Dear Damon,
Please don't think I enjoy giving public rebukes. I truly do not, and I avoid doing so whenever possible. You have no idea how much I have had to restrain myself with you at this forum though the months.
You are so quick to give counsel half-cocked. This quickness to speak is advised against in scriipture, and gets you into trouble. The original question was addressed to me, but I did not answer immediately, because, although I knew what my first impressions were, I wanted to contemplate what the scriptures teach before I address an ethical issue. But you (true to form) had to leap-in to register your expert opinion, without thinking things through, and end up giving unbiblical counsel. Then, when your error is pointed out, you try with a desperation that is quite embarrassing to watch, to cover your tracks and justify your ill-conceived remarks with even more-embarrassing defenses! Will you ever admit to this? I have yet to see you do so.
You should not give people counsel if you are not capable of seeing the ethical disparity between unlike things. Such is your mistaking the law concerning the biblical "year of release" with modern bankruptcy laws. In the former, there is an agreement between the parties, at the time of the transaction, that this debt will be paid before the year of release, or not at all. It is entirely ethical for contracting parties to have such an agreement between them. However, when you borrow money from a creditor today, there is no such understanding and agreement between you that you will default on your promise to pay, if you find it inconvenient to keep your word. As I recall from some of your other posts, you think that lying is sometimes justifiable, so I guess this ethic of defaulting on a promise to pay is a mere extension of your general beliefs about integrity.
The only thing I can imagine being equivalent to the "year of release" today would be if you borrow from a Christian brother, who, according to the commands of Christ, is more than willing to forgive the debt if it can't be repaid (Luke 6:35). This is a situation similar to that of the Old Testament, in that both parties go into it knowing and agreeing to the possibility that the debt will have to be forgiven. However, even if I borrowed from a brother, I would feel morally bound to repay him, even if he was willing graciously to take the hit...just as my knowing that my brother would be willing to turn the other cheek does not give me permission to strike him.
Homer's points about how many lending institutions have unethical and oppressive practices makes my case even stronger. Why borrow from them? They exist to rip you off. However, their immorality does not give Christians permission to respond to them immorally. Borrowing, with the agreement to repay, and then not repaying, is immoral. It is called cheating. If you intend to cheat someone by borrowing and not repaying, I suggest you borrow from someone who loves you more than they love their money.
I am greatly concerned about your moral judgment in this matter. It would be most charitable for me to assume that you do not realize how all of your points add up, but I fear that you might. Here is what I hear you suggesting:
1. If you want something you can't afford, it is okay to go into debt to obtain it (you clearly believe this, since your whole attack on my position has been your objection to my counsel to "live within your means");
2. If you have incurred debt, and cannot pay, it is all right to still live as luxuriously as you please, without repayment of the debt. (This is unmistakably implied by your repeated defense of owning expensive, or, as your say, "extravagant" things. There could be no reason for you to make this desperate defense of extravagance, in the context of the present discussion, other than your reacting to my advising someone to reduce their standard of living in order to pay-off overwhelming debt. The only alternative to my suggestion--and therefore what you must be suggesting-- is to maintain the standard of living they prefer, and default on the debt);
3. If you find it too undesirable to live within your means, it is not unethical to live beyond your means, and then to file bankruptcy to escape your ethical obligations. Even though this move was never agreed upon between you and your creditor, it is the moral equivalence of receiving forgiveness that was agreed to previously by both parties (!!!???);
4. Thus a court of law (from which you borrowed nothing) can forgive you a debt to someone else from whom you borrowed it, placing the human courts' decisions above those of God, who said "You shall not steal."
I already anticipate your reaction to my pointing out your error. I have seen it on other occasions when I have had to point out the unethical nature of counsel you have given at this forum. Don't complain about me taking your evil counsel to task--it is my responsibility. You should rather thank me for not simply deleting your posts when they advocate wrongdoing.
I don't see how any point you have made in this discussion in any way alters the obligation for a person to "live within his means." You seem to have objected violently to my advocacy of this policy. This expression simply means that you don't spend more money than you make--that is "living within your means." It is common sense, good economic policy, and biblically ethical. You have given no reason why you think this to be anything other than a right way of living. You have only objected to my counseling it.
How well I know that some people are poor. (Let me "project" little): No person in America has had less guaranteed income than have I, since I have no guaranteed income at all, and have lived in what most people would call "poverty" most of my adult life. This is no complaint. We have received all that we need, as the Word of God promises shall be true of all people who trust Him.
