/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Usury is a sin, that includes various fees and interests on loans. The reason why is separation of Church and state in many countries. And also that in Judaism interest loans apply to goyim only.

>>609127

I have never taken out a loan and I never will.

>>609141

Isnt usury more then just banks though? How can a christian avoid usury in a uber capitalist world?

>inb4 commie

I hate those degeneracy enabling cucks

>>609162

Well by the most conservative medieval interpretation, usury would count as any time you earn money on a loan of money. That would include straightforward loans, as well as making money off bonds and bank accounts.

>>609162

>>609172

So if you wanted to avoid commiting usury yourself it wouldn’t be THAT hard, though it would be hard to have no business with those who do.

>>609172

But what about if you are the one taking the loan? Credit cards are forbidden? Mortgages?

>>609127

Yes, only jewish people should be allowed to get rich

>>609185

>implying kikery is the only way to get rich

>>609184

It is not sinful to fall prey to usurers, as far as I know.

>>609127

Yes. It is a sin. Just because the Church has failed to address it recently doesn't make it any less a sin. I blame Calvin, to be honest. Vid related.

>>609188

well usury will certainly make you rich so we must let God's chosen do it

>>609189

>well usury will certainly make you rich

Not if it's banned entirely, in accordance with actual Christianity.

>so we must let God's chosen do it

Again, not the only way to become wealthy. "Earning" money through usury is hazardous to the soul, and is beneath anyone but the verminous jew. Productive work is far better, even if it means being less rich, monetarily. Also the obvious, kikes are not God's chosen people, but they do carry out the will of their father, the devil.

>>609188

>It is not sinful to fall prey to usurers, as far as I know.

You are not being a good steward of what God has given you neither are you being wise as a serpent.

Of course, on the scale of sins, certainly it's a non-intentional one but if you're reading this page, you now know to avoid it.

>>609233

reported for being an anti-semite

>>609238

>>>/leftypol/

Would you report our Lord and Savior of the same?

>>609237

Agreed.

>>609184

Lease a house, get a debit card

>>609184

Well technically if you’re the one borrowing money you’re not the one commiting usury, the one lending it is (again, assuming for the sake of argument that all interest on a loan is usury and is sinful). Just like if you were underpaid and exploited by your employer, then the employer would be the one sinning, not you. Borrowing money isn’t a sin.

>>609258

Nonetheless, feeding the beast is stupid to the point it shouldn't be done anyway

>>609127

It is sin, especially when exacted against your own kinsmen/people.

So is having a bank/savings account that returns interest a sin?

>>609340

I suppose it's better than burying it in the ground… but it's not like what the good servants did with their talents either.

The Zippy Catholic blog (https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com) has many very good posts on what is the nature of usury, what is or isn't usury and how it came to be so prevalent nowadays. It is also a very good blog…

>>609340

No, for two reasons.

First, a bank account is backed by the wealth of a corporate entity (which you yourself are part of when you join a bank). A loan can't be usurious when it is backed by a specific property (such as the balance sheet of a bank) since it is completely analogous to an investment in such case. Note that the loan not being usurious doesn't mean its terms are all just, only that usury is not one injustice it commits.

The other reason is that a bank account is not a loan at all. Any interest you earn on a bank account is equivalent to your share of how much profit the bank managed to turn during the period. For instance, if the bank went bankrupt, it would need to pay its creditors with its assets before you could have any claim to the remaining money.

>>609188

Sounds a little like saying sodomy is okay as long as you're on the receiving end. If usury is sin, and you take a loan and agree to pay interest on, it you are at least enabling someone else to sin.

>>609375

Consensual sodomy is obviously sin from both sides, because homosexuality is a sin. There is nothing inherently sinful about borrowing money, only the usury that is charged on the loan itself. Being exploited economically is not a sin. The personal being charged usury, or being underpaid on their job, or being price gouged, is not sinning merely because they have voluntarily taken part in a deal which screws them over.

>>609162

Easy, BEGOME CHRISTCOM :DDDD

Usury is only a sin in excess

>>609401

Good goyim, keep believing that despite what Jesus says in scripture.

