← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 11354 | Posts: 35 | Started: 2003-12-04
2003-12-04 02:33 | User Profile
12-3-03
Usury
Cathy CareerWoman: "I just heard that Steve borrowed money from a loan shark!"
Patty PTAMeeting: "What??? Why did he do that??"
Cathy CareerWoman: "The bank turned him down for a loan. The bank's loan officer, Mr. Goldfeldbergwitz, said Steve had too little income to qualify for a loan. So Steve found some guy at the race track to loan him some money."
Patty PTAMeeting: "Doesn't Steve know that he has to pay an outrageous interest rate to that loan shark -- in addition to maybe getting his legs broken if he fails to repay the loan?"
Cathy CareerWoman: "I hope he knows. Gee, what kind of sleazy people would loan out money in such a grossly unfair manner? That's so immoral."
We can answer Cathy's question. Loan sharks are late comers in the game of outrageous money-lending. Guess who invented the outrageous interest rate? Let's hear what Mark Twain says about the matter of usury [i.e. loaning out money at outrageous interest rates]:
"The Jew has his other side.........He has a reputation for various small forms of cheating, and for practicing oppressive usury, and for burning himself out to get the insurance, and arranging for cunning contracts which leave him an exit but lock the other man in, and for smart evasions which find him safe and comfortable just within the strict letter of the law, when court and jury know very well that he has violated the spirit of it." -- essay "Concerning the Jews," by Mark Twain, here: [url]http://www.boondocksnet.com/twaintexts/concerningjews.html[/url] [note that Twain pulls his punches, since even in that era Jews dominated many areas of America life]. More on Jewish usury here: [url]http://jewishtribalreview.org/04usury.htm[/url]
2003-12-04 02:52 | User Profile
For a more recent look at this, look up the book "Credit Card Nation" which covers not only CC's but things like Rent-To-Own, "sub-prime" lending, and so on. It's a revealing look at a growing racket. They don't Name The Jew, of course, but they sure lay out the framework for lots of good research, with good references to follow up on.
2003-12-04 03:11 | User Profile
The OT Law forbids charging usury. But, when does any Jew care about the Law?
That loan shark guy is doing nothing wrong (from a secular perspective). He faces higher risks thus he charges a higher interest rate. And, because his fair, victimless business practices are illegal, he has no legal recourse should his customer decide not to pay him back. So, violence is the loanshark's only option to collect bad debts.
2003-12-04 04:24 | User Profile
We all have our bad days, so I'll be generous and give you a little bit of time to rethink the tone of your post above, wintermute. That's not gonna fly here and to be honest, saddens me greatly.
Maybe you need to take fifteen and go channel Seth for council.
2003-12-04 07:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]As YOU have set yourself up as arbiter of this question, complete with a bully boy threat to to ban me, I'll let you do the research, and I'll let you answer the question. Like myself, I sense in you something that will be satisfied with nothing less than the truth. [/QUOTE]
It may or may not surprise you to know that I just don't really care one way or the other about Old Testament laws concerning usury. And I know you're a smart enough man to know that's not the point of my ban threat to begin with. HH, nor anyone else here has said anything to you to warrant your vicious attack. Hell, you haven't even made what, one or two posts in the last month? Yet out of the blue and for some reason that God only knows you use HH's post to go off about 'bloodsucking demons' and 'Christian lies'!???
I can only assume your intention is to provoke hostility and offend the beliefs of some of our regular active members. In some quarters that's called trolling.
Since I don't go onto your anti-Christian pagan boards and launch insults at the ridiculous beliefs expressed on those sites, is it too much to ask for the same in return? I don't think so, so perhaps it's best you go your own way. Since you haven't expressed not even a tidbit of remorse for your insulting tone above, I can't think of anything further to say to you.
2003-12-04 07:32 | User Profile
And I should add just so you and others know that I'm not trying to be all Mr. Macho in writing that. Your post really deflated me personally and it saddens me deeply to write what I just did. I had really hoped to build upon on our recent exchange and it gave me some hope for the future and what we might have achieved working together. Now I throw up my hands at the futility of it all.
Nevertheless, I still wish you the best. Take care.
2003-12-04 14:26 | User Profile
The jews have been the masters of usury for eternity and today's quagmire of gentile indebtness is nothing new at all. As a Christian, I understand Wintermute's post as a fair question.
Wintermute, the OT law or covenant had been rendered obsolete the moment Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday morning 2000 years ago. In the days before Christ, God's covenant was made with the Israelites in order to provide them the means and ways to preserve the lineage of the future King, who is Christ. If in those days before Christ, lending money at interest was beneficial to the ancient Jews as commanded by God, it was supposed to end when the New Testament of Jesus Christ was made. Most Jews rejected Christ, thereby crucifying Him and still adhere to the Old Testament law to this day.
What can I say? If you got jews, ya gots problems.
2003-12-04 19:07 | User Profile
Tex and XMH,
your comments make you a (tiny?) minority in today's American thouroughly judaized Christianity.