God promises to provide all of His children's needs (not just mine), but there are times when our wrong behavior may cause Him to withhold blessing. At those times, we should repent and change our behavior. Instead, we sometimes do an end-run around God, maintaining our wrong behavior, and borrowing the money God has not chosen to provide.
Though we are not outright forbidden to borrow (and I do not criticize any who borrow, and who then repay what they borrowed), yet the need to borrow suggests either that we are not content to live at the standard of living for which God chooses to provide, or else that God is withholding provisions as a chastisement in order to encourage a change in behavior. I suppose a third alternative is that God wants to challenge the Body of Christ to care for the poor, and you get to be the poor person by which He tests the rest of us...but it is not an enviable role to be in.
Many years ago, I foolishly borrowed money that I really didn't need (I just thought I needed it, and I was impatient with God's provision). This was a huge mistake, and I found myself in debt for several years paying it off...not because the debt was so large, but because my income was so meager. I never considered bankruptcy, because I have integrity, and I made small payments, seemingly forever, until I had paid all that I owed.
I have been out of debt for many years now, never to return there. This decision has meant being content with a car that is twenty-years-old, and living in a one-room studio apartment, with no frills. It is not out of insensitivity to the plight of the poor, but out of compassion for the poor that I would urge them to live within their means. The only other option is for them to live in debt, which I would spare anybody. Being penniless (which I have been many times, without any clue as to where the next money would come from) is far more desirable, more satisfying, and more liberating than being in debt.
For the record, I never have said that borrowing is immoral or sinful--only unnecessary and risky. I did say, and still affirm, however, that a man already over his head in debt must learn to live within his means (i.e., not incur further debt). This is all I advocated, and I still have not heard, Damon, what you think is wrong with this counsel.
************************************
Your explanation of the woman of Bethany and her ointment made no sense at all in the context of this discussion. Your argument follows three steps to a bizarre and irrelevant conclusion. You wrote:
1. "... for this woman, having the ointment in the first place was an extravagant luxury!"
How do we know this? You and I may have different ideas of the meaning of the word "extravagance." In my thinking, "extravagance" has to do with unnecessary spending--not simply having or owning something of value. For all we know, this vial of expensive ointment may have been the form in which this woman had receieved (and kept) an inheritance from her parents. It is never suggested that she purchased it, or, if she did, that she went into debt for it. If you have money in the bank, or gold in a safe-deposit box, is anyone entitled to tell you that this is an "extravangance" on your part? Now, if Mary of Bethany owed someone money, and wasn't paying, then keeping such a store of wealth might not be justifiable, but we have no reason to believe such a scenario existed.
2. "And yet obviously it wasn't a sin for her to have perhaps saved up her money to buy it."
No one here has indicated that anyone sins when they save-up money to buy expensive things. Perhaps you are like many Americans who don't know the difference between saving-up to buy something and buying the same thing on credit. In case it is not clear, the first suggests that you don't buy something until you can pay for it. That is called "living within your means." This is precisely what I am advocating, and there is no evidence this woman was doing otherwise. Of course, there is no reason to believe that this woman saved-up to get this ointment anyway, but if she did, it is irrelevant to the point you are attempting to refute.
3. "...So in our own lives, it's not wrong to spend a lot of hard-earned money on an extravagant luxury because we desire it."
I would never accuse anyone of sinning if they spent their "hard-earned" money on something they feel they should buy (what business is it of mine what they do with their money?). My counsel here has been against using "un-earned" money to buy unnecessary things. "Hard-earned" money is in your hands and at your disposal. "Un-earned" money is a pipe-dream, and is not available to spend. Counting on money that has not yet been earned is called "boasting in your arrogance" and "is evil" (James 4:13-15).
This last comment of yours reveals the degree to which your objection to my counsel is merely a "projection" arising from your own emotional concern that I might judge you (or someone else) for owning nice things. No one has ever found me to judge them for their standard of living--though I have found many affluent people who felt unnecessarily guilty in my presence, even though I had no inclination to judge them--it must have been their own conscience bothering them that made them so defensive about their wealth. It was not I.
You have made the absurd leap in your logic to assuming (from my advocating no debt) that I would condemn ownership of things of value. This logical leap apparently presupposes the necessity of going into debt to have nice things, or else it is so wildly beyond relevance to anything anyone in this thread has brought up as to raise questions about whether you are thinking about our topic at all.
If you have something relevant and/or biblical to say on this topic, say-on. Ortherwise, I do not have time for this argument. I considered correcting you in a private email, rather than before all, but your comments have been made before all, and I believe an errant teacher's correction should be as public as is the forum in which his teaching was diseminated.
