishment does not mean we will though.

I understand the sense in teaching the absolutes such as Jesus ability to live entirely righteous, Gods Judgments on certain behaviors, on a heaven and hell. It makes us think that little bit more about the choices we make.

So, should we really teach that there will be retributions and what they will be as I believe the bible does?

reply to post by Akragon


So you see the conundrum.

They might not do it in front of you, but certainly your girlfriend has experienced certain expectations that she might not really be comfortable with, but because she is a female, gives in simply because it was the expectation.

Social interactions are not the same for men and women, so the definitions of charity are also different. Women are perceived as nurturing and caring, so women are expected to be more charitable than men. Women would be more charitable with giving food than money, I think this is true because I am a woman and that's what I would do much more quicker. When the lady said she wanted money to buy "stuff', I perceived it as being necessary things, everybody needs to buy stuff.

Could it be then that because men are geared toward protecting the village is more fundamental, so charity becomes an issue of money, because money is more expendable and can be earned again? Whereas women who are nurturers would feel more inclined to meet the material needs?

Apparently this was the issue Jesus was talking about with the Good Samaritan, who didn't just give the man money, but he paid the innkeeper the money to take care of the man, after meeting his material needs?

Men had forgotten or men weren't capable of processing that information, but women were more inclined to do so?

reply to post by WarminIndy


I understand what you're saying, but just because society expects something of you because you are female does not mean one must adhere to what society says.

Though it must be said, there is a belief that Mary was actually supposed to be the leader of the church, but the view of females back in that time prevented the actual leader from taking that position...

Paul didn't help that situation either... I believe this is actually true

Females have that nurturing aspect that most males do not have, which also falls completely in line with Jesus and his ways

I think we're straying from the topic here though

A star for you my dear

reply to post by DISRAELI


Sorry if someone has already asked this already -could the poverty referred to be spiritual poverty?

ketsuko
reply to post by Akragon

 

Because you took a risk in lending in the first place. It is your fee for lending money you had to someone who didn't have it on the mere agreement that they would pay it back.

If I ( a private banking cartel) can create money from thin air there is no risk to me lending it for my profit and causing debt slavery .
The complex financial system relies on people not understanding it.