It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
They bought optional items they could not afford in a interest rate environment where such luxuries were affordable...
And I don't see a problem at all if people are allowed to buy things they can't afford. -LightinDarkness
"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" (John 2:13-16).
"Oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself "(Ezekiel 18:12-13).
"If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury "(Exodus 22:25).
"Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase" (Lev. 25:37).
"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury "(Deut. 23:19).
"He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved" (PS. 15:5).
"So king Solomon exceeded ALL the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom....And the king made silver (real money) to be in Jerusalem as stones...." I Kings 10:23-27.
"And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold" (Genesis 13:2).
#1) I am a Christian, but this government is not a theocracy, this is a republic. The United States government should not and will not ever begin following rules simply because they are IN THE BIBLE. The commandments of the bible are not binding on a secular government, nor should they be.
#2) Banks are private businesses and are under no obligation to follow the commandments of a religious text.
#3) Consumers CAN CHOOSE TO DO BUSINESS WITH A BANK OR NOT TO DO SO. Don't want to take out a loan? Then don't - who are you to force religious ideology on others?
#4) Assuming 1-3 above are not correct for the sake of argument (ha, I'm being generous), who gets to define usury? You? What is the basis for your definition?
Originally posted by jackinthebox
I am not Christian but I once heard something like "...one nation, under God..."
A most obvious point. They have always ignored righteousness.
If you use US currency, you are doing business with a bank that has forced usury upon this nation since 1913. I do not see the need to force secular views upon those who believe in God.
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
- Romans 13:8
Did you? Good for you. Now, can you tell me what God? The Christian God? The Islamic God? Perhaps one of the countless Hindu Gods? Maybe a Nordic God? Perhaps a Neopagan God? Which God are we under? You tell me, and you win a prize!
Really? I totally wasn't aware that businesses were in business to be righteous. I thought they were in business to make a profit. I have no idea where I got that idea from, though.
No, your little conspiracy doesn't mean that at all - even though its completely a untrue conspiracy. Still, how is it that people (according to you) don't get to choose about whether or not to do business with someone again?
Your little dictionary quote of usury is cute and I was waiting on you to do it. You still haven't answered the question. It certainly isn't an illegally high rate - it is quite legal. What percent rage is excessive or high? Who gets to decide? What's the standard?
Why don't we get to also enforce the rules about not eating sea food? Or stoning adulterers?
Well gee, now, how can you owe no man anything?
It is of no concern to you what (if any) God I choose to believe in. However, if you are looking to define the God referred to by our founding fathers, history books should further your understanding of the concept. Our entire legal system is based on a belief in God. So why not our economy?
Again you amaze me with your keen ability to state the obvious, and waste thread space.
Now you're babbling. What are you talking about? Are you trying to argue that the Federal Reserve is not a privately owned bank?
You asked me what usury was. If you can't comprehend the definition of the word, I suggest you get a refund on your education.
Is this another feeble attempt to derail the discussion because you have nothing? We are not talking about shellfish or punishing adulterers. Gark on.
If my family homestead had not been taken by the government and the banks, I would be living off the land right now, and wouldn't owe anyone anything.
This is comical, you invoke biblical quotes to defend yourself then turn a 360. Desperate measures...
You are the one invoking biblical quotes to defend your view point. So its a logical question - which God have you now determined that United States law must mirror? You can't do them all. Pick one..or admit this avenue of logic was dead upon arrival - but I know you won't do that.
The founding fathers were all manners of Deist - some Christian, others not. So which God are we following? I would say none as a government, but since you've determined we need to...do tell.
You've declared we have to follow the biblical laws against usury - but won't tell me what other laws we also have to follows.
My child, you have declared banks are charging interest rates that are usurious and cannot do that because of the Bible. I have asked you what other biblical laws this secular republic must also follow - the Bible tells us we must stone adulterers and not eat seafood. Do we also have to follow those commandments? Should the government enforce those as well? What about the order to owe no man nothing?
Perhaps if you would have followed the commandment of owing no man nothing, the bank wouldn't have taken it. You should follow the bible your going to preach to us.
You apparently do not follow the rules of sticking to the subject, since YOU are the one who starting quoting the bible about usury.
What happened is called eminent domain - and it is perfectly legal in every state for the narrowly tailored public use definition as defined by the Supreme Court, and the Court leaves it to the states about the more broadly tailored definition of public good. You are entitled to fair market value, nothing more, nothing less
Why do you refuse to answer the question? Since you have declared that we must follow the bible's definition of usury - although you cannot say what usury actually means or what percentage rate is usurious - what about the rest of the commandments? Do we follow those as well? Why not? Do not start quoting from the bible and declaring we should follow it if you do not want to answer these sorts of questions.
I am still waiting on you to tell me (1) why a secular republic should abide by Biblical commandments, (2) what percentage rate is usurious, (3) why is it we don't have to follow other commandments, why have you declared as our Ruler that we only have to follow that one? I know you keep dodging these questions because you can't answer them, but the more you reply the more I'll keep repeating myself - as it shows everyone that you have nothing to back up your position.
I spent years doing a thesis on eminent domain. I personally dislike the concept, but it is a "necessary evil." You are entitled to fair market value for any property taken from you. That means the value the land was worth were it to be sold on the open market. Period. Judges know this and are terrified of the legal smack down that would come upon them should they not follow the law in this respect.
Regarding eminent domain - why did you not appeal? If you really did NOT receive fair market value, an appeal would have guaranteed it. The expansion of the apartment complex is irrelevant if your state endorses a broad definition of the public good doctrine, otherwise, that too would have been appealable.
All you have done is pompously pasted the definition of usury which no one asked for...
We're still waiting for you to define what usury is.