2003-12-04 22:40 | User Profile
Wintermute,
You are very right about Jews and usury. Not all us Christians are brainwashed Judeos who worship Jews as the Chosen People. The only chosen people are those who God saves, changes their heart, and gives a new Spirit so that they can walk in his ways and grow in grace and knowledge. The chosen can be anyone- White, Black, Asian, and even Jew if he accepts Christ. Most of the Jews in Hebrew history may have done their sacrifices but their hearts were not one with God. You can say the same thing about many in Churches today unfortunately. Also Jews has the same thing about slavery. Jews who sold themselves into slavery were allowed to go free after a number of years ( I don't remember how much, but it has someting to do with Jubliee and I don't have time to look it up, maybe later) but when the time was up and the Jewish slave wanted to stay with his master then he pieced his ear and became a bondslave and he remained in his masters servuce forever. The "stranger" or gentile, was a slave all their lives with no chance of freedom, unless the master wanted to release him.
I agree that yours is a fair comment but your rudeness is terrible. What do you say about Jewish pagans? I have known some who were into the Celtic branch of paganism and there are plenty who are into Wiccanism. I think it is hypocritical of you to come here deriding Christians when you have not looked at the log in your own eye. Wintermute, if a Jew accepts the Roman-Greco pagan system as you do, would you accept him? Would other believers of this system accept him?
And a final comment about paganism, it doesn't matter if one accepts the Celtic, Norse, Greco-Roman, Eqyptian, Babylonian, etc. branches, they are all simular in their organizations of gods, which tells me they are run by the same spirits, Satan and his demons! And Satan and the demons know that there is a Lord God and they tremble in fear at him. You and the other pagans, and Jews also, may I add, will be in hell forever suffering from the wrath of God.
2003-12-05 00:34 | User Profile
Looking at this thread some things appear. Certainly Wintermute was harsh and rude in the way he makes his point here but I see lots of such things happen here that leads to noone being called for banishment. Okie is such a person but I have seen abuse heaped on Russian Orthodox member, Skemperââ¬â¢s attack on all Pagans and the insane and often abusive conduct by a ââ¬ÅZionist christianââ¬Â freak and no one threatens them with banning. So it seems that the problem is not rudeness or trolling in general but only when certain people do it.
More of interest is that why what Wintermute asks is not answered. He does point out that the Old Testament does support usury for non jews and that Christians hold the old Testament to be words inspired by their God. So far, no one has attempted to disprove that first assertion. The metalhead person basically admits that Wintermute is right but then says that what the Old Testament says doesnââ¬â¢t matter because of the new covenant. Yet that is no real response as to why a God one worships said it was fine to exploit non jews and why nearly all that call themselves Christians have never rejected the Old Testament as Devine text and what those things say about Christianity.
It also says nothing about the bigger issue of why no major modern Christian church in the Western World (I am not sure about Orthodox ones) condemns usury. I note that Skemper says not all Christians are brain washed by jews but fails to say that almost no Christian church condemns jews or calls for racial separatism but instead actively works to destroy my race and our nations. Fact is that insane jew supremacists like the one on this forum outnumber racially aware Christians many times over. Those that doubt me should write as many Christian organizations as possible to see how many would not only condemn racial separation and rejection of jewry but actively promote such things in our nations.
Skemper says all Pagan religions have the ââ¬Åsame organizations of godsââ¬Â which tells me she knows nothing of none the of traditions she mentions as the beliefs of the various polytheistic religions vary greatly. As for coming from ââ¬ÅSatanââ¬Â I have heard numerous Christian sects condemn those that donââ¬â¢t follow them as also being satanic. When you attack the views of others you are ignorant of or disagree with as satanic you are being abusive and shrill unless they promote notions clearly in keeping with self declared satan worshipers. Talk of such grisly torture as eternal burning seems to indicate absolutist view of supra-rational things. I note lots of Christian sects saying ââ¬Åmine is the only wayââ¬Â which has produced a long, grim history or religious wars, witch hunts, crusades that have devastated Europa in the past. I of course question what sort of God condemns those that donââ¬â¢t agree with his self proclaimed speakers to endless torture and why such a belief system should be taken seriously by those able to think.
As to jews pagan or other wise I have nothing to say beyond they do not belong in Occidental nations. What they choose to think in their own communities is of no concern to me just as what Christians think in their nations should not concern other faiths. As to wicca it is a new age/ multi-racial/feminist escapism for mentally ill teenagers that is no more a part of European paganism then jew worshiping ââ¬Åchristian zionismââ¬Â part of real Christianity.
On a practical level, condemning those that donââ¬â¢t agree with you as satanic is a perfect way to make sure that no one will work with you. Absolutism from Christians and those of other faiths makes working together to save our nations impossible. If the racial situation is not reversed within my life time traditionalism of any form will die. Absolutism is something none of us can afford.
2003-12-05 00:56 | User Profile
Skemper wrote:
The chosen can be anyone- White, Black, Asian, and even Jew if he accepts Christ. .
Gee, I did not know that accepting Christ changed one's RACE. Get serious......amazing....
