• The 'Comrade' title is now available in a fetching communist red for purchase by all of you capitalists who survived the Sietch gulag during the people's revolution. And in the spirit of all communists everywhere, it was broken until the capitalist pig dogs fixed it. ;)

The Love of Money & Problems It Causes

Alathon

Fool me twice, shame on me
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
1,502
OK, let me make something very clear.

When Christians speak of 'love of money', we are NOT talking about legitimately acquired wealth, nor about wanting to be paid a fair price for goods and services and labor, nor about investing wisely and saving across generations.

Love of money involves loving money so much that you are willing to commit fraud to get more, willing to steal to get more, willing to embezzle to get more, willing to engage in unethical acts in order to get more. When money is more important to you than family, more important to you than justice, more important to you than God, then you have fallen into the sin of Greed and the love of money.

Likewise 'worshipping at the altar of Mammon' and the rest.

Conflating a condemnation of fraud, embezzlement, and theft with supporting socialism? Really?
I am willing to go a step further, and say that while usury and insurance/gambling do not inherently require a love of money, they cultivate a love of money. They are a form of temptation, both for the buyer and seller.

The charging of rent for the use of money adds to the utility of money in an unsavory way. Without it, money can function as a lubricant for trade, or a somewhat uncertain means of laying up stores. With usury permitted, money takes on a wretched aspect: having a sufficient quantity of money can be used as a replacement for labor, for actually doing something that adds to the collective wealth of society. Simply having a store of money allows one to rent it and acquire more money, and thereby purchase and consume the wealth of a society without adding to it.

The end result of this decoupling of money from the creation of wealth is citizens who are parasites, consuming without contributing, and because no labor (effort, training, diligence, etc..) is required, this parasitic state offers great temptation to those who must otherwise labor, or at least live off the fruits of past labor.

Fractional reserve banking in particular is such a pernicious practice it ought to be a felony.

Insurance, and any other form of gambling money, does the same. Having a great store of money becomes a means by which to extract more money from others without adding wealth to society.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
14,860
I am willing to go a step further, and say that while usury and insurance/gambling do not inherently require a love of money, they cultivate a love of money. They are a form of temptation, both for the buyer and seller.

The charging of rent for the use of money adds to the utility of money in an unsavory way. Without it, money can function as a lubricant for trade, or a somewhat uncertain means of laying up stores. With usury permitted, money takes on a wretched aspect: having a sufficient quantity of money can be used as a replacement for labor, for actually doing something that adds to the collective wealth of society. Simply having a store of money allows one to rent it and acquire more money, and thereby purchase and consume the wealth of a society without adding to it.

The end result of this decoupling of money from the creation of wealth is citizens who are parasites, consuming without contributing, and because no labor (effort, training, diligence, etc..) is required, this parasitic state offers great temptation to those who must otherwise labor, or at least live off the fruits of past labor.

Fractional reserve banking in particular is such a pernicious practice it ought to be a felony.

Insurance, and any other form of gambling money, does the same. Having a great store of money becomes a means by which to extract more money from others without adding wealth to society.
You are showing that you clearly do not understand how investments and many (though not all) forms of loans work.

Do you like railroads?

Then you'd better be willing to let people charge usury on money they give to other people. Because it's investments and loans that allowed for the creation of rail infrastructure.

Do you like cars?

Then you'd better be willing to let people charge usury on money they give to other people. Because it's investments and loans that allowed for the creation of automobile infrastructure.

Do you like computers?

Well, I've got some news about investments and lending for you buddy...


The thing that you fail to understand, is that when someone who has saved up money they are not using, gives it to someone who has a high utility for it now, this is to the benefit of both parties. The inventor now has the capital to produce his invention large scale, and sell it to the public. At that point, not only have the investor/lender and the entrepreneur/lendee benefited, but society as a whole has benefited.

If you try to abolish interest and dividends, you abolish any advancement of technology or infrastructure at more than a glacial pace.

Now, hand in hand with this, note that I am not saying that banking, investing, and lending, are not dangerous. They are. Like any powerful tool, they can be used for good or for evil. Both the person lending, and the person borrowing, are capable of abusing the other's trust, and thus one must be judicious with their funds.

What your post seems to be claiming, is that the problem is the device, when the problem is in fact the evil that exists in the heart of man. This is both wrong, and fundamentally the same mistake that Marxists make. The problem isn't the existence of loans, banks, or investments, it's the evil in the hearts of the men engaging in such things, and abolishing the institutions and practices would do absolutely nothing to remove that evil. It would prevent some abuses of the system, but it would also prevent the many great gains that have been enabled through said system.
 

Abhishekm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Reaction score
1,820
You are showing that you clearly do not understand how investments and many (though not all) forms of loans work.

Do you like railroads?

Then you'd better be willing to let people charge usury on money they give to other people. Because it's investments and loans that allowed for the creation of rail infrastructure.