>>609398

But if no one accepted loans with interest, usurers couldn't engage in usury in the first place. It takes two to tango.

>>609443

If you believe usury is always sin you believe God explicitly granted license to sin in Deuteronomy 23:20.

>>609469

Jesus gave us a new covenant. The old covenant had one rule for Jews internally and another for their interactions with gentiles; Jesus had no yet come.

Now, Jesus has said that if you make a loan, not only should you not expect interest, you shouldn't expect the principal back.

So, no, God didn't grant license to sin, because it became sin after Christ told us the new covenant.

Welcome to the New Testament 101.

>>609464

I struggle to understand how being exploited is a sin, since borrowing money isn’t a sin. I mean if you take your views to their logical extend, participating in capitalism in any form is a sin, since undoubtably you buying any sort of product may indirectly help out greedy rich people.

>>609401

So I should refrain from usurious behavior only on the Sabbath or what?

>>609474

>Now, Jesus has said that if you make a loan, not only should you not expect interest, you shouldn't expect the principal back.

What verse are you referencing?

>>609354

>but it's not like what the good servants did with their talents either.

And this is somewhat a point of confusion for me.

>>609474

In the new covenant, only that which is actually evil is sin.

>>609481

Well, yes, because no work on the Sabbath, but specifically biting usury (ungracious usury from love of money) is sin.

>(((usually)))

>>609533

*>>(((usury)))

:^)

>>609127

>>609127

The entire beginning of John Jesus talks against the type of people that do this. He didn't say usury specifically but it's implied he'd dislike it.

>>609371

The Catholic Church stopped talking about usury since around the time of the Medicis.

>>609482

Luke 6:35

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

>>609485

The master rebukes the lazy servant for burying his talent because lazy servant wrongly thought the master deserved no credit for the servant's work (sure, the servants made the money, but they had nothing to start with without the master)

Basically, someone unthankful to God not wanting to do good because he doesn't think he owes God anything.

Well, giving to the bankers is better than that. I tend to think of that as, on the "talent = innate talent" level, working for someone who is more moral than yourself, finding a pastor sort of. In money terms, putting it with a bank rather than just burying it.

I think what it calls each of us to do is put our full talents to God's work- and handing over our resources to someone who's beliefs we do not know is a wrongful derogation of our duty.

>>609488

>In the new covenant, only that which is actually evil is sin.

You gotta actually read the thing dude. The OT is prohibitionary law - everything not listed as illegal is okay.

The NT is positive law - if you're not doing everything with the Holy Spirit 100% it's partly sin. Unless you see how you're doing good, it's probably bad.

Making money off of other people's bad math or hopelessness doesn't seem like something the Holy Spirit would want you to do.

>>609622

Where does the bible say usury is a sin?

>>609638

Several places in the old testament forbid it for the poor, "thy brothers" and "God's people." It is also explicitly allowed to foreigners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Judaism

>>609640

Deuteronomy 23:21 (20)—Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest;

>>609638

Luke 6:35

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

If you think you can ignore Christ's words and not be sinning, you don't understand Christianity.

>>609653

The command is to practice charity, not refrain from usury. This applies to all men, not only bankers

>>609665

I don't debate your wider call to charity, but it clearly charging interest isn't in accordance with the teaching. Don't try to pigeon-hole a general teaching into not being against usury. Christ clearly says "lend, hoping for nothing again"

If you're looking for interest, you're ignoring Christ.

>>609671

Is it a sin to sell goods?

>>609620

Thank you. My question was more along the lines of this parable seems to condone usury. Or maybe it's just that usury is a lesser sin than burying it, but surely not as good as the first two productive servants.

>>609682

No.

I'm going to assume this is a leading question to which you will reply Christ says "give to those who ask of you"

However, that is a different issue than usury. In Luke 6:35 Christ specifically says not to expect back anything from a loan- and this comports with love and forgiveness, as in, the parable of the master forgiving the servant's debt and then the servant then getting someone thrown in jail for a smaller debt owed to the servant.