2003-12-05 01:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]The OT Law forbids charging usury to other Jews. It explicitly allows usury towards Gentiles.
Wintermute, I stand corrected. Still, Jewish bankers charge usury to Jewish customers.
Whenever someone sets me straight on something, I very much appreciate it.
But then when did a Christian ever tell the truth regarding his own religion? Just a month ago on this board, I had to set someone straight who FALSELY claimed (as Christians do) that the OT commands "love of the stranger", which it most certainly does not.
Given the primacy of love taught in the NT and Politically Correct skew of many churches, thinking the OT commands to love strangers can be an easy mistake to make.
Listen up, Christers: there are people here who haven't sold their heart, their soul, or their reason to the Jew. And you're gonna get called on it when you stand up to defend the Jew's filthy scrawlings and "holy" books which call for the degredation and despoiling of OUR PEOPLE.
Maybe you could give me an example of scrawlings that degrade and despoil our people?
If you hate Christianity, you should be most pleased that Christianity in America has declined greatly. Do you think that has done much good for our people?
2003-12-05 01:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OlafLynckner]Yet that is no real response as to why a God one worships said it was fine to exploit non jews and why nearly all that call themselves Christians have never rejected the Old Testament as Devine text and what those things say about Christianity.
I don't consider charging interest to be immoral or a sin. Interest is the necessary incentive for people to loan others money. The practical result of the usury law would be for lenders not to lend their money to fellow Jews. In America, the pratical result is that Jewish bankers break the law daily to avoid running afoul of men's laws. Indeed, the Law is a curse to Hebrews, not a blessing.
What does the Old Testament say about Christianity? The Law was given to the Hebrews. Christians are not under the Law. There's no reason for any church to condemn usury.
You are right that chruches refuse to condemn Jews. On the contrary, many evangelical churches frequently pass resolutions against anti-semitism (condemnations of anyone who would condemn Jews). Liberal churches often proclaim that "racism" is the greatest sin facing the church. This nonsense is a result of the decline of Christianity in America.
2003-12-05 03:29 | User Profile
The post above again does not refute Wintermuteââ¬â¢s position about the Old Testament and usury but supports it instead. As the hacker person says that the Old Testament is for jews not Christians in this issue I am wondering if he says it is not a holy work for Christians in total. I am aware of no significant Christian sect anywhere in the world that takes such a stand and wonder how one can understand the new testament without the Old which is how very nearly all Christians view them (complementary). It seems difficult and internally inconsistent to say that one can disregard portions of holy books that a faith rests upon while accepting other portions which is what one is left with if you do not reject all of the Old Testament.
As to usury not being morally wrong I know that the Lutheran Church did not hold such notion till recently and that Uniate, Catholic and Orthodox did not either within living memory and that many Christian traditionalists say the same today. If you wish I am open to hearing your refutation of the Protestants here that reject usury, all Catholic social doctrine prior to Vatican II, the works of Belloc, Chesterton, Fr. Fahey and a many others we can talk of if wished.
As to usury being economically required you are wrong as well. The greatest economic recovery in modern history happened in National Socialist Germany when usury was banished while numerous smaller but promising economic models exist with various co-operative models like Mondragon and Guernsey. As you seem to be very unaware of alternatives usury let me recommend that you purchase several titles (all written by traditionalistic Christians) at: [url]http://www.politicalsoldier.net/cgi-bin/cart/index.cgi[/url] ââ¬Åunder the shop FCââ¬Â you have a section called ââ¬Åeconomic booksââ¬Â after you read a few (all are short and easy) we can talk with sense on such things.
While you admit that ââ¬Åliberalââ¬Â churches work to destroy my race and that evangelicals are not much better you avoid mentioning that outside of Orthodox churches in the East no Christian organizations of any size condemn jewry or multi-racialism save some tiny Identity and Covenant sects that not even 1% of self identified Christians. In short, all Christian churches and groups of any significance are either very anti-white or best ambivalent about the destruction of my race. Even Orthodox churches rarely actively resist national destruction but they are far better then churches in America or Western Europa. Until that changes I view modern Christianity as negative with the rare exceptions racial Christians willing to work with those that differ with them on spiritual matters to save what remains of our nations.
2003-12-05 16:18 | User Profile
Mark Twain had other things to say about Jews. I believe that it was in ââ¬ËLife on the Mississippiââ¬â¢ that he discussed burial practices in New Orleans. He said that if you dug a grave it immediately filled with swamp water so all Christians were buried above ground. Jews insisted on being buried below ground. The government of New Orleans approved this and allowed them to be buried in the muck but Twain wondered if it was a privilege or an act of disrespect.
Near the end of his life Twain, was caught up in some of these ââ¬Ëcontractsââ¬â¢. He lost his fortune and was forced to return to the lecture circuit to earn a living. He knew whereof he spoke.
2003-12-05 17:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OlafLynckner]As the hacker person says that the Old Testament is for jews not Christians in this issue I am wondering if he says it is not a holy work for Christians in total.
