Posted without comment, the author's own comment elsewhere about home loans.
"Yes, do what you can. I totally get having to take out home loans, but I’d do what you can to pay them off early, and never get another one. Buy the next with cash from 1st."
"Accordingly we must also answer to the question in point that it is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition of usury: yet it is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need. Thus too it is lawful for a man who has fallen among thieves to point out his property to them (which they sin in taking) in order to save his life, after the example of the ten men who said to Ismahel (Jer 41:8) Kill us not: for we have stores in the field." - St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Secunda Secunda Q 78 A4
I didn't get into this in the guide, because I thought it was implied in the writing and that people understood it - that you do what you have to to live. The Church has always understood that those that borrow under Usurious conditions do so under necessity, not because they want to, and thus don't hold them accountable for the sin of usury.
One must have a place to live. I understand that and thus, you saw my response. That doesn't mean that you don't have the sin of imprudence, IE - stupidity. You can be culpable for taking out a loan on a house that's too expensive, or in bad repair, or a bubble, or that you can't afford. That's always possible, and something that I can't convey on Social Galactic in 180 characters, nor do I feel the need to when the commenters there are informed, intelligent, and generally able to make good life choices or ask me for clarification on a topic without an "ah ha! gotcha!"
So, would I say that now is a good time to buy? No, not in today's market. Do I understand the choice? Yes, yes I do. It may be sinful in other ways, it may not be, but I'm not there and don't know enough details to judge particular choices. I do know I can tell people to do what they can to starve the beast. You can still starve a dog or any animal by not feeding it enough to live every day - it takes longer, but it will still die.
That you might not be happy with this answer doesn't matter to me. What matters is that I give the CORRECT answer. The True, Good, and Beautiful answer.
You should take comfort in the fact that this one allows people to have a roof over their heads, while still slaying our foe. It gives us maneuvering room, instead of backing us into corners. Lets us raise large families realistically under the current regime while opposing the regime.
This was no "gotcha" response as I was not looking to catch you out and was indeed disappointed to read it . A house loan is not needed to live. Aquinas undersrood this also "provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need." Followed by an analogy by allowing robbers to take his goods rather than KILL him. Or are you positing that mortgages are implicit to life (mort meaning death pun)? No you have baited and switched the level of necessity of home ownership putting it in the life and death category. It is not. I am an example: 10 kids, one wife, 55yo never had a mortgage (renting) and I count myself as in the battle fully.
God shall provide. Do not take counsel of your fears. Do not store up for yourself treasure on earth. Do not confuse life and death with comfort and discomfort. A sore discomfort it is to be sure (not owning a home) but what matter is that?
You went on a multi-post diatribe at social galactic, and cross posted here, with a link to there where most people won't be able to follow to see context. Excuse me if I take that as an "ah ha! gotcha!" given the context. If it is not, then you should certainly understand why one would see it that way. Also, you are someone that is a part of social galactic, thus you are a part of those I am calling more intelligent and informed. You clearly understand the content of the post, and can follow the logic. If you don't like the example Aquinas gives, then take it up with the dead man. But you die without a house, and I see no reason to buy a house for someone else through rent that is more expensive than a mortgage. There's no fear there, just simple acknowledgement that either way you feed a mortgage.
So. By renting you are paying a mortgage. You are just paying a mortgage for someone else, plus a premium so that they can own the home, do the repairs, write off the depreciation, and then make a profit. You still feed the beast. You just gain nothing by it.
By doing what you can, as Aquinas says is acceptable, you cut out that excess. It should be done prudently. That excess can be put towards the mortgage, to starve the beast out faster. It can be put to investing in a homestead life, to starve the beast as it creeps into the transactions of food and every day living. It can go towards shop tools, so that you can keep up your own car, affording a used car and not having to buy new cars or do auto loans, again starving the beast.
But yes, this is all acceptable. I understand fully that I am saying it is acceptable to sell oneself into a kind of slavery temporarily in order to put a roof over the head of one's family. Yes. That is -Exactly- what I am saying. People have done so for less for generations.