Now YOU be careful what you say.
Christians Declaring Bankruptcy
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:41 am, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Homer,
You wanted our thoughts on a few points you raised. I'll offer mine.
You wrote:
"Jesus said '...do not refuse him who would borrow from you.' Purchasing a necessity on credit can not be inherently sinful or Jesus would have us to help someone to stumble."
Right.
You wrote:
"It is not a sin to fail to pay what you borrow if you are unable to pay. If it was, a person would sin when they had no possibility of doing otherwise."
If there is a sin in such a case, it have may been in the borrowing of money without the certainty of being able to repay. Obviously, if the loan had been absolutely unavoidable for the purpose of providing necessities for the family (and if this necessity had not been brought on by previous mismanagement of income), and an absolutely unforeseen disaster (like a paralyzing disability) occurs, making it literally impossible to make payments, of any amount, on the debt, there could be no sin in this situation. The sin would be in the heartlessness of a lender who would not forgive a debt under such extenuating circumstances. This is why I said, if you must borrow, you are better off borrowing from someone who loves you more than they love their money. I would think that very few modern bankruptcies are of the type I described, and such cases must be very rare, if David could say, "I have been young, and now am old; yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread."
You wrote:
"Credit card companies act immorally. They respond to the inability of the poor to pay by increasing the interest rate enormously and adding large late penalties to the debt. The do this legally, its in the fine print, and the unpaid balance increases by leaps and bounds."
All the better reason to avoid all dealings with these corrupt institutions!
You wrote:
"Pride and a desire for independance and privacy can cause unnecessary borrowing from an institution. A person might be unwilling to ask for personal help from individuals or their congregation which might bring some oversight/scrutiny of the person's spending. An opportunity for some Godly counsel is lost."
That is a good insight.
You wanted our thoughts on a few points you raised. I'll offer mine.
You wrote:
"Jesus said '...do not refuse him who would borrow from you.' Purchasing a necessity on credit can not be inherently sinful or Jesus would have us to help someone to stumble."
Right.
You wrote:
"It is not a sin to fail to pay what you borrow if you are unable to pay. If it was, a person would sin when they had no possibility of doing otherwise."
If there is a sin in such a case, it have may been in the borrowing of money without the certainty of being able to repay. Obviously, if the loan had been absolutely unavoidable for the purpose of providing necessities for the family (and if this necessity had not been brought on by previous mismanagement of income), and an absolutely unforeseen disaster (like a paralyzing disability) occurs, making it literally impossible to make payments, of any amount, on the debt, there could be no sin in this situation. The sin would be in the heartlessness of a lender who would not forgive a debt under such extenuating circumstances. This is why I said, if you must borrow, you are better off borrowing from someone who loves you more than they love their money. I would think that very few modern bankruptcies are of the type I described, and such cases must be very rare, if David could say, "I have been young, and now am old; yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread."
You wrote:
"Credit card companies act immorally. They respond to the inability of the poor to pay by increasing the interest rate enormously and adding large late penalties to the debt. The do this legally, its in the fine print, and the unpaid balance increases by leaps and bounds."
All the better reason to avoid all dealings with these corrupt institutions!
You wrote:
"Pride and a desire for independance and privacy can cause unnecessary borrowing from an institution. A person might be unwilling to ask for personal help from individuals or their congregation which might bring some oversight/scrutiny of the person's spending. An opportunity for some Godly counsel is lost."
That is a good insight.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
What desperation? I never changed my story, from beginning to end. Why are you accusing me of this?Steve wrote:...But you (true to form) had to leap-in to register your expert opinion, without thinking things through, and end up giving unbiblical counsel. Then, when your error is pointed out, you try with a desperation that is quite embarrassing to watch, to cover your tracks and justify your ill-conceived remarks with even more-embarrassing defenses! Will you ever admit to this? I have yet to see you do so.
I've said this twice before and I'll say it again. They are not equivalent! Why do you continually accuse me of making them so, when I've explicitly said that they're not!?Steve wrote:You should not give people counsel if you are not capable of seeing the ethical disparity between unlike things. Such is your mistaking the law concerning the biblical "year of release" with modern bankruptcy laws.
What I said was that they exist for the same reason. I didn't say that they are in any way equivalent. We simply don't live in the perfect, completely biblically-based society. We just have to do the best we can in the land we live in.
