It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Usury still a Sin?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Max those three posts were brilliant yet concise explanations of the banking system. They should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the economy

And yes, usury was a sin until religions started to get a cut of the action, providing mafia like protection for the usurpers




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 



edit on 15-9-2011 by overseer1136 because: I removed my post so as not to stir the Jesus Haters into a frenzy because unlike them, I care.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 


I think I understand what you are saying, but you must account for the fact that in order to continue the banking model, for the benefit of the bankers, fractional reserve lending had to be controlled. Banks lend money they do not have. They are "allowed" to lend, for example, 9 dollars for every 1 dollar they have in reserve.

As a result the bank cycles 'credit' as if it were currency. What's more, if you borrow 100 dollars, the bank get to call that hundred dollars part of it's reserve since it legally has that money coming to it. They then lend out money based on a reserve they don't have. This is why money grows.

Banks offer interest on savings because it is an incentive to get your money that they may 'cycle' it through as more wealth for themselves. They don't do it for you, the customer.

In the end, Fractional reserve lending is the actual 'offense' that has us in the grips of their control; because we 'agree' that their process is the 'standard' by which we as a planet will conduct commerce.

Economists like to render it differently, and I am sure those who love the model will defend it. But at the end of logic, it is as 'faith-based' (or confidence-driven) as any religion because it is a matter of non-competing financial institutions that 'decree' monetary policy and intra-bank loan credit rates... with no input form the actual creators of wealth... the people.... rendering them into debt serfs.



I don't have too much faith in the current model anyway but realize there will probably always be a system of screwing somebody over. It's not too hard to see where it's going so my mind is going away from the concept of finances. I am trying to make that less of a concern by eliminating need for it... that way I don't have to think about it too much... but yeah, they've got it set up.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nusnus
Usury is sin not because its just 'stealing' from people, but because almost always, the people doing the borrowing are in need. And usury is taking advantage of a needy persons weakness. Its how the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

Great food for thought from someone who isn't a Muslim. S&F!


Any person "A" who pays a person "B" for person "B" providing a service is in need of that service, hence the reason they are willing to pay. Lenders are providing a service and are getting paid for providing that service.

If you get paid for providing a service to someone in need of your services (such as your boss paying you to do your job), does that mean you are taking advantage of your boss?

Your bank is in need of your money. If you collect interest from your bank for the money you put into your bank, does that mean you are taking advantage of your bank?

Now, it can be said that lenders may be asking for too much interest in return for loaning money, but that's a different argument altogether. The concept of lending money for interest is not necessarily immoral. Interest is just a fee, just like you charge a fee to your boss for working for him.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nusnus
Great food for thought from someone who isn't a Muslim. S&F!


This type of mentality is exactly why I left Islam. 'Us' versus 'Them' mentality... Believer versus Non-Believer... Muslims versus non-Muslim...

The religious superiority complex that Islam induces shines through your reply. What... only a Muslim has enough knowledge, wisdom, or understanding of concepts to give you food for thought?

My father makes me and my brother work out our differences... he doesn't tell the one who is right to fight the other. My father is more wise than Allah. Allah wasn't wise enough to abolish slavery, or wife beating, or legal/judicial sexism (2 women's word = 1 man). Nor was Allah wise enough to cultivate world Peace under freedom of belief. Non-Muslims do not have freedom of belief according to Islam, because Muslims charge non-Muslims a tax (jizyah) just for not believing. Instead of understanding and Peace, Islam encourages separation. Instead of working out Peace, Allah proclaimed jihadul warfare.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Any person "A" who pays a person "B" for person "B" providing a service is in need of that service, hence the reason they are willing to pay. Lenders are providing a service and are getting paid for providing that service.


That is part of what the interest on the load represents... although they have created new categories of financial vehicles as embedded fees and whatnot, and don't forget the state's cut.


If you get paid for providing a service to someone in need of your services (such as your boss paying you to do your job), does that mean you are taking advantage of your boss?


No, that is an exchange of labor for currency [ostensibly].


Your bank is in need of your money.


I wouldn't go that far as to say "need"... more like "expecting" ....



If you collect interest from your bank for the money you put into your bank, does that mean you are taking advantage of your bank?


It's in the contract. I'm sure if a bank took your money and held it for 0% interest you would find yourself looking for a new bank. They call it "competition", I thinks it's a game.


Now, it can be said that lenders may be asking for too much interest in return for loaning money, but that's a different argument altogether.