To be fair, I view hourly wage earners as slaves too, so my bar for what constitutes slavery is much lower than the average person's, and this should be much less shocking than it likely comes across.
As far as my response towards you - if you want people to be less hostile, then be less hostile. I've done my best to be restrained and charitable. If you want to look at how other commenters are treated, maybe you should look at how they act in comparison to how you have.
Thus why I posted your exact words without my commentary for the reader to make his own decision. It was in complete context and deserved to be there. Multi-post-diatribe? Come on. You're better than than cheap shot which BTW in your own words is "where most people won't be able to follow to see context".
But the reader shall note that you have avoided my argument that Aquinas was talking of a much more serious situation for taking on usury; by advising me argue the dead guy.
You said "renting you are paying a mortgage". This is just not true and another bait and switch. I am not a mortgage holder or have my signature on a usurious mortgage. Even if I grant this bait & switch, this is not always the case that the owner has a mortgage, like most of the times I've rented.
And biblically wages are not equated with slavery AFAIK.
Friend, ilk, and fellow anti-usurer, get a thicker skin if you want a public life. Iron sharpens iron.
Yes. Multi-post diatribe. You had 3 posts, not one asking to explain but simply condemning. Then you get all thin skinned when I treat you as you treat you on the same level. Then you say I'm thin skinned. I'm not - I'm just not going to roll over and act like you're not being what you are - you're blustering around in here, didn't ask for clarification, and when I give a straight forward answer you're not taking it.
"But the reader shall note that you have avoided my argument that Aquinas was talking of a much more serious situation for taking on usury; by advising me argue the dead guy."
No, he's not. He's using an example that, if someone is among thieves, it's ok to point out things for them to steel in order for you to save yourself. If you need a home to live in, you may take a usurious loan. If you don't have a home to live in, you will die.
"You said "renting you are paying a mortgage". This is just not true and another bait and switch. I am not a mortgage holder or have my signature on a usurious mortgage. Even if I grant this bait & switch, this is not always the case that the owner has a mortgage, like most of the times I've rented."
Yes, it is true that not -all- homes rented out will have a mortgage, yet -most- will. And nearly all will be rented out at above the mortgage price that they could get. Just because YOUR name isn't on the mortgage, doesn't mean that the money you pay is not going to go towards the mortgage. If no one rented it, they wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage, and the house would be seized.
You also didn't address any of my comments on being able to use the money towards starving usury on other areas.
I never said it was a biblical argument about Slavery. It's an Aristotelian one. Though Biblically you see stuff close to it in day laborers, slavery contracts of the old testament, etc. You can go back to my older posts to read the arguments, I'm not going to remake them here.
I have a plenty thick skin. You're the one to first whine about how you're treated, then me simply explain to you why you get the behavior you do. I'm happy to continue in whatever manner you please - just realize you'll get what you give.
Ok, now you are just projecting blustering. We'll let the reader (if any) decide about whining, but I can say you have been caught in a lie here. In response to what you call whining, you implied you weren't treating me in such a way - "Also, you are someone that is a part of social galactic, thus you are a part of those I am calling more intelligent and informed" But now it is "...condemning. Then you get all thin skinned when I treat you as you treat you on the same level." So the first response was a lie and it was obvious at the time by the way.
Then you double down and tell, let's say a half-truth, but who knows considering you have lied in the conversation. And again I'll say "You're better than than cheap shot which BTW in your own words is "where most people won't be able to follow to see context"". There were 4 posts, the first in praise and support of your post. The second and third were not in response to you but were simultaneously typed on my phone as your, shall we say offending post. After posting those two posts I read yours and it was the fourth that read " @Chadwick No! You undid all your good work with that post. Disappointed. The housing loan market is the main thing feeding the beast. You just want the beast on a diet." Condemning? Hardly. Thin skinned you are. So if you are going to call me out on posts somewhere else at least do me the courtesy of quoting.