When Christ says "give unto those who ask of you" he's talking about giving to them what is good- not necessarily what they asked for.

If a starving man asks for food, you should absolutely give him some. If a rich man asks for your stuff because he's greedy, feeding his greed is the last thing you should do - you should teach him about Jesus and try and help him overcome his sin. So, yes, you can sell stuff - the question is whether you're using the proceeds to do God's work.

Interest on money, however, is just wrong. Jesus taught that.

>>609710

>No.

But anon, Christ says "lend, hoping for nothing again". How then can you refuse anyone anything until they provide appropriate payment? If a man cannot loan expecting even the principal to be returned, without sin, how can you demand money in exchange for posessions? Why do you not freely lend everything you own?

>Interest on money, however, is just wrong. Jesus taught that

No, He did not, you have read that in. A positive command to do charity is not a negative command to not loan on interest. I am fully capable of freely giving to the poor, and at other times to other people loaning out on interest for a living. The two are not mutually exclusive.

>>609185

Seeing as anyone who does not give up everything they own cannot be a disciple of Jesus, yes.

>>609189

God doesn't want you to be rich. God will see you provided with food and clothing, but that's it.

>>609247

Leftypol hates the zionists though

>>609399

This but unironically

>>609476

There's a reason we say there is no ethical consumption under capitalism

>>609682

Jesus himself commanded that we sell everything (yes everything. His word not mine), so no.

>>609727

Communism and Christianity are incompatible

>>609730

Well if you can find me another word for a system where noone claims that any of their possessions are their own, but they share everything they have, let me know.

>>609733

Such a system is incompatible with Christianity

>>609736

So what the first Christians did was incompatible with Christianity? Really makes you think.

>>609738

>voluntary vs forced sharing

>>609738

>saying "I own this, and will excercise my God-given property rights by voluntarily sharing my property" is the same as saying "you don't own this, and if you excercise your God-given property rights by not sharing your property I will murder you and steal it"

>>609741

Now did I say forced sharing?

No, but the bible does. Maybe not forced sharing per se, it just says that whoever does not give up everything they have cannot be called a disciple of Jesus.

>>609750

Remember when that couple exercised their 'God-given property rights' by not sharing their property, and then lied about and got personally killed by God?

>>609798

Thou shalt not steal

>>609817

One piece of scripture doesn't just cancel out another. Therefore, we need to find out how we can possibly reconcile the two (well, more than two because both are mentioned multiple times but still). Now, I'm sure you are aware that eternal life isn't something that we should take for granted. In fact, we're incredibly lucky to have such a loving God. Imagine if a The Sims player went to the effort to mod in a place with no struggles and sadness for the characters that died, just because he loved them so much! Therefore, if God commands us to do something, it's not really coercion is it? It's more of a deal. You give up everything (including your possessions) for Jesus and in exchange you get eternal life. If you don't, no worries, you haven't lost anything. You can even take it up later if you change your mind; there's no expiration date to the offer. Therefore, it's not really stealing for God to command us to give up all our material possessions, now is it?

>>609725

>But anon, Christ says "lend, hoping for nothing again". How then can you refuse anyone anything until they provide appropriate payment? If a man cannot loan expecting even the principal to be returned, without sin, how can you demand money in exchange for posessions? Why do you not freely lend everything you own?

Because Christ doesn't say you need to lend, he says that when you do lend you cannot expect even the principal back. Lending is synonymous with giving to the Christian.

No one said -what- we need to give when one asks, and no one need give away things he is currently putting into use to do God's work.

>No, He did not, you have read that in. A positive command to do charity is not a negative command to not loan on interest. I am fully capable of freely giving to the poor, and at other times to other people loaning out on interest for a living. The two are not mutually exclusive.

No, actually it's you that have read in the "purpose" of what Christ was saying while ignoring what he actually said. Don't expect back anything from a loan - are you following that or not. Sounds like me you're trying to make an excuse for doing what is wrong.

>>609727

>Seeing as anyone who does not give up everything they own cannot be a disciple of Jesus, yes.

If you mean a disciple should not keep any of property to indulge your personal appetites or non-Christian activities, this is true.