Explain what you mean by "inconvenient" as I think your view of it and my view of it are markedly different.Steve wrote:However, when you borrow money from a creditor today, there is no such understanding and agreement between you that you will default on your promise to pay, if you find it inconvenient to keep your word. As I recall from some of your other posts, you think that lying is sometimes justifiable, so I guess this ethic of defaulting on a promise to pay is a mere extension of your general beliefs about integrity.
As in any society, the laws of the land can be abused, and have been abused by those with no desire to overcome where they fall short. Such was the case even in Israel. However, the bankruptcy laws exist to provide a means of relief to people who cannot pay off their debts in an expeditious fashion, without undue hardship. If you wish to quibble over what constitutes an expeditious fashion and undue hardship, feel free...but take up your argument in a secular setting, because I really don't want to waste my time on it.
Steve, I can see that we're not going to agree on this issue. You consider my advice to be unbiblical and ill-thought-out, whereas I do not. You have a right to your opinion, just as I have a right to mine, but I don't believe that you've justified it, biblically or secularly.
I agree, but that's not where my issue lies. I'll try to explain it as best I can, but I'd really rather not argue about it because I don't appreciate the unjustified flinging of accusations left and right.Steve wrote:Homer's points about how many lending institutions have unethical and oppressive practices makes my case even stronger. Why borrow from them? They exist to rip you off. However, their immorality does not give Christians permission to respond to them immorally.
The Pharisees asked Jesus whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. In the culture of the times, paying taxes was considered a form of worship, and some of the Jews considered paying taxes to be a form of idolatry. Jesus' response? Pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar - the taxes - and render to God what belongs to God - the worship. In other words, seek to live as righteously as possible, but don't seek to totally upset the culture one lives in in order to be 'righteous' because that's not what God wants.
If you honestly feel that the bankruptcy laws aren't appropriate for 'righteous' Christians to take advantage of, then you have a responsibility to campaign for "laws of release" equivalent to the OT laws. If you don't do that, then you're technically just as guilty as the Pharisees of laying undue burdens upon the poor without being concerned enough to do something about them.
I didn't say that. To explain where I'm coming from, I myself have had medical expenses which I couldn't immediately afford. I had a heart operation several years ago when the doctor told me that I couldn't put it off any longer without putting my health at great risk. At the time, I couldn't afford to pay $3000 (my part of the bill) to get the operation, so I went into debt. Then I got laid off from work. I ended up going into bankruptcy to keep from losing my car, so that I would be able to keep the low-paying job I had at the time and be able to drive around to find a better one as soon as I could. I filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy instead of chapter 7, because I still believed that I should pay as much as I was able to of my original debts, though.Steve wrote:1. If you want something you can't afford, it is okay to go into debt to obtain it (you clearly believe this, since your whole attack on my position has been your objection to my counsel to "live within your means");
To summarize, I believe in increasing one's means instead of simply being content to live within one's means, especially if one runs into financial difficulties like losing a job or a major source of income. I've said this three times, and each time you've totally ignored it.
You misunderstand me. Let's say that a person has a certain standard of living but then loses his job. He still has a small income - say from investments - but can't maintain his current standard of living based on that income. My advice? Cope with his current situation by reducing expenses. If that's not enough, consider selling certain assets that he can do without. If that's not enough (and I'm summarizing for brevity's sake), file for bankruptcy. But in all cases, seek to increase his income in order to meet his needs, rather than sacrificing everything simply for "necessity". Your counsel seems to consistently involve entropying into spending the least amount possible to get by, and that's what I strongly disagree with. There's no reason that we can't prosper financially, but I do agree that we shouldn't just file for bankruptcy because it's merely convenient to do so.Steve wrote:2. If you have incurred debt, and cannot pay, it is all right to still live as luxuriously as you please, without repayment of the debt. (This is unmistakably implied by your repeated defense of owning expensive, or, as your say, "extravagant" things. There could be no reason for you to make this desperate defense of extravagance, in the context of the present discussion, other than your reacting to my advising someone to reduce their standard of living in order to pay-off overwhelming debt. The only alternative to my suggestion--and therefore what you must be suggesting-- is to maintain the standard of living they prefer, and default on the debt);
In my own personal situation, I've had to deal with finding a new job, a new place to live, and coping with a car that was falling apart while still in bankruptcy, all while trying to be of help to a friend of mine who has been going through some very difficult times emotionally. I simply needed more income than I had, and I had to get creative in order to make it happen.