WRT, to Aquinas and the thieves, I can't explain this any simpler, and your response is inadequate because you aren't tall enough for your own ride. See case in point "If you don't have a house to live in, you will die". Ok then we all know now that you are not the barbarian you label yourself to be. A bit too on-the-soft-side. I am not dead after 35 years of no home ownership.
WRT to addressing any of your comments about your usurious-accounting. It is irrelevant. It is defending your support of, and taking financial gain of usurious contracts, by showing how you will use the impropriety to defeat the sin of usury. But I'll only do it once!
In the end, you are just a slave. A voluntary one. And you act like one, defending your master(s) that you voluntarily indentured yourself to. This is why I called you controlled opposition. If you are the best opposition to the Jew banksters then happy they must be.
Having said all that I do like your stuff, but it has become apparent that you are a parrot of Vox Day, which is a good thing and can only help the cause. Keep up the good work but you really need to 1. not mislead people about the level of your anti-usury conviction 2. not lie in your debates 3. don't tell half-truths when describing what people said elsewhere 4. don't exaggerate: multi-post diatribe, condemning, for eg., and 5. Probably pick easier topics to take up.
But ultimately pragmatism is your problem, like politicians as the saying goes "is slowly giving up your ideals". You seem to be a seeker of truth and you will come to understand that pragmatism tends to be devilish or at least cause your moral compass (and actions) to move in his direction, and you will discard it.
N.B. I really think at this stage all two of us are sick of the topic, Uncouth Barbarian. I certainly am.
"maneuvering room, instead of backing us into corners. Lets us raise large families realistically". Pragmatism. Giving up one's ideals in order to live more easily. Is this the language of warrior? Of an uncouth barbarian? No, this is the language of controlled opposition, of a conservative. Let us take a hard line, but let us cross that line as necessary.
Can I add that I do not hold people to my standard, but you, good sir, have made youself public figure on the topic of usury, literally inviting discussion. And I don't see many comments here so perhaps a better strategy would be to refrain from insulting commenters by insinuating they are unintelligent or uninformed.
Agreed, good sir, agreed.
Posted without comment, the author's own comment elsewhere about home loans.
"Yes, do what you can. I totally get having to take out home loans, but I’d do what you can to pay them off early, and never get another one. Buy the next with cash from 1st."
https://tinyurl.com/3932tpcy
"Accordingly we must also answer to the question in point that it is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition of usury: yet it is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need. Thus too it is lawful for a man who has fallen among thieves to point out his property to them (which they sin in taking) in order to save his life, after the example of the ten men who said to Ismahel (Jer 41:8) Kill us not: for we have stores in the field." - St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Secunda Secunda Q 78 A4
I didn't get into this in the guide, because I thought it was implied in the writing and that people understood it - that you do what you have to to live. The Church has always understood that those that borrow under Usurious conditions do so under necessity, not because they want to, and thus don't hold them accountable for the sin of usury.
One must have a place to live. I understand that and thus, you saw my response. That doesn't mean that you don't have the sin of imprudence, IE - stupidity. You can be culpable for taking out a loan on a house that's too expensive, or in bad repair, or a bubble, or that you can't afford. That's always possible, and something that I can't convey on Social Galactic in 180 characters, nor do I feel the need to when the commenters there are informed, intelligent, and generally able to make good life choices or ask me for clarification on a topic without an "ah ha! gotcha!"
So, would I say that now is a good time to buy? No, not in today's market. Do I understand the choice? Yes, yes I do. It may be sinful in other ways, it may not be, but I'm not there and don't know enough details to judge particular choices. I do know I can tell people to do what they can to starve the beast. You can still starve a dog or any animal by not feeding it enough to live every day - it takes longer, but it will still die.
That you might not be happy with this answer doesn't matter to me. What matters is that I give the CORRECT answer. The True, Good, and Beautiful answer.
You should take comfort in the fact that this one allows people to have a roof over their heads, while still slaying our foe. It gives us maneuvering room, instead of backing us into corners. Lets us raise large families realistically under the current regime while opposing the regime.
