That's why I specifically noted that every premodern philosopher as well as every religion opposed usury.
The collective wisdom of the human race is unanimous on very few matters. Opposition to usury is one of them.
Usury
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
That's why I specifically noted that every premodern philosopher as well as every religion opposed usury.
The collective wisdom of the human race is unanimous on very few matters. Opposition to usury is one of them.
That's exactly how usury was regarded--as a hostile act (pretty much an act of war), appropriate only when dealing with open and avowed enemies.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And yet so many major religions and philosophies of various kinds have been used in the service of the powers carrying out the hostile acts.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What Christianity is and is not is disputed territory. That there exist passages proscribing homosexual acts in Christian texts is undeniable - and a problem for a lot of Churches that would rather those passages were not there.
Sure. Usury has always been practiced, just as murder has always been practiced.
The difference between the modern era and all previous eras is that it was never morally justified before. Indeed it was universally regarded as unjustifiable, even by usurers. The first remotely coherent ethical defence of usury does not emerge until Bentham--and is utter shite even then.
If you mean Paul, what is proscribed is sodomy, not homosexuality. Sodomy refers to any nonreproductive sexual act.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
If you read my post again, you will see that I did not say 'homosexuality', but 'homosexual acts'. It proscribes other things as well, though, according to you. I'll take your word for it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
For surely it hath been said before, that SpineyNan is the true Messiah!!!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Hence some few US states having it on their statute books into the late 20th century, and including the descriptively-named "oral copulation" as sodomy.
Not because they're homosexual though. Because they can't fulfill the natural purpose of sex, which supposedly is reproduction. So there's no Biblical sanction for homophobia, unless you're also prepared to condemn blow-jobs as illegitimate--a proposition that will surely find few takers.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
IMO religions with priest castes are unfortunately structurally-prone to that, as it's difficult, after the creation of a religious movement, to keep religious politics and the peddling of influence separate from the needs and requirements of that priest caste, so you often end up with a "religion of the people" becoming an oppressor of the people.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You mean Leviticus and the bit about men not "lying with a man as with a woman"?
Leviticus isn't a Christian text in its legalistic interpretation.
I think he means Paul.
Interestingly, sodomy and usury are conceptually connected: sodomy makes what is naturally fruitful barren, while usury makes what is naturally barren fruitful. Thus Dante consigns to the same circle of Hell "both Sodom and Cahors" (a notorious den of usurers).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Hmmm. If true, a fact that somewhat undermines any reason for anyone to be bothered about what Christian texts say about, well, anything. We can do better than medieval Christian morality.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Not any - some of them fall under gomorrahy.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Am currently reading a novella where the Tibetans are funded by the han to fuck off on a big starship to another world and there is beef over who the real Dalai is cos the existing one died. So there.
Usury allows a society to live beyond its means by borrowing to augment its present standard of living and making it dependent on future economic growth, further cumulative change, in order to service its on going debt and standard of living.
Usury is therefore an agent of change, it is the means by which an economy develops from its traditional and surviving condition and is therefore inimical to all tradition, Man's innate survival instinct and the time honoured moral inhibitions which are a product of that imperative.
Usury improves the material condition of the present generation at the expense of the existential interests of future generations.
Usury is therefore an agent of change, it is the means by which an economy develops from its traditional and surviving condition and is therefore inimical to all tradition, Man's innate survival instinct and the time honoured moral inhibitions which are a product of that imperative.
Usury improves the material condition of the present generation at the expense of the existential interests of future generations.
Last edited:
andysays
Love and solidarity
You'd hope so, but having read this thread, I'm having serious doubts about whether phildwyer actually can.
Arguments about usary, with all their historical and religious baggage, are utterly irrelevent to genuinely progressive solutions to the problems of the 21st century world.
Best learn to spell it before trying to discuss it eh?
When we refuse to learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
When we refuse to learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
andysays
Love and solidarity
There is, of course, a considerable difference between learning from the past and attempting to use pre-modern concepts which have their roots in religious superstition in an attempt to explain or guide our behaviour in the modern world
Has human nature changed? If not, pre-modern concepts might still be a useful starting point.
FWIW I've long thought that polyandry, as practised in the Indian subcontinent at one time, made far more sense (in some ways) than polygamy. OTOH that's probably better saved for another thread.
FWIW I've long thought that polyandry, as practised in the Indian subcontinent at one time, made far more sense (in some ways) than polygamy. OTOH that's probably better saved for another thread.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
Probably right there:
Leviticus 20:13
“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
But the same went for adultery between a man and women. Incest too. There are loads of rules that Christians aren't restricted to by the old testament. E.g you couldn't be a Levite unless you had pure Jewish lineage it says in some places. Whereas Christianity is open to gentiles i.e non-jews. But then again we have in the New Testament saying:
Romans 1 : 26-27
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
I suppose the word 'natural' is the key. Nowadays homosexuality is understood to be perfectly 'natural'. Again I think this goes back to adultery as sin. 'Natural' might mean 'monogamous' or even 'loving'. Which would make the idea of the gay community not being allowed to marry contrary to Christianity.
Then you have the whole 'do not judge', 'salvation through belief in Jesus rather than acts' (which is another discussion), and the commandment to "love thy neighbour".
Which version/translation is that? Because one (possibly even the original text) only uses the word "abomination" twice; once for male-male sex and once for eating shellfish. Therefore, eating a prawn sandwich ought to cause no more and no less outcry than gay sex.
I'm no economist, but I'm prepared to believe that lending money at a profit allows businesses to operate and that businesses generate profit and this effectively creates value. I'm not about to be persuaded that this is a bad thing because of some biblical injunction. The people who wrote that didn't know about evolution and celestial mechanics either and it turns out the got quite a bit wrong because of what they didn't know. What I do object to is what happens to that value that is generated by the combination of effort and enterprise and the capital that is the manifestation of that work. The prevailing orthodoxy appears to be that wealth belongs only to a narrow group of interested stakeholders. Whereas, it belongs to us all.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
All the versions here:
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm
Used the 'New International Version' because it generally has the best most up to date interpration, not to diss the KJV obviously.