If I were to have taken your advice, I would be living in someone's laundry room right now, paying $100 a month in rent and utilities because "that's what I could afford", getting rides to and from a minimum-wage job all while paying an obscene amount of money on past debts. I'd be in that situation for many, many years to come, because I simply wouldn't have the financial availability to bail myself out of it. And most importantly, I'd have too much to deal with to be of any help - emotional, time-wise or in any other way - to my friend.
No, thank you.
That's because it isn't the whole picture, and shouldn't be. I agree with living within one's means, but I also strongly believe in increasing one's means. You keep leaving that part out.Steve wrote:I don't see how any point you have made in this discussion in any way alters the obligation for a person to "live within his means." You seem to have objected violently to my advocacy of this policy. This expression simply means that you don't spend more money than you make--that is "living within your means." It is common sense, good economic policy, and biblically ethical. You have given no reason why you think this to be anything other than a right way of living. You have only objected to my counseling it.
Yes, I've read about your circumstances on your web site. While I respect your choice of lifestyle - look at Mother Teresa, after all - I wouldn't live it myself. I strongly believe that if I'm poor and downtrodden, I can be of little help to others, so I'd rather make whatever money I can in order to be a blessing to others.Steve wrote:How well I know that some people are poor.
And then there's the widow who cast her last two mites into the Temple treasury, akin to the poor who give all that they can to help others. I've been in that situation, too. But there came a time for me when I refused to be poor any more. God made a biblical provision for not putting an undue burden of debt upon the poor, and since we don't have those same biblical laws in operation today I'm simply doing the best I can. I prayed about what I should do before I filed for bankruptcy and consulted with God-fearing friends. I'm sure you've heard people talking about having "peace" about making a certain decision, right? Well, I can honestly say that God gave me peace about filing for bankruptcy.Steve wrote:Though we are not outright forbidden to borrow (and I do not criticize any who borrow, and who then repay what they borrowed), yet the need to borrow suggests either that we are not content to live at the standard of living for which God chooses to provide, or else that God is withholding provisions as a chastisement in order to encourage a change in behavior. I suppose a third alternative is that God wants to challenge the Body of Christ to care for the poor, and you get to be the poor person by which He tests the rest of us...but it is not an enviable role to be in.
I respect your decision and your integrity. However, my situation has been somewhat different. Also, Also, while you were in a difficult financial situation in regards to your debt, it sounded to me like Homer's friend was in an untenable financial situation. That's why my counsel to him was to file for bankruptcy.Steve wrote:Many years ago, I foolishly borrowed money that I really didn't need (I just thought I needed it, and I was impatient with God's provision). This was a huge mistake, and I found myself in debt for several years paying it off...not because the debt was so large, but because my income was so meager. I never considered bankruptcy, because I have integrity, and I made small payments, seemingly forever, until I had paid all that I owed.
I'm glad that your income allows you to have these things. The car that I had before had one side bashed in, and was having serious mechanical problems. I not only had to be concerned with my own safety in that car, but with the safety of a ten year-old child whom I was helping to take care of. I needed safe and reliable transportation right away, and there was no way to make it happen without going into debt once again. Also, the laundry room I spoke of before was where I lived for a short while, believe it or not. The place had dust (and I was extremely allergic to dust), rats, and noise. It was simply untenable and unacceptable, so I had to spend more money in order to get a better place to live. I had to increase my income in order to do so, and that's what I've been saying over and over again the whole time.Steve wrote:I have been out of debt for many years now, never to return there. This decision has meant being content with a car that is twenty-years-old, and living in a one-room studio apartment, with no frills.
I'm sorry that it didn't make sense, but I was actually trying to deal with a related issue: your focus seems to be on entropying into spending the least amount of money possible to get by in life. If that's what we as Christians should do, what was this woman doing with this expensive jar of ointment? Whether it was an heirloom or a purchased possession, why not just sell it and make use of the money? And what was she doing 'wasting' it by anointing Jesus' feet?Steve wrote:Your explanation of the woman of Bethany and her ointment made no sense at all in the context of this discussion.
My point is, it's not wrong to seek to increase our income just to make our lives more "luxurious", if you will - by having expensive items such as this jar of ointment, for instance.
Maybe you're not judging my standard of living, but I've been around quite a few people who were poor and who were judgmental of anyone who desired a higher standard of living. I honestly believed that you were contending for entropying into the lowest common denominator. I'm still not sure if there's not at least some element of that in your beliefs.Steve wrote:No one has ever found me to judge them for their standard of living--though I have found many affluent people who felt unnecessarily guilty in my presence, even though I had no inclination to judge them--it must have been their own conscience bothering them that made them so defensive about their wealth. It was not I.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Hi Steve,
I don't think declaring oneself a bankrupt necessarily removes the legal obligation to repay creditors. See below for an overview of bankruptcy laws in US (I got this from a Google search).