Paul says to Christians "You are not under law, but under grace." "All things are lawful unto me." That does not mean I disregard any portion of the OT. As I am not a Hebrew, I was never instructed to follow the law. Besides, the purpose of the law was never to save anyone.
As to usury being economically required you are wrong as well. The greatest economic recovery in modern history happened in National Socialist Germany when usury was banished while numerous smaller but promising economic models exist with various co-operative models like Mondragon and Guernsey.
I don't know about that. Looks like I have to buy some books from that store you linked to if I want to find out how economics works without interest, 'cause you're not going to tell me. How about if you just tell me how to get loans without paying interest?
While you admit that ââ¬Åliberalââ¬Â churches work to destroy my race and that evangelicals are not much better you avoid mentioning that outside of Orthodox churches in the East no Christian organizations of any size condemn jewry or multi-racialism save some tiny Identity and Covenant sects that not even 1% of self identified Christians.
At one time, many American churches were racially aware. But, that was in a more Christian time. These days most of the white world, including America, is under the thumb of Atheism (secularism). So, in most of the world, to any degree that any white church is racially aware, it is driven underground. (Of course, non-white churches are as free to be as racial as they wish.)
2003-12-05 19:18 | User Profile
ââ¬ÅPaul says to Christians "You are not under law, but under grace." "All things are lawful unto me." That does not mean I disregard any portion of the OT. As I am not a Hebrew, I was never instructed to follow the law. Besides, the purpose of the law was never to save anyone.ââ¬Â
You give me your interpretation of the OT while I pointed out that for all but their very recent history the Uniate, Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox Churches were opposed to usury on theological grounds. I said that if you wish to refute their thinking, or the other people I mentioned, tell me why they where wrong. You didnââ¬â¢t address any aspect of why much of Christendom has traditionally objected to usury at all. Your interpretation of one part of one uncited verse from one un-named edition of the new testament seems less then ideal basis to reject over a 1000 years of Christian doctrine and the great thinkers I mentioned earlier which is what you did.
Also noted is that no one has yet to refute Wintermuteââ¬â¢s basic point that the OT is a) a sacred text collection to Christians and b) that the OT does say that itââ¬â¢s alright for jews to charge usury to non jews.
ââ¬ÅI don't know about that.ââ¬Â
My point exactly. If you wish to make broad statements like usury is needed for economic life you best now something about contrary thought and history. Beyond NS Germany several other examples are found in Fascist Italy and like minded states in central Europa. Outside of smaller examples I mentioned at various times some Islamic countries have successfully had non usurious banking.
ââ¬ÅLooks like I have to buy some books from that store you linked to if I want to find out how economics works without interest, 'cause you're not going to tell me.ââ¬Â
Yes you will have to read something about a subject to speak about it intelligently. As English is not easy to write I doubt I could write up a 10 page or so report on the matter here which is what would need be done. I will look for articles in English to post here but in the end if you want to understand something you have to read about it. The short little booklets are best for introduction. Sorry.
ââ¬ÅHow about if you just tell me how to get loans without paying interest?ââ¬Â
Simple. Help bring about a National Revolutionary state where you live.
ââ¬ÅAt one time, many American churches were racially aware. But, that was in a more Christian time. These days most of the white world, including America, is under the thumb of Atheism (secularism). So, in most of the world, to any degree that any white church is racially aware, it is driven underground. (Of course, non-white churches are as free to be as racial as they wish.)ââ¬Â
My point, unchallenged, was that modern day Christianity, with very rare exceptions, is promoting our destruction or at best not resisting. If you are a Christian and you care about your folk you will commit yourself to reverse this situation. If you want to change racialists of the mind that Christianity is negative in to days world to something they should support a active, sane traditionalistic Christian group of some note has to be created.
2003-12-05 19:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco].
Gee, I did not know that accepting Christ changed one's RACE. Get serious......amazing....[/QUOTE]
You are right, Franco, it does not change one's race, it changes one's heart. Just because Christians are called "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" doesn't mean they should mix.
2003-12-05 19:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OlafLynckner]You give me your interpretation of the OT while I pointed out that for all but their very recent history the Uniate, Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox Churches were opposed to usury on theological grounds.
So what's the big deal? One's belief concerning usury is hardly an essential to remain within Christian orthodoxy and I sincerely doubt you could provide any evidence where the denominations you list above have ever considered it to be. Therefore the subject of usury as it relates to the present-day catholic (universal) Church is a dead issue. Moving on.
Also noted is that no one has yet to refute Wintermute?s basic point that the OT is a) a sacred text collection to Christians and b) that the OT does say that it?s alright for jews to charge usury to non jews.
My refutation is why refute it as it has no bearing on anything. As for point A, yes the Old Testament is sacred text in that in gives us the story of things leading up to Christ. As for B, so the OT says it's ok for jews to charge usury to non-jews, who cares and what does that have to bear upon myself as a Christian? The OT also gives laws about menstruating females and all kinds of asinine topics. These mean nothing to the New Testament Christian under the final covenant of Christ. This couldn't be any more explicitly stated throughout the NT, especially in Paul's epistles.