Do you like cars?

Then you'd better be willing to let people charge usury on money they give to other people. Because it's investments and loans that allowed for the creation of automobile infrastructure.

Do you like computers?

Well, I've got some news about investments and lending for you buddy...


The thing that you fail to understand, is that when someone who has saved up money they are not using, gives it to someone who has a high utility for it now, this is to the benefit of both parties. The inventor now has the capital to produce his invention large scale, and sell it to the public. At that point, not only have the investor/lender and the entrepreneur/lendee benefited, but society as a whole has benefited.

If you try to abolish interest and dividends, you abolish any advancement of technology or infrastructure at more than a glacial pace.

Now, hand in hand with this, note that I am not saying that banking, investing, and lending, are not dangerous. They are. Like any powerful tool, they can be used for good or for evil. Both the person lending, and the person borrowing, are capable of abusing the other's trust, and thus one must be judicious with their funds.

What your post seems to be claiming, is that the problem is the device, when the problem is in fact the evil that exists in the heart of man. This is both wrong, and fundamentally the same mistake that Marxists make. The problem isn't the existence of loans, banks, or investments, it's the evil in the hearts of the men engaging in such things, and abolishing the institutions and practices would do absolutely nothing to remove that evil. It would prevent some abuses of the system, but it would also prevent the many great gains that have been enabled through said system.
Yeah because stock investments and variable interest loans are the same thing. :geek:

I get where you are coming from dude but just because something is useful or convenient doesn't change the morality of it. Let alone the long term implications or results.

You know there are payment plans for sneakers? And somehow both the US and China are deeply in debt to each other as well as to and from everyone else at the same time.

Money works on promises. Debts are a promise on a promise. Fractional loans are implied promises on other peoples promises current held in trust.

After a certain point people admit to themselves even if never to anyone else that it's all just a blind faith held together by inertia and convenience.

I dint even give a damn about loans or money or what have you. But there is taking stances on a thing and understanding how and why stuff works.

In moneys case it really is broken a bit inside. Thats just something you live with. And honestly cursing the thing and wishing it wasn't so is probabaly more healthy than being angry at people who do.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
14,860
In moneys case it really is broken a bit inside. Thats just something you live with. And honestly cursing the thing and wishing it wasn't so is probabaly more healthy than being angry at people who do.
Kindly don't strawman my position. I in no way pretended that money or usury cannot also be dangerous. I simply pointed out that Alathon was not demonstrating an understanding of the positives to both.

And yes, I am quite well aware of how much corruption has worked through our institutions. I at no point tried to argue that there weren't problems, just that there are powerful upsides to go along with the downsides.
 

Abhishekm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Reaction score
1,820
Kindly don't strawman my position. I in no way pretended that money or usury cannot also be dangerous. I simply pointed out that Alathon was not demonstrating an understanding of the positives to both.

And yes, I am quite well aware of how much corruption has worked through our institutions. I at no point tried to argue that there weren't problems, just that there are powerful upsides to go along with the downsides.
Like anything in this thread isn't already strawmaning everything else. Because God forbid people curse something in peace without having others curse at them while cheering the thing they grumble at.
 
Last edited:

Alathon

Fool me twice, shame on me
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
1,502
You are showing that you clearly do not understand how investments and many (though not all) forms of loans work.

Do you like railroads?

Then you'd better be willing to let people charge usury on money they give to other people. Because it's investments and loans that allowed for the creation of rail infrastructure.

Do you like cars?

Then you'd better be willing to let people charge usury on money they give to other people. Because it's investments and loans that allowed for the creation of automobile infrastructure.

Do you like computers?

Well, I've got some news about investments and lending for you buddy...


The thing that you fail to understand, is that when someone who has saved up money they are not using, gives it to someone who has a high utility for it now, this is to the benefit of both parties. The inventor now has the capital to produce his invention large scale, and sell it to the public. At that point, not only have the investor/lender and the entrepreneur/lendee benefited, but society as a whole has benefited.

If you try to abolish interest and dividends, you abolish any advancement of technology or infrastructure at more than a glacial pace.
I understand full well how useful lending is. You will note that I did not condemn lending in and of itself, but usury: the practice of collecting rent on money.

But even a glacial pace is better than the spiritual costs of usury.

Now, hand in hand with this, note that I am not saying that banking, investing, and lending, are not dangerous. They are. Like any powerful tool, they can be used for good or for evil. Both the person lending, and the person borrowing, are capable of abusing the other's trust, and thus one must be judicious with their funds.