Perhaps some of the differences in this particular discussion between you and Damon has arisen because of the different aspects of bankruptcy laws.
Regards,
Benjamin Ho
=========
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/bankruptcy.html
Bankruptcy law provides for the development of a plan that allows a debtor, who is unable to pay his creditors, to resolve his debts through the division of his assets among his creditors. This supervised division also allows the interests of all creditors to be treated with some measure of equality. Certain bankruptcy proceedings allow a debtor to stay in business and use revenue generated to resolve his or her debts. An additional purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow certain debtors to free themselves (to be discharged) of the financial obligations they have accumulated, after their assets are distributed, even if their debts have not been paid in full.
Bankruptcy law is federal statutory law contained in Title 11 of the United States Code. Congress passed the Bankruptcy Code under its Constitutional grant of authority to "establish. . . uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcy throughout the United States." See U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8. States may not regulate bankruptcy though they may pass laws that govern other aspects of the debtor-creditor relationship. See Debtor-Creditor. A number of sections of Title 11 incorporate the debtor-creditor law of the individual states.
Bankruptcy proceedings are supervised by and litigated in the United States Bankruptcy Courts. These courts are a part of the District Courts of The United States. The United States Trustees were established by Congress to handle many of the supervisory and administrative duties of bankruptcy proceedings. Proceedings in bankruptcy courts are governed by the Bankruptcy Rules which were promulgated by the Supreme Court under the authority of Congress.
There are two basic types of Bankruptcy proceedings. A filing under Chapter 7 is called liquidation. It is the most common type of bankruptcy proceeding. Liquidation involves the appointment of a trustee who collects the non-exempt property of the debtor, sells it and distributes the proceeds to the creditors. Bankruptcy proceedings under Chapters 11, 12, and 13 involves the rehabilitation of the debtor to allow him or her to use future earnings to pay off creditors. Under Chapter 7, 12, 13, and some 11 proceedings, a trustee is appointed to supervise the assets of the debtor. A bankruptcy proceeding can either be entered into voluntarily by a debtor or initiated by creditors. After a bankruptcy proceeding is filed, creditors, for the most part, may not seek to collect their debts outside of the proceeding. The debtor is not allowed to transfer property that has been declared part of the estate subject to proceedings. Furthermore, certain pre-proceeding transfers of property, secured interests, and liens may be delayed or invalidated. Various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code also establish the priority of creditors' interests.
I don't think declaring oneself a bankrupt necessarily removes the legal obligation to repay creditors. See below for an overview of bankruptcy laws in US (I got this from a Google search).
Perhaps some of the differences in this particular discussion between you and Damon has arisen because of the different aspects of bankruptcy laws.
Regards,
Benjamin Ho
=========
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/bankruptcy.html
Bankruptcy law provides for the development of a plan that allows a debtor, who is unable to pay his creditors, to resolve his debts through the division of his assets among his creditors. This supervised division also allows the interests of all creditors to be treated with some measure of equality. Certain bankruptcy proceedings allow a debtor to stay in business and use revenue generated to resolve his or her debts. An additional purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow certain debtors to free themselves (to be discharged) of the financial obligations they have accumulated, after their assets are distributed, even if their debts have not been paid in full.
Bankruptcy law is federal statutory law contained in Title 11 of the United States Code. Congress passed the Bankruptcy Code under its Constitutional grant of authority to "establish. . . uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcy throughout the United States." See U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8. States may not regulate bankruptcy though they may pass laws that govern other aspects of the debtor-creditor relationship. See Debtor-Creditor. A number of sections of Title 11 incorporate the debtor-creditor law of the individual states.
Bankruptcy proceedings are supervised by and litigated in the United States Bankruptcy Courts. These courts are a part of the District Courts of The United States. The United States Trustees were established by Congress to handle many of the supervisory and administrative duties of bankruptcy proceedings. Proceedings in bankruptcy courts are governed by the Bankruptcy Rules which were promulgated by the Supreme Court under the authority of Congress.