Actually that IS the argument, The idea of a "sin" is about establishing a social contract based on ethics and morality. As the customer, I must "assume" that I am not being overcharged, or paying an unnecessarily high price for the services, and that those services are 'fair' and not 'exclusively' monopolized.

Now tell me, what institution - other than a state - should have the ability to perform financial services based upon money it doesn't have (i.e. "trust" alone)? Only a bank. Why "only" a bank? Because if they could only charge for the services they provided and with a fixed or limited amount of profit, they wouldn't stand as the pinnacle predator corporate structure on the planet. And they will practically kill to keep it that way.


The concept of lending money for interest is not necessarily immoral. Interest is just a fee, just like you charge a fee to your boss for working for him.


Agreed.

All of this is about removing the temptation and opportunity to do the wrong thing, hence call it a 'sin'. (Which obviously wasn't a strong enough tool to keep it from happening anyway.)

Coops, are a better guide to ethical banking. But frankly, they now differ little.... thanks to regulation.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
IMO it is not the interest that is the problem - it is the vast amounts of money we pay people for essentially unproductive activities like currency speculation.

Now you might suggest that currency tradingn is actually useful - since currency trading is necessary for international trade - and I'd agree.

Howeer those who speculate that thevalue of a currency might rise or fall - essentially gambling - and make a killing on it - that's completely unproductive.

Of course it's just gambling - and to a large extent it is a product of political stupidity - porkbarreling by fixing currency values, trade restrictions, etc to try to protect votes for politicians create teh situation where such gambling can make a vast amount of money.

But as we learned yet again thanks to UBS - a gamble is a gamble & doesn't always pay off.

So I reject hte notion that interest is any kind of sin - IMO if there is anythign that is sinful it is the political stupidity that screws the market to allow currency speculation (and to a less extent trading) as a means of obtaining massive profits.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sahabi
 


Only a troll with deep rooted issues would turn my words into such a twisted message.

As if ...

Also, no self respecting person would keep his name as Sahabi if he truly left Islam out of hatred ahahah...who are you kidding?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by nusnus
Usury is sin not because its just 'stealing' from people, but because almost always, the people doing the borrowing are in need. And usury is taking advantage of a needy persons weakness. Its how the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

Great food for thought from someone who isn't a Muslim. S&F!


Any person "A" who pays a person "B" for person "B" providing a service is in need of that service, hence the reason they are willing to pay. Lenders are providing a service and are getting paid for providing that service.

If you get paid for providing a service to someone in need of your services (such as your boss paying you to do your job), does that mean you are taking advantage of your boss?


No, because my boss pays me and gets something in return. Whereas I as a borrower for example. only get something for a short amount of time, and I have to return it, and also pay with interest for the actual borrowing. Does that sound fair to you?



Your bank is in need of your money. If you collect interest from your bank for the money you put into your bank, does that mean you are taking advantage of your bank?


The bank is definitely in need of my money yes...if I collect interest from the bank, Im taking advantage of the system that takes money from other people who can barely pay that interest back. If I follow that money back to its source, it'll be from a mother who is perhaps barely feeding her kids.



Now, it can be said that lenders may be asking for too much interest in return for loaning money, but that's a different argument altogether. The concept of lending money for interest is not necessarily immoral. Interest is just a fee, just like you charge a fee to your boss for working for him.


Interest is not just a fee. Because when you charge someone money for work, both sides are giving something, there is an exchange. With lending, the money is returned BACK. And only borrowed for a certain amount of time. The bank takes money from the poor or the rich, without so much as distinguishing between them, and gives that money to other people, in order to get money from other people. How does ANY bank make money being the middle man of money is beyond me...lets see...ah I remember, its called 'stealing'. Name a single bank you think doesn't rip its customers off..

I mean..you'd have to look at the big picture...which is why its a sin. In the bigger picture, its the corrupter of societies. The reason we have economic breakdowns....and you can't just regulate it with a mentality like that. You can't just say: oh its okay to do it in small amounts but in bigger amounts its bad for you. Its either bad or good for you.

edit on 15-9-2011 by nusnus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Sin?
Are we talking 'rules and laws from the Bronze Age'?

All I can ask is what sequence of events made it illegal for you and I to lend money at extortionate interest, but not the banks and credit card companies? If I lend money at a 29% interest rate I go to jail.

Lobbying? "Donations to campaign funds"? Why the disparity?
Because corporate America wins every time.
Vote for who you like, you'll never have the firepower of the corporations and their lobbyists. They are controlling your pet politician.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I completely think it is.. thats why i don't borrow money


God will provide whatever i need.
"Set your affection on things above, Not on things of this earth"-Coll3:1



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join