What your post seems to be claiming, is that the problem is the device, when the problem is in fact the evil that exists in the heart of man. This is both wrong, and fundamentally the same mistake that Marxists make. The problem isn't the existence of loans, banks, or investments, it's the evil in the hearts of the men engaging in such things, and abolishing the institutions and practices would do absolutely nothing to remove that evil. It would prevent some abuses of the system, but it would also prevent the many great gains that have been enabled through said system.
The fallen nature of mankind is indeed the core problem. I claim that the spiritual costs of the temptation offered by usury is so great that these costs outweighs the benefits. This is not a hard calculation to make because the benefits are purely material.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
14,860
The fallen nature of mankind is indeed the core problem. I claim that the spiritual costs of the temptation offered by usury is so great that these costs outweighs the benefits. This is not a hard calculation to make because the benefits are purely material.
Defeating Polio and Malaria as endemic diseases was purely material.

Being able to save lives through trauma medicine is purely material.

Being able to talk to a loved one, live, on the far side of the world, with both audio and video, is purely material.

The invention of anesthetic to be used on patients during surgery is purely material.

Yet all these things have moral and spiritual aspects.


Trying to claim that 'charging rent on money' offers 'purely material' benefits, so can simply be declared too dangerous to be worthwhile is a level of simplification and blindness that I don't know if I can adequately describe without using insulting descriptors.

So, I'll throw a reverse on it and ask you a question.

What does it matter then, if some people are abusing lending and investment systems? After all, the only things lost are purely material.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Reaction score
1,168
LOL the Kibutzes failed spectacularly, the ones that survived are completely privatized.

Seriously, am I being pranked? Are the right-wingers here genuinely advocating for Communism now? Because holy fucking shit.

And no shit that humans created money. Did I ever say otherwise?
Well humans existed before money that means that what they did worked and wasn’t impossible. Obviously having money is better since everyone started using it but it’s not necessary.

King Arts is hardly 'right wing.' I don't know if I've seen him argue for a single conservative or right wing position, but given I don't keep highly detailed mental records of his positions, it's possible I'm forgetting a thing or two.
Lords I’m pretty sure you are the one who isn’t right wing. I’m probably much more conservative than you socially just because I dont agree with your money and mammon worship but f “job creators” does not make me a proto commie. In fact if you look at history you can see that the rise of liberalism coincided with the rise of many many capitalists? Historical societies from medieval Europe to Sengoku Japan, and Confucian China looked down on merchants. Yet now that merchants are at the top of society we see problems that real conservatives really notice and dislike for example the mass migration of new peoples into historically European lands. This isn’t some secret plot by a nefarious organization to destroy our people. It’s simply people who are interested in money above all and maximizing profits notice that by importing workers they can pay them less. So tell me lords in what way are you conservative if you don’t care about traditional Christian teaching on wealth charity and such, and even going against traditional European society where the merchants did not have that much respect. And you supporting the people who want to replace the native peoples of many western nations? In what way is that conservative?
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,522
Location
Israel
Well humans existed before money that means that what they did worked and wasn’t impossible. Obviously having money is better since everyone started using it but it’s not necessary.
Hence, I said, upthread, that money allows human existence beyond a hunter-gatherer or subsistence farmer level. I never said that humans need money to exist at all (although without money they obviously would exist in much fewer numbers because the infrastructure essential for high populations can't be built without money).
 

Alathon

Fool me twice, shame on me
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
1,502
Defeating Polio and Malaria as endemic diseases was purely material.

Being able to save lives through trauma medicine is purely material.

Being able to talk to a loved one, live, on the far side of the world, with both audio and video, is purely material.

The invention of anesthetic to be used on patients during surgery is purely material.

Yet all these things have moral and spiritual aspects.

Trying to claim that 'charging rent on money' offers 'purely material' benefits, so can simply be declared too dangerous to be worthwhile is a level of simplification and blindness that I don't know if I can adequately describe without using insulting descriptors.
None of these things is usury, and none of them even suggest an apples-to-apples comparison to it.

So, I'll throw a reverse on it and ask you a question.

What does it matter then, if some people are abusing lending and investment systems? After all, the only things lost are purely material.
I claim that the spiritual costs of the temptation offered by usury is so great that these costs outweighs the benefits.
I have already said, in direct response to you, the cost of permitting usury in a society is spiritual.

How about this: in a reply to a post specifically about usury, instead of changing the topic from usury to lending, or polio, or telephones, or some generalization thereof, actually talk about usury.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
14,860
A bunch of claiming I support things I don't actually support.
Yeah, if you want to try to claim I'm not conservative, find a position I actually support.

None of these things is usury, and none of them even suggest an apples-to-apples comparison to it.



I have already said, in direct response to you, the cost of permitting usury in a society is spiritual.

How about this: in a reply to a post specifically about usury, instead of changing the topic from usury to lending, or polio, or telephones, or some generalization thereof, actually talk about usury.
Because the whole of your argument for dismissing the upsides to allowing systems with usury, was that the gains were 'purely material.'

I wasn't changing the topic at all. I was using the same argument you used.
 

