Interesting that a group who advocates taking 10 percent of their followers' income (titches) should be giving out financial advice.
However the congregations of credulous people who believe in puff-the-magic-skymonkey are also likely to be the sort who take out stupid loans and overspend on junk. So I see a 'marketing' correlation in groups.
What's that got to do with it? Profiteering is considered bad regardless of circumstances. Administration charges aren't (or shouldn't be) profiteering, hence I guess the advocation of non profit credit unions over commercial pay-day loan companies.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
So the government should never give out financial advice either? Interesting.
Last edited by kalniel; 25-07-2013 at 03:43 PM.
A Credit Union is an established method of low cost lending where members of a community can establish a mutual fund to cover short term loans. It was this process that lead to the establishment of mutual societies and subsequently Building Societies, which until they de-mutualised, were owned by the members.
I can find no reference to financial advice in this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23433955 which would require FSA regulation (although I'm sure Justin Wellby is well qualified to do so) Neither do I see any mention that lending will be to restricted to church members. There is a long history of mutually co-operative societies - the other well known one being the Co-Op.
But personally, I'm in favour of any community of people getting together to help each other, rather than falling into greater debt through the usurious practices of payday loan companies.
Ah, nothing like a sweeping generalisation with a smug sneer when there is little constructive comment to add
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Okay, but to me it looks like weasel wordings.
Person comes to Church or Church sponsored thing.
They borrow money.
They pay back money. Which is more than they borrowed.
How is that not forbidden by the bible?
Then again I suppose the whole Thou Shalt Not Kill thing is a bit hazy at times. Amazing as in Sunday school I was never told it had a little * next to it with a whole bunch of exemptions.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Why would that be forbidden by the bible? Just trying to understand which bit you are talking about.
Is it Luke 6:34-35?
The Christian Churches, along with Islam, forbids usury. Although I am reluctant to cite Wikipedia as authoritative, it defines usury as
...the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans. Depending on the local laws or social mores, a loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates. According to some jurisdictions and customs, simply charging any interest at all can be considered usury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
What is excessive is open to debate, but the rates payday loan companies charge compared to the base rate I would consider to be usurious. On the other hand, charging a fee or charging interest that is designed only to cover costs would not.
Credit Unions are covered by the 1979 Credit Union Act
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/34
and regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/P...gislation.aspx
Last edited by peterb; 28-07-2013 at 04:39 PM. Reason: Typo corrections
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Exodus 22:25
Luke as you say (nothing in return bit is my favourite part) But maybe till 38?
Deuteronomy 23:19
Proverbs 22:7 oh that one doesn't count, making them slaves is OK isn't it?
Leviticius 25:37
Psalm 15:5
Nehemiah 5:10
Ezekiel 22:12 well I suppose it depends what you mean by extort.
Okay I'm bored of my googling now. But I'd say in quite a few places.
Now please, find me the one that forbid the church to have a gay marriage?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Yup, for starters the Church isn't lending money to people, but mainly is not treating its advice or help to Credit Unions as a business (ie to make profit from).
Yup, Church still isn't lending money to people and expecting to get something in return for the act of doing so, and their advice to credit unions certainly isn't condemning I'd hope. Don't forget that the Church gives to the poor/needy, it does not expect a return on that aid, in line with that quote.Luke as you say (nothing in return bit is my favourite part) But maybe till 38?
OK, I don't think the Church is making loans to Isrealites hereDeuteronomy 23:19Or if you'll allow some interpretation, it seems to be saying that if you live in a community of shared provision then don't try and bring a trade system into it. Conversely if you're dealing with a trade system then trade is allowable.
Seems to be stating an observation about the world at the time, not an instruction.Proverbs 22:7 oh that one doesn't count, making them slaves is OK isn't it?
See same bit from Duet, but again, about profit.Leviticius 25:37
Yup, the church gives aid to the poor.Psalm 15:5
Again, yes, the church tries to follow this example and gives aid to the poor.Nehemiah 5:10
Same again, definitely not good to profiteer from the poor.Ezekiel 22:12
So let me ask once again, where does it forbid paying back more money than they borrowed if it's not profiteering? None of those quoted bits forbid it.
That's forbidden by UK law, not the Church (which has pissed off several church people). Were it allowed by UK law I think the church would look at it just as they're looking at other things. In the bible all the examples of marriage are between a husband and a wife I'm pretty sure. Don't know if there's anywhere forbidding otherwise however - let me do a better search later.Now please, find me the one that forbid the church to have a gay marriage?