If you mean a disciple cannot keep legal title to possessions used in the service of God, you are greatly mistaken.

>God doesn't want you to be rich. God will see you provided with food and clothing, but that's it.

God doesn't want you to have more possessions than what you can do his work with. Money that tempts its owner to indulge is bad, millions owned with a Christian business bringing work and charity and products in a God-fearing way- of course God wants you to have that.

>>609819

>One piece of scripture doesn't just cancel out another

I agree, which is why I don't believe the 8th Commandment is null and void. Without the idea of private property, the command is unintelligible.

>You give up everything (including your possessions) for Jesus and in exchange you get eternal life

I certainly hope not, because if so, we will all be damned. I have not given up everything for Jesus, you have not given up everything for Jesus, nobody ever has and nobody ever will. This is why we are saved by faith and not by works of the law.

>Therefore, it's not really stealing for God to command us to give up all our material possessions, now is it?

God commanded us to give up all our material possessions? News to me. If you're so sure God has said it, why do you have this computer? Shouldn't be naked and cold on a street corner, starving to death? Looks like you haven't given up all your possessions for Jesus.

>>609829

>Because Christ doesn't say you need to lend, he says that when you do lend you cannot expect even the principal back

Ok, then I repeat my objection; why can you give goods with the expectation of money in return?

>Don't expect back anything from a loan

I don't see the word loan here, I see the word lend. I also do not see the word when. Christ does not say that when I lend, I am to do so without expectation of return, He says I am to lend without expectation of return. Therefore, this is a command of free charity, without any further detail. I can practice both charity and usury.

>Sounds like me you're trying to make an excuse for doing what is wrong

And it sounds to me like you're trying to put words in Jesus' mouth to make new sins.

>>609832

Why would Jesus say 'everything' rather than 'things that is used in non-Christian activities'? For things used in the service of God, Jesus did everything with just a single cloak and the holy spirit, with everything else being collective property of the Christian community, as small as it was. And I can't really say that the clothes were considered to be his.

>>609835

Which verse of scripture are you referring to? I want to check it over to give you a more accurate answer.

>Jesus did everything with just a single cloak and the holy spirit, with everything else being collective property of the Christian community, as small as it was.

Jesus could also walk on water and turn water into wine. Are you suggesting Christians should just walk out into the ocean when they need to get across?

I understand we want to emulate our Lord and Savior as much as we can. Only the person in possession knows whether he's really using what he owns for God's will. But if you're saying a Christian can't own a computer to spread the Gospel, why? Do you not understand that, while the Holy Spirit is constant, the application of the Spirit will change as times and circumstances change? This doesn't mean what was sin is no longer sin, what I mean is that the methods of doing good are more numerous although the good to be done remains the same. Similarly, the sins are the same although there are more ways to do those too now.

>>609834

>8th commandment null and void

Jesus also made the 3rd commandment (do not take the lord's name in vain, which means don't swear to God and break the promise) null and void in Matthew 5:33-37 by saying that we should not swear oaths ever (making breaking oaths to God unintelligible), and he also makes the 6th commandment (do not murder) null and void in Matthew 5:21-26 by saying that we should not even be angry at another person, (making murder unintelligible) as well as making 7th commandment (no adultery) null and void in Matthew 5:27-28 by saying that we shouldn't look at a woman with lustful intent (this one's not such a strong argument because he calls looking at a woman with a lustful intent adultery, which runs of the assumption that adultery is bad.

>we'll all be damned

The path that leads to life is narrow, and the path that leads to death is wide.

>I have not given up everything up for Jesus

Why not? The bible tells you that you need to do it to even be considered a disciple (Luke 14:33).

>you have not

That may be true, but I'm working on it. I'm building my tower, as Luke 14:28 says, and I've counted the cost. It's better than just laying down a cornerstone and saying 'yep it's a tower'.

>news to me

See below

>this computer

I cannot sell this thing and give the money to the poor; nobody would pay money for it. Ideally, I'd join the church described in Acts (see below) and give everything to the collective, but that doesn't seem to exist anymore as far as I know. Next best thing is to refound it.