This was no "gotcha" response as I was not looking to catch you out and was indeed disappointed to read it . A house loan is not needed to live. Aquinas undersrood this also "provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need." Followed by an analogy by allowing robbers to take his goods rather than KILL him. Or are you positing that mortgages are implicit to life (mort meaning death pun)? No you have baited and switched the level of necessity of home ownership putting it in the life and death category. It is not. I am an example: 10 kids, one wife, 55yo never had a mortgage (renting) and I count myself as in the battle fully.
God shall provide. Do not take counsel of your fears. Do not store up for yourself treasure on earth. Do not confuse life and death with comfort and discomfort. A sore discomfort it is to be sure (not owning a home) but what matter is that?
Good sir.
You went on a multi-post diatribe at social galactic, and cross posted here, with a link to there where most people won't be able to follow to see context. Excuse me if I take that as an "ah ha! gotcha!" given the context. If it is not, then you should certainly understand why one would see it that way. Also, you are someone that is a part of social galactic, thus you are a part of those I am calling more intelligent and informed. You clearly understand the content of the post, and can follow the logic. If you don't like the example Aquinas gives, then take it up with the dead man. But you die without a house, and I see no reason to buy a house for someone else through rent that is more expensive than a mortgage. There's no fear there, just simple acknowledgement that either way you feed a mortgage.
So. By renting you are paying a mortgage. You are just paying a mortgage for someone else, plus a premium so that they can own the home, do the repairs, write off the depreciation, and then make a profit. You still feed the beast. You just gain nothing by it.
By doing what you can, as Aquinas says is acceptable, you cut out that excess. It should be done prudently. That excess can be put towards the mortgage, to starve the beast out faster. It can be put to investing in a homestead life, to starve the beast as it creeps into the transactions of food and every day living. It can go towards shop tools, so that you can keep up your own car, affording a used car and not having to buy new cars or do auto loans, again starving the beast.
But yes, this is all acceptable. I understand fully that I am saying it is acceptable to sell oneself into a kind of slavery temporarily in order to put a roof over the head of one's family. Yes. That is -Exactly- what I am saying. People have done so for less for generations.
To be fair, I view hourly wage earners as slaves too, so my bar for what constitutes slavery is much lower than the average person's, and this should be much less shocking than it likely comes across.
As far as my response towards you - if you want people to be less hostile, then be less hostile. I've done my best to be restrained and charitable. If you want to look at how other commenters are treated, maybe you should look at how they act in comparison to how you have.
Thus why I posted your exact words without my commentary for the reader to make his own decision. It was in complete context and deserved to be there. Multi-post-diatribe? Come on. You're better than than cheap shot which BTW in your own words is "where most people won't be able to follow to see context".
But the reader shall note that you have avoided my argument that Aquinas was talking of a much more serious situation for taking on usury; by advising me argue the dead guy.
You said "renting you are paying a mortgage". This is just not true and another bait and switch. I am not a mortgage holder or have my signature on a usurious mortgage. Even if I grant this bait & switch, this is not always the case that the owner has a mortgage, like most of the times I've rented.
And biblically wages are not equated with slavery AFAIK.
Friend, ilk, and fellow anti-usurer, get a thicker skin if you want a public life. Iron sharpens iron.
Yes. Multi-post diatribe. You had 3 posts, not one asking to explain but simply condemning. Then you get all thin skinned when I treat you as you treat you on the same level. Then you say I'm thin skinned. I'm not - I'm just not going to roll over and act like you're not being what you are - you're blustering around in here, didn't ask for clarification, and when I give a straight forward answer you're not taking it.
"But the reader shall note that you have avoided my argument that Aquinas was talking of a much more serious situation for taking on usury; by advising me argue the dead guy."
No, he's not. He's using an example that, if someone is among thieves, it's ok to point out things for them to steel in order for you to save yourself. If you need a home to live in, you may take a usurious loan. If you don't have a home to live in, you will die.
"You said "renting you are paying a mortgage". This is just not true and another bait and switch. I am not a mortgage holder or have my signature on a usurious mortgage. Even if I grant this bait & switch, this is not always the case that the owner has a mortgage, like most of the times I've rented."
