Vox recently pointed out something about economics which has always been clear to any normal 4 year old that can do very basic math, like I could, or like my son can now, and that is that the very practice of usury is simply, at best, theft, and often considerably worse, as it leads to complete ruination of the victim, which most common thefts normally do not.
Understanding usury requires an understanding of how the nature of some contracts differs, fundamentally and categorically, from the nature of others. Usury is not a matter of the same kind of contract differing only by ‘excessive interest’. Usurious contracts constitute a kind of contract which is intrinsically immoral by its very nature. This FAQ is intended to help people understand what usury is – and is not – and answer many of the questions which naturally arise. [Note: this FAQ is also available in the form of a public domain ebook. It is also available as a hard copy book.]
But in my four year old brain, which is when I first came across the concept of usurious loans, it was really quite simple. I thought then, wrongly, as most people do now, that money represented a real, agreed upon, intrinsic and finite value. Therefore the concept of borrowing money to buy something made sense, but the concept of paying back more than you borrowed seemed at best dodgy to me from the start, but acceptable if it was limited to a small percentage of the total and remained frozen to that amount. When the idea of interest was explained to me, in basic terms, of course, it made no sense to me at all.
It was clearly unfair and wrong.
Now, it’s true that a four year old would not grasp all the intricacies of compound interest and variations on contracts, and so on, but frankly, if you can‘t make it make sense to a four year old, chances are it’s a scam; and usury is most definitely a scam. Read the whole FAQ if you need to.
But it’s interesting to note that the Catholic Church was completely correct on:
The Jews
Usury
Contraception
Marriage
Conception
Abortion
Family
Patriarchy
The Death Penalty
Defence of self and others
And many more far subtler things, and yet, Protestants continue to pretend that they are somehow better informed or equipped in their really special denomination number 38,496 and their own, super-special, individual interpretation of any and all of the above concepts. They also seem to think they are somehow related to the incredible Cathedrals, art-work, scientific discoveries, human progress, concepts of logic and the use and creation of the scientific method, which the Catholic Church produced throughout the centuries, even though their specific brand of heretical belief system had literally nothing to do with any of it.
Protestants talking about the Crusades or the siege of Malta as if those people were somehow philosophically linked to them somehow, when, in truth, every single crusader and Catholic knight on Malta would have rejected them all as heretics one shouldn’t even associate with, never mind be in “fellowship” with.
It really is astonishing the levels of self-deception human beings are capable of.
So, just to be clear…
Vox recently pointed out something about economics which has always been clear to any normal 4 year old that can do very basic math, like I could, or like my son can now, and that is that the very practice of usury is simply, at best, theft, and often considerably worse, as it leads to complete ruination of the victim, which most common thefts normally do not.
He partially quoted zippycatholic who stated:
But in my four year old brain, which is when I first came across the concept of usurious loans, it was really quite simple. I thought then, wrongly, as most people do now, that money represented a real, agreed upon, intrinsic and finite value. Therefore the concept of borrowing money to buy something made sense, but the concept of paying back more than you borrowed seemed at best dodgy to me from the start, but acceptable if it was limited to a small percentage of the total and remained frozen to that amount. When the idea of interest was explained to me, in basic terms, of course, it made no sense to me at all.
It was clearly unfair and wrong.
Now, it’s true that a four year old would not grasp all the intricacies of compound interest and variations on contracts, and so on, but frankly, if you can‘t make it make sense to a four year old, chances are it’s a scam; and usury is most definitely a scam. Read the whole FAQ if you need to.
But it’s interesting to note that the Catholic Church was completely correct on:
And many more far subtler things, and yet, Protestants continue to pretend that they are somehow better informed or equipped in their really special denomination number 38,496 and their own, super-special, individual interpretation of any and all of the above concepts. They also seem to think they are somehow related to the incredible Cathedrals, art-work, scientific discoveries, human progress, concepts of logic and the use and creation of the scientific method, which the Catholic Church produced throughout the centuries, even though their specific brand of heretical belief system had literally nothing to do with any of it.
Protestants talking about the Crusades or the siege of Malta as if those people were somehow philosophically linked to them somehow, when, in truth, every single crusader and Catholic knight on Malta would have rejected them all as heretics one shouldn’t even associate with, never mind be in “fellowship” with.
It really is astonishing the levels of self-deception human beings are capable of.
No related posts.
This entry was posted in Social Commentary. RSS 2.0 feed.