There are two basic types of Bankruptcy proceedings. A filing under Chapter 7 is called liquidation. It is the most common type of bankruptcy proceeding. Liquidation involves the appointment of a trustee who collects the non-exempt property of the debtor, sells it and distributes the proceeds to the creditors. Bankruptcy proceedings under Chapters 11, 12, and 13 involves the rehabilitation of the debtor to allow him or her to use future earnings to pay off creditors. Under Chapter 7, 12, 13, and some 11 proceedings, a trustee is appointed to supervise the assets of the debtor. A bankruptcy proceeding can either be entered into voluntarily by a debtor or initiated by creditors. After a bankruptcy proceeding is filed, creditors, for the most part, may not seek to collect their debts outside of the proceeding. The debtor is not allowed to transfer property that has been declared part of the estate subject to proceedings. Furthermore, certain pre-proceeding transfers of property, secured interests, and liens may be delayed or invalidated. Various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code also establish the priority of creditors' interests.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Steve,
I've discovered an alternative to bankruptcy that may be practical and moral. It is called "Debt Workout". Under this approach the person would negotiate a reduced lump sum payoff of all debt.
The credit card companies have access to your credit report and know if you are making payments to any of your other debt holders. If you are not, they realize bankruptcy is likely and are willing to negotiate forgiveness of part of the debt. They will often accept 30 - 40 percent.
You must be a legitimate candidate for bankruptcy for this to be an option.
The person could then take whatever they were able and, with assistance from brothers and sisters in Christ for the rest, pay the debt off at once. "Bear one another's burdens".
I'd like to know if you see any moral problem with this.
Yours in Christ, Homer
I've discovered an alternative to bankruptcy that may be practical and moral. It is called "Debt Workout". Under this approach the person would negotiate a reduced lump sum payoff of all debt.
The credit card companies have access to your credit report and know if you are making payments to any of your other debt holders. If you are not, they realize bankruptcy is likely and are willing to negotiate forgiveness of part of the debt. They will often accept 30 - 40 percent.
You must be a legitimate candidate for bankruptcy for this to be an option.
The person could then take whatever they were able and, with assistance from brothers and sisters in Christ for the rest, pay the debt off at once. "Bear one another's burdens".
I'd like to know if you see any moral problem with this.
Yours in Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Hi Steve, et al,
The person in debt just received an unsolicited letter from one of the credit card companies offering to settle the debt for 40 percent of the total owed. Interesting, I didn't know they would be so forgiving.
Homer
The person in debt just received an unsolicited letter from one of the credit card companies offering to settle the debt for 40 percent of the total owed. Interesting, I didn't know they would be so forgiving.
Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_conceptualizer
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:54 am
- Location: Maple Ridge
it is more complicated than this and less so too.
I am going to have to go with Steve on this one. Not that it is a vote, not because it makes me rightous, it doesn't.
Bankruptcy is a choice made by people in this world about things that go on in this world. Read Luke 12, it seems clear enough what Christ cares for the things of this world. Now as for the people of this world that is another matter, of those Christ wants all.
I face debt when I quit my job, just as Steve says poor financial planning can be a bummer. I worked in the banks I worked with stock bonds options and commodities, nothing is safe from exploitation in that world. Especially not a soul. Now whether we allow ourselves to be exploited or not is another matter. I can not remember a time in my life when I did not know about God. I just haven't always listened to what I am told.
Or as my nine year old said a few week ago I am listening, I am just not obeying. Anyway, The creditors started phoning, and I was honest with them, and they kept phoning, and I told them what I was doing, and not doing. You see I left the banks because I could not do that work anymore. I had to leave, or jump in front of a bus, I left.
I can not go back to that work. At first the phone calls were fine, my creditor have a right to be informed; no where in the contract was there a claus saying I could default. So I told them the truth, I had lucked into the job with no education, I didn't have prospects for training in any other fields at that time, but that sooner or later, I would get back to work, and I would pay them.
I guess it was the sooner or later part that got them. Then were phoning to warn me that they would take me to court and those cost would be added to my bill. I told them I was on social assistance, I had children that I would feed first, and that at this time there was no money for them; when I get back to work it is my intention to pay this bill.
I know there job; I explain to them what options they really had, because I really did intend to pay the bill. I still owe some today, and I haven't forgotten about it. I am still using the clothes washer and dryer; I needed them, I say, but they are nothing. I told them one and all, if any filed with the courts, then I would proceed with bankruptcy.
When I recieved the notice of rite, I filed for bankruptcy. The same courts, made the same decisions they would have if I had appear for the rite, all I did is zip a few lawyers out of a fat fee. I had to pay a percentage on the total for one year. They got about ten percent. I know how much I still owe, but I will not give it to them. I delt in good faith and they did not, I will donate that money, if and when I get it. In payments as I must. But it is not for them, they got what they wanted from me, a resolution.