>naked and cold on a street corner

How's squatting in an abandoned office building sound?

>>609838

The verse I was quoting earlier was Luke 14:33

>In the same way, any one of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

Also of note is Mark 10:21

>And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

For help in actually doing this, there's like the entire book of Acts. Quick rundown: everything is owned by the collective, and nobody has private property. I cannot comment on toothbrushes. People do what they can to provide for both the fellow Christians and non-Christians in need, but not working for outsiders for a wage. Material needs came from either buying is using money provided by new Christians or made by Christians.

>Jesus could also walk on water

That's a fair point. Everything else still stands.

>own a computer

The collective can own a computer though. Heck, they can own enough computers for each of it's members. As long as a member doesn't claim a computer as theirs I guess.

It was just one click away. Nice that you didn't put 0.5s of effort into this bait thread.

http://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-02/pope-francis-usury-financial-exploitation.html

>>609872

That link doesn't work for me, and the wayback machine isn't much help. Got something else?

>>609880

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

>2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger. The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71 Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.

>2449 Beginning with the Old Testament, all kinds of juridical measures (the jubilee year of forgiveness of debts, prohibition of loans at interest and the keeping of collateral, the obligation to tithe, the daily payment of the day-laborer, the right to glean vines and fields) answer the exhortation of Deuteronomy: "For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor in the land.'"249 Jesus makes these words his own: "The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."250 In so doing he does not soften the vehemence of former oracles against "buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals . . .," but invites us to recognize his own presence in the poor who are his brethren:251 When her mother reproached her for caring for the poor and the sick at home, St. Rose of Lima said to her: "When we serve the poor and the sick, we serve Jesus. We must not fail to help our neighbors, because in them we serve Jesus.252

>>609883

>2438

Various causes of a religious, political, economic, and financial nature today give "the social question a worldwide dimension."224 There must be solidarity among nations which are already politically interdependent. It is even more essential when it is a question of dismantling the "perverse mechanisms" that impede the development of the less advanced countries.225 In place of abusive if not usurious financial systems, iniquitous commercial relations among nations, and the arms race, there must be substituted a common effort to mobilize resources toward objectives of moral, cultural, and economic development, "redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values."226

>>609884

Thanks m8.

>>609871

>The verse I was quoting earlier was Luke 14:33

Well, see that verse has context. Note the first words "in the same way" the same as what? Well, we have an example of a king offering peace terms and a builder who needs to thoroughly plan before constructing a tower. This teaching means giving up everything in terms of "the self." You can hold nothing back. In that I agree with you.

The argument we're having is whether it is necessary to give up legal title in order to devote your possessions to God's work because I do not disagree at all that everything one possesses must be kept in good stewardship and using one's resources to indulge the appetites is sinful. I don't really see this verse commenting on the legal issue, just the spiritual part.

>For help in actually doing this, there's like the entire book of Acts. Quick rundown: everything is owned by the collective, and nobody has private property. I cannot comment on toothbrushes. People do what they can to provide for both the fellow Christians and non-Christians in need, but not working for outsiders for a wage. Material needs came from either buying is using money provided by new Christians or made by Christians.

Right. Well, that's a good ideal I'd like to see recreated. But it's over-simplified. Ownership changes from current title to "need" as determined by the elders. It's essentially continuous redistribution by autocracy. That being said, if the autocrats are true disciples of Christ I wouldn't have a problem with this system but it needs to be opt-in. Is there a church left that will take care of all my needs if I give them the no wealth I possess? I don't know of any,

>The collective can own a computer though. Heck, they can own enough computers for each of it's members. As long as a member doesn't claim a computer as theirs I guess.

I see your point but… have you read Aristotle on property? He straight wrecks Plato's ideas about common ownership. It's not that I mind autocratic redistribution but not having a current owner is inefficient. The collective should assign temporary ownership and the members should happily accept reassignment as needs are. No ownership is confusing and leads to the tragedy of the commons.