My point, unchallenged, was that modern day Christianity, with very rare exceptions, is promoting our destruction or at best not resisting.
Don't be quick to flatter yourself, Olaf. Your point has already been refuted. Using your statement, as follows:
"My point, unchallenged, was that modern day whites, with very rare exceptions, are promoting our destruction or at best not resisting."
If race is the core issue, then racialists need to get their own house in order before moving on to fix any ideological/spiritual issues.
If you want to change racialists of the mind that Christianity is negative in to days world to something they should support a active, sane traditionalistic Christian group of some note has to be created.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's one beauty of Protestantism. I can worship how I want and where I want, as long as I remain within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
2003-12-05 20:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OlafLynckner]Also noted is that no one has yet to refute Wintermuteââ¬â¢s basic point that the OT is a) a sacred text collection to Christians and b) that the OT does say that itââ¬â¢s alright for jews to charge usury to non jews.[/QUOTE]
There's no point in stating a couple of facts. What is your point? I thought Wintermute's point was to qualify my statement about the OT law prohibiting the charging of interst (as well as to accuse Christians of being ignorant of the Bible).
I find it incredible that an economic system could be very functional without interest. You've cited a couple of the most vague of examples without a shred of explanation nor support. How do I get a loan without having to pay interest?
2003-12-05 20:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Also noted is that no one has yet to refute Wintermuteââ¬â¢s basic point that the OT is a) a sacred text collection to Christians and b) that the OT does say that itââ¬â¢s alright for jews to charge usury to non jews.
[/QUOTE]
What is there to refute? If you and he are looking for a fight on those basic points then you are fighting a dead horse because those two points are right. The usury law was for Jews and Gentiles living in the Jewish nation. It does not apply to other nations. The Jewish state and theocracy destroyed completely in 70 AD and no records from the temple exist to prove anyone's Jewish ancestry and there are no artifacts save the "Wailing Wall". In fact the only geneological records from the temple are the ones found in various history books in the Bible and in the two in the gospels of Christ. Christ said that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. So they are fulfilled, so we don't need to sacrifice goats and sheep and perform the other rituals that are described in the Penetatuch. But we do need the law to define what sin is, that is, what is right and wrong. He is what Paul in Romans 2 has to say about unbelievers whose morals agree with the Bible's.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
What this says is that the universal presence of moral standards ( although in various degrees of clarity), and the common sense of obligation to such standards indicate a universal moral constitution and and sense of accontablility to God.
More about paganism later.
2003-12-05 21:50 | User Profile
ââ¬ÅSo what's the big deal? One's belief concerning usury is hardly an essential to remain within Christian orthodoxy and I sincerely doubt you could provide any evidence where the denominations you list above have ever considered it to be. Therefore the subject of usury as it relates to the present-day catholic (universal) Church is a dead issue. Moving on.ââ¬Â
The bid deal is that traditionally most of Christianity rejected usury as immoral. Perhaps you may want to consider why theologians felt that way for centuries. Anyone that knows anything about traditional Catholic social doctrine and economics of nationalists that follows such thinking thought it was important. Never did I say ââ¬ÅOne's belief concerning usury is n essential to remain within Christian orthodoxyââ¬Â but I did point out that traditionally most of Christendom rejected it. It is better to respond to what I say then something I did not when talking to me. Usury free economics have always been a major part of NR thinking of all kinds and Christian traditionalism is inspiration for it. I note that you, like hacker say nothing about the points I raised so no, you did not move on you simply glossed over.
ââ¬ÅMy refutation is why refute it as it has no bearing on anything.ââ¬Â
Nice attempt at not addressing the issue.
ââ¬ÅAs for point A, yes the Old Testament is sacred text in that in gives us the story of things leading up to Christ.ââ¬Â
You admit that OT is sacred text so you statement ââ¬ÅMy refutation is why refute it as it has no bearing on anything.ââ¬Â is clearly wrong unless you will also say that sacred texts are selectively irrelevant.
ââ¬ÅAs for B, so the OT says it's ok for jews to charge usury to non-jews, who cares and what does that have to bear upon myself as a Christian?ââ¬Â
You admit that your sacred text says it is fine for jews to exploit non-jews. Wintermute was right about the assertion he first made. If do not see why that matters to you as Christian just you ignore that traditionally most Christian churches have refuted usury then clearly it is not possible to talk with you about such matters from a reasonable standpoint.
ââ¬ÅThe OT also gives laws about menstruating females and all kinds of asinine topics. These mean nothing to the New Testament Christian under the final covenant of Christ. This couldn't be any more explicitly stated throughout the NT, especially in Paul's epistles.ââ¬Â
If the OT says all kinds of asinine things why is sacred? Because it gives a story prior to your Christ birth you say so it seems part is sacred but most is not. I note you, or anyone else, did not answer my question why the God one worships said it was fine to discriminate against non jews, gives laws about menstruating females and all kinds of asinine topics. So maybe you can tell me how you decide what parts of the OT you will ignore and what parts you think are worth while? Also, to parts you chose to ignore please tell me why your church has not removed them from the Bible they accept for reference purposes? When one finds asinine things in the new testament can they also be ignored like you reject what you find asinine in the old testament?