Yes, it is true that not -all- homes rented out will have a mortgage, yet -most- will. And nearly all will be rented out at above the mortgage price that they could get. Just because YOUR name isn't on the mortgage, doesn't mean that the money you pay is not going to go towards the mortgage. If no one rented it, they wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage, and the house would be seized.
You also didn't address any of my comments on being able to use the money towards starving usury on other areas.
I never said it was a biblical argument about Slavery. It's an Aristotelian one. Though Biblically you see stuff close to it in day laborers, slavery contracts of the old testament, etc. You can go back to my older posts to read the arguments, I'm not going to remake them here.
I have a plenty thick skin. You're the one to first whine about how you're treated, then me simply explain to you why you get the behavior you do. I'm happy to continue in whatever manner you please - just realize you'll get what you give.
Ok, now you are just projecting blustering. We'll let the reader (if any) decide about whining, but I can say you have been caught in a lie here. In response to what you call whining, you implied you weren't treating me in such a way - "Also, you are someone that is a part of social galactic, thus you are a part of those I am calling more intelligent and informed" But now it is "...condemning. Then you get all thin skinned when I treat you as you treat you on the same level." So the first response was a lie and it was obvious at the time by the way.
Then you double down and tell, let's say a half-truth, but who knows considering you have lied in the conversation. And again I'll say "You're better than than cheap shot which BTW in your own words is "where most people won't be able to follow to see context"". There were 4 posts, the first in praise and support of your post. The second and third were not in response to you but were simultaneously typed on my phone as your, shall we say offending post. After posting those two posts I read yours and it was the fourth that read " @Chadwick No! You undid all your good work with that post. Disappointed. The housing loan market is the main thing feeding the beast. You just want the beast on a diet." Condemning? Hardly. Thin skinned you are. So if you are going to call me out on posts somewhere else at least do me the courtesy of quoting.
WRT, to Aquinas and the thieves, I can't explain this any simpler, and your response is inadequate because you aren't tall enough for your own ride. See case in point "If you don't have a house to live in, you will die". Ok then we all know now that you are not the barbarian you label yourself to be. A bit too on-the-soft-side. I am not dead after 35 years of no home ownership.
WRT to addressing any of your comments about your usurious-accounting. It is irrelevant. It is defending your support of, and taking financial gain of usurious contracts, by showing how you will use the impropriety to defeat the sin of usury. But I'll only do it once!
In the end, you are just a slave. A voluntary one. And you act like one, defending your master(s) that you voluntarily indentured yourself to. This is why I called you controlled opposition. If you are the best opposition to the Jew banksters then happy they must be.
Having said all that I do like your stuff, but it has become apparent that you are a parrot of Vox Day, which is a good thing and can only help the cause. Keep up the good work but you really need to 1. not mislead people about the level of your anti-usury conviction 2. not lie in your debates 3. don't tell half-truths when describing what people said elsewhere 4. don't exaggerate: multi-post diatribe, condemning, for eg., and 5. Probably pick easier topics to take up.
But ultimately pragmatism is your problem, like politicians as the saying goes "is slowly giving up your ideals". You seem to be a seeker of truth and you will come to understand that pragmatism tends to be devilish or at least cause your moral compass (and actions) to move in his direction, and you will discard it.
N.B. I really think at this stage all two of us are sick of the topic, Uncouth Barbarian. I certainly am.
"maneuvering room, instead of backing us into corners. Lets us raise large families realistically". Pragmatism. Giving up one's ideals in order to live more easily. Is this the language of warrior? Of an uncouth barbarian? No, this is the language of controlled opposition, of a conservative. Let us take a hard line, but let us cross that line as necessary.
Can I add that I do not hold people to my standard, but you, good sir, have made youself public figure on the topic of usury, literally inviting discussion. And I don't see many comments here so perhaps a better strategy would be to refrain from insulting commenters by insinuating they are unintelligent or uninformed.