>>609871

>Jesus also made the 3rd commandment (do not take the lord's name in vain, which means don't swear to God and break the promise) null and void in Matthew 5:33-37 by saying that we should not swear oaths ever (making breaking oaths to God unintelligible), and he also makes the 6th commandment (do not murder) null and void in Matthew 5:21-26 by saying that we should not even be angry at another person, (making murder unintelligible) as well as making 7th commandment (no adultery) null and void in Matthew 5:27-28 by saying that we shouldn't look at a woman with lustful intent

Your argument is nonsensical and clearly nothing more than a justification of gross sin. All three examples you gave of Christ allegedly nullifying the law actually presuppose it; in the first instance, context reveals that He does not actually condemn oaths, He condemns giving oaths falsely and frivolously, in the second, He accuses the hateful of being spiritually murderous, in the third, those who lust of being truly adulterous. The point of these is to refute the error of the pharisees that the law consisted in external things only, and to show that they still truly break the law when they do so in their hearts.

But what this has to do with stealing, which cannot be done in the heart or in reality unless things are truly and properly owned by men, is beyond me.

>The path that leads to life is narrow

Narrow, not non-existent.

>Why not? The bible tells you that you need to do it to even be considered a disciple

Why do you hate context? The preceding verses show that He means you must be willing to give up everything you have for Him, not that you must actually give it up. Consider the historical context, until Constantine, being a Christian meant the constant threat of surrendering all your belongings (including your life) for Christ.

>I'm working on it

Are you unable to discard this computer?

>I cannot sell this thing and give the money to the poor

So? Luke 14:33 doesn't say anything about selling. I hope you don't have any clothes on your back either, can't own anything, apparently.

>How's squatting in an abandoned office building sound?

Only with the consent of the property owner, otherwise it is sin.

>>609944

>autocratic redistribution

Sounds like tyranny and theft.

>>609949

It is unless the redistribution is done the way Christ would do it. If you oppose Christ redistributing resources them… well, I don't know how you consider yourself Christian.

Now, saying that no man is worthy to try and fill Christ's place until his return is a valid argument - and for that reason, submission to such a system should be voluntary- but it is the most Christian system -if- led by the Holy Spirit.

>>609944

>oversimplified

Oh yeah absolutely.

>is there a church

Maybe? At least not one google search away. The closest thing would be the Hutterites and the Amish, however they have their own set of problems, most notably how isolationist they have become. You could always do it yourself.

>read Aristotle

Can't say I have. I'll do that, seems relatively short.

>>609947

>justification of gross sin

How? I'm saying that those commandments were eclipsed by the new ones Jesus gave.

>does not condemn oaths

I'm really struggling to see how 'Do not take an oath at all' does not condemn oaths, and no amount of context seems to contradict that. You're also going to have to prove James 5:12 wrong in doing so

>12 But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

>accuses the hateful of being spiritually murderous

Sure, but it's really difficult to murder someone without being hateful. Follow one command and you by definition follow the other.

>but what this has to do with stealing

I'm refuting when >>609834 said that Jesus wouldn't dare to eclipse one of the ten commandments. Although without private property among Christians, it would be possible to steal from a non-Christian, which would still be sin.

>verses show He means

Why would Jesus say 'give up everything' if he meant 'think about giving up everything'? And if you claim to be willing to give up everything, why not try following the commandment laid out in Mark 10:21?

>historical context

Until Constantine, being a Christian meant giving up all your belongings to the church. Read Acts.

>are you unable to discard this computer

Ok, I discard this computer. Oh look, a computer laying on the floor that nobody wants. Nobody owns it, so I may as well borrow it.

>luke 14:33 doesn't say anything about selling

No, but Mark 10:21 does. And no, that verse is not just referring to that one guy, no more than John 3 is referring to only Nicodemus.

>consent of the property owner

There is no property owner. And where does the bible describe squatting as a sin? Wikipedia defines theft as 'the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it' and I don't have intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

>>609141

this tbh fam

>>609162

>How can a christian avoid usury in a uber capitalist world?

stop being materialistic

>>610150

>I'm saying that those commandments were eclipsed by the new ones Jesus gave.