ââ¬ÅDon't be quick to flatter yourself, Olaf. Your point has already been refuted. Using your statement, as followsââ¬Â:
"My point, unchallenged, was that modern day whites, with very rare exceptions, are promoting our destruction or at best not resisting."
I looked at my last post I failed to see that quote you attribute to me. If you can find it I admit to mis-typing. What I did find was what you high lighted ââ¬ÅMy point, unchallenged, was that modern day Christianity, with very rare exceptions, is promoting our destruction or at best not resisting.ââ¬Â You did not say anything at all that casts doubt on that. I said that those that doubt me are free to contact as many Christian groups and churches as they want and we can compare those that call for racial separatism and are honest about jewry with those that donââ¬â¢t. No one wants to do that for obvious reasons and if my pointing out the obvious is self flattering so be it.
ââ¬ÅIf race is the core issue, then racialists need to get their own house in order before moving on to fix any ideological/spiritual issues.ââ¬Â
When racialists are wrong I will criticize them and offer a better alternative by word and act. It is true that some racialists do need to get sorted out and it is true that some are nothing more then vile racists that I reject. Yet to the very big extent that Christian churches and groups promote the destruction of my race they are a very large part of the problem. You refuse to recognize but I will call you on it any way.
ââ¬ÅWell, that's one beauty of Protestantism. I can worship how I want and where I want, as long as I remain within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.ââ¬Â
Well that is a nice way of ignoring that Protestantism promotes the destruction of your race. It is also a nice way of not doing anything about it or even recognizing what Protestant churches say about race and jewry today.
HH says:
ââ¬ÅThere's no point in stating a couple of factsââ¬Â
To me facts matter and should be stated.
ââ¬ÅWhat is your point? I thought Wintermute's point was to qualify my statement about the OT law prohibiting the charging of interest (as well as to accuse Christians of being ignorant of the Bible).ââ¬Â
The point is that your holy texts clearly state that itââ¬â¢s righteous for jews to discriminate against non jews. Documents you view as divinely inspired by the God you worship endorsed jewish descrimination against you yet you donââ¬â¢t find anything troubling about an infallible, Devine being making such pronouncements. This seems to be an internal inconsistency which obviously is something people here would rather not address honestly. As no one here seems to reject this they instead claim that while the OT is sacred it can be selectively ignored.
Again, the question comes up that no one wants to address: what was the basis for most of traditional christianity rejecting usury and why was it always such a major part of NR thinking and Catholic social doctrine prior to Vatican II? If traditional Christendom was wrong about those matters what did have wrong? Of course to respond one needs to read a bit about those things but I donââ¬â¢t think it will happen here.
2003-12-05 22:09 | User Profile
Olaf,
First, your arrogance undermines your stated wish to have any meaningful dialogue on this issue.
Second, it is clear that if anyone needs to read up it is you. I would suggest starting with the Gospel of John 1:1 and proceed through the entire New Testament. You show a fundamental ignorance of what Christ's birth, death and resurrection meant for not only the jews but for all of humanity. Hence, the name 'New' Testament. Until you understand why it is so-called the New Testament then I don't see any need to belabor the points raised in this thread.
2003-12-05 22:44 | User Profile
Skemper said: ââ¬ÅWhat is there to refute?ââ¬Â
Apparently nothing given that no one has attempted to deny that the OT says it is righteous for jews to discriminate against non jews.
ââ¬ÅIf you and he are looking for a fight on those basic points then you are fighting a dead horse because those two points are right. The usury law was for Jews and Gentiles living in the Jewish nation. It does not apply to other nations.ââ¬Â
Please site your scripture where it says ââ¬ÅThe usury law was for Jews and Gentiles living in the Jewish nation. It does not apply to other nations.ââ¬Â or words to that effect. If you can find such a reference please tell me why no Christian church or organization of any significance has condemned jewry charging usury to Christians outside of the modern state of Israel? While you are at it, perhaps you can tell me why the God you worship says itââ¬â¢s fine for jews in a jewish state to discriminate against Christians by charging them usury?
As to picking a fight, if you deem being called to defend the internal logic of your publicly stated beliefs fighting then you best be ready to either state why I am wrong logically or not mention what you think. In any case, I am not trying to offend, that is why I said I think Wintermute should be less rude in his opening post, but so far I am not seeing a logical position here from those that object to what I say.
ââ¬ÅThe Jewish state and theocracy destroyed completely in 70 AD and no records from the temple exist to prove anyone's Jewish ancestry and there are no artifacts save the "Wailing Wall". In fact the only genealogical records from the temple are the ones found in various history books in the Bible and in the two in the gospels of Christ. Christ said that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. So they are fulfilled, so we don't need to sacrifice goats and sheep and perform the other rituals that are described in the Pentateuch. But we do need the law to define what sin is, that is, what is right and wrong. He is what Paul in Romans 2 has to say about unbelievers whose morals agree with the Bible's.ââ¬Â
I never mentioned genealogy but I do know who jews are because I know about genetics and note who calls themselves a jew. You donââ¬â¢t need to know about the jew state prior to 70 AD to note as you did that: a) jews are charging Christians usury now. b) Almost zero Christians condemn this yet should so do.