Alathon

Fool me twice, shame on me
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
1,502
Because the whole of your argument for dismissing the upsides to allowing systems with usury, was that the gains were 'purely material.'

I wasn't changing the topic at all. I was using the same argument you used.
Yet, I did not "dismiss the upsides of allowing systems with usury". I even acknowledged openly that they exist. What I said was that because the benefits are purely material, when they are set against great spiritual costs, said great spiritual costs must quite naturally outweigh purely material benefits. Usury is not some minor moral hazard that can be weighed against material desires.

Particularly when most of the material value usury offers could be gained through lending without usury.

Even so, I refrained from suggesting force of law against any but the worst sort, fractional reserve banking. The best way for a Christian to approach usury is to refrain from engaging in it and speak plainly against it.
 

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Reaction score
10,369
Location
In the Desert
Note please that your very definition of usury is a purely fundamentalist one, first arising in the early 20th century. Do not try to claim that as the base Christian definition or viewpoint when it is very much a fringe one.

Fun fact, modern banking practices are directly descended from the banking practices of Benedictine monastic orders of the medieval period who were the go to bankers of Christendom.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
14,860
Yet, I did not "dismiss the upsides of allowing systems with usury". I even acknowledged openly that they exist. What I said was that because the benefits are purely material, when they are set against great spiritual costs, said great spiritual costs must quite naturally outweigh purely material benefits. Usury is not some minor moral hazard that can be weighed against material desires.

Particularly when most of the material value usury offers could be gained through lending without usury.

Even so, I refrained from suggesting force of law against any but the worst sort, fractional reserve banking. The best way for a Christian to approach usury is to refrain from engaging in it and speak plainly against it.
At this point, what you're using various terms for is pretty opaque to me. I'm not sure I want to keep trying to debate the issue with you when it's not clear what position you're taking.
 

Alathon

Fool me twice, shame on me
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
1,502
Note please that your very definition of usury is a purely fundamentalist one, first arising in the early 20th century. Do not try to claim that as the base Christian definition or viewpoint when it is very much a fringe one.

Fun fact, modern banking practices are directly descended from the banking practices of Benedictine monastic orders of the medieval period who were the go to bankers of Christendom.
The definition of usury I have been using was considered old in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary. Moneylenders were among the only people Christ ever used violence against. Many Christians since have warned against the practice, such as Thomas Aquinas, though I admit that it is not explicitly forbidden by scripture.

I will also grant that my use of usury has been archaic. If it is truly a matter of confusion, I could say "renting money" or "the collection of interest in moneylending". But usury sounds so much more fitting to my ears. Bringing back the old definition could do us all a lot of good.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Reaction score
1,168
The definition of usury I have been using was considered old in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary. Moneylenders were among the only people Christ ever used violence against. Many Christians since have warned against the practice, such as Thomas Aquinas, though I admit that it is not explicitly forbidden by scripture.

I will also grant that my use of usury has been archaic. If it is truly a matter of confusion, I could say "renting money" or "the collection of interest in moneylending". But usury sounds so much more fitting to my ears. Bringing back the old definition could do us all a lot of good.
Actually I believe there is a rule against charging interest in the Old Testament to your brother/countrymen.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
14,860
The definition of usury I have been using was considered old in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary. Moneylenders were among the only people Christ ever used violence against. Many Christians since have warned against the practice, such as Thomas Aquinas, though I admit that it is not explicitly forbidden by scripture.

I will also grant that my use of usury has been archaic. If it is truly a matter of confusion, I could say "renting money" or "the collection of interest in moneylending". But usury sounds so much more fitting to my ears. Bringing back the old definition could do us all a lot of good.
You have in no way demonstrated that it is an inherently immoral practice, just that you personally find it to be extremely distasteful.
 

Alathon

Fool me twice, shame on me
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
1,502
You have in no way demonstrated that it is an inherently immoral practice, just that you personally find it to be extremely distasteful.
You truly do not believe that the practice of renting money changes its nature to make the acquisition of a horde of money more tempting? Surely you must have observed the fruits of such practices in the modern Western financial sectors!
 

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Reaction score
10,369
Location
In the Desert
And you completely miss the entire point.

Usury has had a very specific definition since the 5th Lateran Council of 1515

“For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk” (Session X).

You are leaving out 'any expense or any risk' from your definition. By definition, a loan is a risk and an expense, for when a loan is made, the lender has no use of the money until such time as it is paid back, and if it is not paid back risks losing it. Your rants about 'renting money' rely purely on the first of three conditions that must ALL be fulfilled for it to be usury.

It must profit without any work.
It must profit without any expense.
It must profit without any risk.

The first time the latter two points were ignored was by the early fundamentalists.

Note that Jesus himself instructs Christians to loan money, and distinguishes this loan from gifts! Matthew 5:42.

 
Top Bottom