Jesus gave no new commandments, He exposited and reinstated the old ones.

>I'm really struggling to see how 'Do not take an oath at all' does not condemn oaths, and no amount of context seems to contradict that

<for it is the throne of God

<for it is his footstool

<for it is the city of the great King

<for you cannot make one hair white or black

Why did Jesus say these things? What does each explanation have in common? The throne of God, the footstool of God, the city of God, the image of God. Every example had to do with God. For trivial matters, the pharisees would swear by these things to avoid breaking the commandment. Jesus is exposing their sin, that by indirectly swearing by God, they still take His name in vain by the triviality of the matter, swearing to Him on something unworthy of His attention.

>You're also going to have to prove James 5:12 wrong in doing so

If I ask you a simple yes or no question, you are not to attach the name of God to your affirmative or negative.

>it's really difficult to murder someone without being hateful

Are you underage? Have you ever heard of greed or lust or madness? How can you think it is impossible to murder without hate? It is arguably more common

>Jesus wouldn't dare to eclipse one of the ten commandments

It's an insult to Jesus to suppose that the law He once gave to Moses is an imperfect measure of human righteousness.

>Although without private property among Christians, it would be possible to steal from a non-Christian, which would still be sin

Why? If man does not have the natural right of property, then how can it truly be theft? If he does not have the natural God-given right to own what he owns, how is it stealing or sin to take it? It isn't his after all, right?

>Why would Jesus say 'give up everything' if he meant 'think about giving up everything'?

He didn't mean think about giving up everything, and I did not claim that He did. He meant be willing to give up everything. Why don't we read a few verses earlier

<If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

It sounds like Jesus is talking about willingness, not actuallity. Unless you think this means we should commit suicide.

>And if you claim to be willing to give up everything, why not try following the commandment laid out in Mark 10:21?

The command is not for me. The rich young ruler obviously had not kept the whole law as he had claimed, and Jesus is exposing it. By demanding he go and divorce himself from all his possessions, Jesus exposed the man was an idolater. The entire purpose of this event was to expose to the man he was unwilling to give up everything for Jesus.

>Until Constantine, being a Christian meant giving up all your belongings to the church

Wrooong

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philemon+1:8-19

Onesimus was Philemon's slave. This is not mere property, this is a person as property. Paul does not at any point request he be set free, only treated differently. Not only that, but Paul offers to reimburse Philemon for any possessions Onesimus stole or destroyed. And there is also good reason to assume Philemon had other slaves, the epistle implies he is a wealthy man.

>Ok, I discard this computer. Oh look, a computer laying on the floor that nobody wants. Nobody owns it, so I may as well borrow it.

And this is where you accidentally betrayed your licentious intent. You are no hermit, you just want to enjoy the rightful belongings of the rich at their expense. No less a follower of Mammon than the greediest banker.

>And no, that verse is not just referring to that one guy

This is an unnatural reading. Only those with a preconceived bias can interpret it that way.

>There is no property owner

Every building has an owner

>And where does the bible describe squatting as a sin?

'Thou shalt not steal'

>'the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it'

Squatting meets this definition

>>610231

Not the person you're replying to, but you had me until here:

> (HIM) There is no property owner

> (YOU) Every building has an owner

>(HIM) And where does the bible describe squatting as a sin?

>(YOU) 'Thou shalt not steal'

> (HIM) 'the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it'

> (YOU) Squatting meets this definition

Squatting doesn't because you don't -take- anything. It's called trespass, and there is criminal trespass but unless you "oust" (forcible remove) the true owner, it's not theft and has- to my knowledge, never been defined as such.

It's different because sleeping in an unused building doesn't hurt the building. Now, if you do damage to the building that's vandalism. Use property inside the building, that's theft. But pure squatting is just a misdemeanor at worst- trespass.

>>610312

fiat was a mistake

>>610312

filioqueism was a mistake

>>609374

Found the jew.

>>610312

One problem with this claim is kikes always been loan sharks. They were not forced into banking.

THE TORAH

Deuteronomy 15:6

For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

>>611402

That promise is to all Christian nations, not to the Jews