At what point are they doing it, rather than endorsing it? I can't myself see how they aren't violating the spirit if they endorse anyone to do it.
Thou shalt not kill*
Strikes me to be the logic here. We hold this to be an immutable rule, unless we don't wish too. Sadly the bible wasn't written in something with an ENBF that specifies predicates precedence!
Ezekiel I finished with because I thought it did it best. The question is what is profiting? If one loan is able to make up for a default, that is a profit on that loan, even if the entity overall is flat.
Gay marrage was forbidden on church property at the request of religious groups. Now it's had royal ascent its legal elsewhere. This will be so damned funny in 50 years and hopefully will help end this institution by displaying the bigotry in a manner irreconcilable with views at that time. As the marriages on church premise are not descriessionary but forbidden. Rather funny own goal team intolerance have scored there.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
But a generalisation because it is true. Have some evidence to back it up. And it most certainly is marketing, in the same way religious schools and food aid in Africa are - tied to exposure to 'the message'.Ah, nothing like a sweeping generalisation with a smug sneer when there is little constructive comment to add
One of the main jobs of government is to forcibly take your money away from you and spend it. So no, I wouldn't take financial advice from the government.
Have you seen the deficit and the national debt? No, I don't think they should be giving financial advice.
The church, on the other hand, is loaded. Maybe they can provide guidance on tax avoidance.
Phage (26-07-2013)
Again, they are not endorsing anyone to profiteer. Quite the opposite - look at that list of passages, and consider how they apply to a commercial pay-day lender. Seems clear to me that the pay-day lender doesn't do so well, so what can the Church do about it? They could sit back and do nothing - something they were accused of doing during the financial crisis. They could petition for better regulation and caps on interest for pay-day lenders - oh, they did that and it achieved nothing. They could use what expertise they have in house to advise - they did that do with Welby being on the select committee. Now what can they do? How about helping support a more sustainable and fair financial system that directly addresses a need of the poor? That's what they're doing in their support of credit unions.
But please don't think they wouldn't be open to other ideas that you think would work better. Suggestions?
Again, which part of the not-profiteering rule do you think is being broken here?Strikes me to be the logic here. We hold this to be an immutable rule, unless we don't wish too.
Ah OK I think I understand where you're coming from now - your interpretation is that every single transaction the Church does, or helps, or gives advice to etc. must be at either a loss, or at best, cost. Otherwise it falls foul of what is meant by profit. Well you're welcome to your interpretation, but Christians generally believe there is a coherent reasoning behind advice or instruction given in the bible, and that ultimately, it would be in our, or the group it was aimed at's, benefit to take it on board. I would suggest that breaking it down into individual transactions for no good reason wouldn't be consistent with the things expressed in those verses and the contexts in which they are set, which is of the aim to help the poor, not to take advantage of them.Ezekiel I finished with because I thought it did it best. The question is what is profiting? If one loan is able to make up for a default, that is a profit on that loan, even if the entity overall is flat.
The premise is that pay-day loan companies at the moment are not helping the poor, and instead are taking advantage of them. The aim of supporting credit unions on the otherhand should provide competition and force pay-day loan companies to improve their service for the poor. The end result being that the poor are helped more than if the church had not taken this action. In such a thing, it appears to be entirely consistent with the bible passages.
I really don't understand how some people can be critical of this move - do most of you really think that pay-day companies should be left to carry on as they are?
Request of *some* perhaps. All the Anglican church bodies I know are fully supportive of gay marriage. But that is a topic for another thread.Gay marrage was forbidden on church property at the request of religious groups.
Though if you want hypocrisy, how about the Church indirectly investing in Wonga
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23459932
Not deliberately of course.. and investigations are under way to how it happened.
Its nothing new, the Church "invests" in weapons firms too, or at least did a few years ago, and was quite happy doing so.
Thats the trouble in a nutshell.
Do the likes of Wongas interest and/or fees excessively exceed costs and some profit?
I, personally, think some of the problem is that theyre required to provide an APR, for something that isnt repaid over more than a month, and so people just point at it and get hysterical "look look 5000%!!!"
Surely though, the church should be doing its job and directly supporting the poor and needy, rather than just assisting people to get into more, albeit possibly more manageable, debt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