Earlier, some here say that Christians are not bound to old testament law but overlooked what you pointed out that ââ¬ÅChrist said that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill themââ¬Â yet you still use jew law which you say you need to define righteousness and sin but only selectively (ex. ignore the Pentateuch and jew discrimination against non jews by usury). If the law of the OT is divinely inspired word of god needed to determine right and wrong it seems strange to say you obey parts but not others yet all of it is holy.
Tex says: ââ¬ÅOlaf,
First, your arrogance undermines your stated wish to have any meaningful dialogue on this issue.ââ¬Â
Your inability to address the internal inconsistences in your position makes it untenably. If arrogance means noting what is obvious without recourse to rudeness or hysteria as I have attempted to do I am guilty. If that makes dialog impossible then I will cease to ask questions you clearly do not want to hear and let this topic die.
ââ¬ÅSecond, it is clear that if anyone needs to read up it is you.ââ¬Â
That it seems is an easy excuse to ignore a vast cannon of thought and the points I make.
ââ¬ÅI would suggest starting with the Gospel of John 1:1 and proceed through the entire New Testament. You show a fundamental ignorance of what Christ's birth, death and resurrection meant for not only the jews but for all of humanity. Hence, the name 'New' Testament. Until you understand why it is so-called the New Testament then I don't see any need to belabor the points raised in this thread.ââ¬Â
That is basically a smug way of saying you refuse to consider anything that doesnââ¬â¢t agree with own position while ignoring everything said about the topic Christian opponents of usury for several hundred years. Clearly dissent on such matters of dogma is not welcomed here I will not attempt to raise these matters any more.
2003-12-05 23:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OlafLynckner]That is basically a smug way of saying you refuse to consider anything that doesn?t agree with own position while ignoring everything said about the topic Christian opponents of usury for several hundred years. [/QUOTE]
Sigh...No it is not, Olaf. If I wanted to ignore everything I would never have responded to this thread in the first place.
I don't know if it is the language barrier or one of theological understanding, but the explanations provided by myself, HH and skemper to the points raised in the thread are crystal clear to me. Right now I can't think of any other way to state what has already been said so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree once again. It's frustrating.
2003-12-06 02:22 | User Profile
I think that usury is understood as excessive interest charged on a loan. Even in Islamic countries,which are conservative about anti-usury laws, people borrow money but pay a service charge for its use. In Christendom usury was also understood as excessive interest. Off the top of my head I think 3 to 5% was acceptable. I think 15% was considered usurious. I think the idea was, in times past, that usurers would exploit desperate small operators at rates that insured their loss of colateral, ie their small homestead, their carpenter tools etc.
2003-12-06 16:31 | User Profile
"Please site your scripture where it says ââ¬ÅThe usury law was for Jews and Gentiles living in the Jewish nation. It does not apply to other nations.ââ¬Â or words to that effect. If you can find such a reference please tell me why no Christian church or organization of any significance has condemned jewry charging usury to Christians outside of the modern state of Israel? While you are at it, perhaps you can tell me why the God you worship says itââ¬â¢s fine for jews in a jewish state to discriminate against Christians by charging them usury? "
The verses from Deuteromony that Wintermute quoted earlier clearly state that the usury was for the Jewish nation, with the statements "in your land", and "foreigner". What other non- Jewish nations are to do with usury and foreigners is not addressed. Remember, the books were written about 1500 years before Christ so Christians did not exist then.
The Present state of Isreal is a secular nation and not the theocracy that is outlined in the Pentatuch. For the reasons that I stated in my last post about geneology and the temple, the Old Testament worship system cannot be properly set up. Don't confuse the the Present State of Israel and the present worship systems of the Jews with Israel before 70 AD. It is like comparing modern Greece with Ancient Greece. I personally don't agree with the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, but to whom they can legally charge usury to is none of my business, as I regard any other country's laws.
A possible reason why churches did not condemn usury by Jews to Christians was that the only place to get a loan was from Jews because the church forbidded Christians charging other Christians usury, at least in the Middle Ages. So, the only place to get a loan ususally was from the Jews, and since for the Jews lending the money was somewhat risky and because of their laws, they charged interest.
2003-12-06 16:56 | User Profile
Sorry Skemper but the quote that Wintermute posted did not say ââ¬ÅThe usury law was for Jews and Gentiles living in the Jewish nation. It does not apply to other nations.ââ¬Â or words to that effect. Re-read the quote as many times as you want, deomstrate that it's a mis-quote or admit your wrong. As to why it was OK for jews to discriminate against non-jews I note to sidestepped that question (understandable as you can't defend the indefensable) prefering instead to talk about Isreal past and now. Seen as well is that you totally chose not to examine why modern churches refuse talk about jews exploiting non-jews just as you dodged whole matter of your selective use of the OT.
It is clear that no one here that has responded to any of my questions will do so in a honest, logically manner so i'll let those that defend devinely inspired discrimination of non-jews by jews have the last word.
2003-12-06 17:34 | User Profile
Lets look at contemporary usury. We are not talking about a house loan because the interest on house loans is not exorbitant. We are not talking about a car loans either for the same reason. Are we talking about credit cards? Probably, at 15% they are usurous. But people can declare bankruptcy on credit card debt and get out from under so the old reasons for condemning usury don't really count. No one is losing their house or their mechanic's tools because of credit card debt. What about the national debt? There it is. On the national debt there is no such thing as bankruptcy only the selling off of the future to debt slavery. The government overspends its tax revenue so it borrows money from the Federal Reserve, a private bank with mainly Jewish and European stockholders. The Federal Reserve prints the money out of whole air with a little paper and ink and lends it to the US government at interest. What a deal. The American taxpayer guarantees the interest on the loans. Future American taxpayers that is. Funny how the unborn can be sold into debt against paper that the Fed creates out of nothing. All this and the Constitution allows the right to mint money to the government.
2003-12-06 17:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I think that usury is understood as excessive interest charged on a loan. Even in Islamic countries,which are conservative about anti-usury laws, people borrow money but pay a service charge for its use. In Christendom usury was also understood as excessive interest. Off the top of my head I think 3 to 5% was acceptable. I think 15% was considered usurious. I think the idea was, in times past, that usurers would exploit desperate small operators at rates that insured their loss of colateral, ie their small homestead, their carpenter tools etc.[/QUOTE]
I think simply assigning numbers is arbitrary and misses the moral point.
As I understand it, usury is not excessive interest. It is the charging of ANY interest on a loan that is non-productive in nature, such as the average credit card purchase, which is consumptive. Charging interest or a service charge on a productive loan (say for capital equipment) is morally just on the grounds that money has generated a profit and the lender can morally claim his share for providing capital.
Secondly, if I'm correct, in the early Church there was an argument as to whether or not [B][I]paying[/I][/B] usury was immoral, as opposed to only charging it. I believe even the Church itself paid usury in the early days whilst this debate went on. Finally, this practice was stopped, which is why so many of the Church's large capital projects took years or centuries to complete. It took that long to finance them.
2003-12-06 18:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I think simply assigning numbers is arbitrary and misses the moral point.
I think the amount of interest charged on a loan is very much the point. In the so called Middle Ages gouging was considered immoral.
As I understand it, usury is not excessive interest. It is the charging of ANY interest on a loan that is non-productive in nature, such as the average credit card purchase, which is consumptive. There were no credit cards, or for that matter what we would call consumer spending, during the time when the term usury had common usage.
Secondly, if I'm correct, in the early Church there was an argument as to whether or not [B][I]paying[/I][/B] usury was immoral, as opposed to only charging it. I believe even the Church itself paid usury in the early days whilst this debate went on. Finally, this practice was stopped, which is why so many of the Church's large capital projects took years or centuries to complete. It took that long to finance them.[/QUOTE]
The Church had to finance cathedrals, the princes had to finance wars, and the peasantry had to finance themselves during hard times. The moneylenders (Jewish) were mainly allied with the princes against the peasantry. The Church, arbiter of social justice that is was, championed the peasantry. If you are starving it is irrelevant whether borrowing at interest is a sin as the greater sin of suicide takes precedence. The Church could afford not to borrow from the Jews seeing as how they at one time owned the greater part of Europe.
2003-12-06 23:06 | User Profile
How does one define "gouging" or any inappropriate charge is the question. My example is my understanding of the traditional Christian position.
I referred to spending that is non-productive, i.e., it doesn't produce or hope to produce income or dividends. Credit cards are simply a modern example of spending that often fits that description. When historically has there ever not been such spending? People have always spent money on clothing, food, shelter, amusement, transportation, etc.?
I'll forgoe any comment of your interesting account of Church history.
2003-12-06 23:15 | User Profile
You can define usury anyway you want. How's that? :thumbsup:
2003-12-07 17:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]You can define usury anyway you want. How's that? :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]
I don't have a problem defining it. The hard part is determining when it is justified. Let me commend to you Belloc's essay "Usury" published by St. George educational trust and Angelus Press. Unfortunately, I don't think it's available on the web.
2003-12-16 21:14 | User Profile
OK, new tack, if anyone's up for it. Seems to me that credit as an aspect of an economy is pretty unavoidable, barring some financial/monetary mechanism unknown to me. It economies like the ones most of the world runs on, large-scale projects and purchases require more money than one or a small group of individuals has on hand. A house is a good example. But, folks are willing to work out over-time deals, and if someone specializes in it and works out a lot of such deals, ya got yourself a banker. He can spread his risk accordingly (as opposed to an over-time deal between the builder and the buyer, which is certainly possible but would put the builder in an unspecialized position).
So. Credit, we need it. Question: what stops Gentiles from setting up? Or from borrowing from other Gentiles?