Bankruptcy comes with penalties, in most cases. In most cases, people ingore these with no visable consequences, all the time. The banks help them, but that's another story. I choose not to.
The last option Homer suggested, is the best of the bunch, and if this is a renegotioation of the contract is in good faith, I think it satisfies ethics in the best houses. Because it considers a re-adjustment of circumstance, a reality of life. I knew about this option but did not breach it, for pride sake.
It seems a person can eat away the whole of a lifes foundations just by following their pride. I have known about God forever, in a limited sense, but I have not walked with him. I am afraid, always have been.
I have been to lots of different churches, all through my childhood. You might say tasting the denominations was part of my early education. Everybody has a spin, but there is lots of common ground too. I left the brokerage to all outside appearances as if on a whim, I lied to the people at work when I said, I had been working on plans for my own business. I had no clue what I was doing. All I could tell my family is I had to leave that job, I couldn't do it anymore.
I thought I couldn't tell them that I could no longer participate in the lying and cheating and stealing that I was so good at, and instead go back to nothing. There was nothing left. Turns out I have far too much interest and understanding about the consequences of Cesar on people everywhere.
When people lie to me, I usually know, I can usually figure out why. People don't lie for grand reasons, they tell little lies everyday, and it hurts them, and they don't know what or why, but little by little, they feel the pain. I can not stand to see it, not like that, not that close.
Bankruptcy is a creation of 'modern man', if you knew banking law, and some basic economics you would recognize it as just another cog in among some other cogs. They are designed to extract money, in a more protracted way, using other agencies. Who cares if you are bankrupt here on earth, pay your debts, who can afford to be bankrupt in heaven?
I know some of the consequences required to honor debt. I have been alone with myself for many years, I am alone with my three children now. It is harder now, I have not asked anyones help. I accept help when it is freely given. I make sure about my debts to people now. I see how freely trust and a person's word are flung into the wind, on a hope and good intentions.
Jesus doesn't care if you make more, why should you, it is not your money or lack thereof Jesus wants. I am a sinner and I know my sins. I pray for forgiveness, though I would judge myself guilty. Thankfully, I will not be the judge, and it not justice I will be asking for; I am a sinner. I carry debt, and if I can't pay it off, unlike houses and land and cars and TVs and computers, I think I will take the debt with me. (this is not like karma - this is a promise broken, and a debt unpaid nothing grand just another lie.)
If one thinks of their creditor as Christ, then the idea of bankruptcy becomes bad at best, for what gets the credit, but your own word. Your signature, whatever, a person gives; their word, they make a promise, and then they keep it or the don't. I feel like I renegotiated the contract but have outstanding unpaid debt, the money sure wasn't mine, and it's still not. That is the point of unpaid debt, I still have the benefit.
My reason for assuming I still have debt is that I may only think I renegotiated, I have been wrong before. Far easier to pay it sooner than later if at all possible. It is so easy to talk the talk, it is hard to walk the walk, it is so hard. Paul says it would be good for men to be like him; but, he understood we all have our own life path to walk.
Paul has always been a favorite of mine, because he's a man(human). Few things give me faith in the bible as the conversion of Saul. After his wake up call; one is left with two possible outcomes: one; Paul's whole life from that moment forward was a complete breach of faith and a lie, or two; Paul talked the talk, he took a stand, and made it clear where it was he was standing, and boy oh boy did he walk the walk, and thus the conversion was a real thing.
A knock on the head, I can do probability math. Generally such a change in personality is accompanied by a seriously foreshorten lifespan. Now the stuff Paul was talking, that should have met him up with someone just like him, only not converted, and accompanied by a smaller more statistically normal lifespan. He must have had a good doctor.
.
I don't read the bible all the time, I read everything I can, I go to the next book. It is just one of the very few I return to. I have been using computers since the early eighties, yet these are my first posts. I logged and thought to post, and logged out again, but I had to come back here, because this is personal too.
How do we communicate with each other, with words, spoken or written, maybe somewhat with picture and sign, but the core of communication is words. If one of the words you use to decieve others is your name, oh brother. That is why we must not lie, that is why we must pay our bills. Render unto Cesar, If you've given him your name, you should do all you can to get it back soonest! I think a time will come when that word is everything or nothing.
Renegotiate in good faith - great option, not pay your bill, bad plan. We silly humans. This thread is like just another minute in the bank, which is why I don't attend church. It's not our fault, we lie to ourselves and to each other. We don't lie by telling lies, we lie by making complex what is simple. This happens as a matter of course, when folks get together, meaning well.
It is more distrubing when they don't mean well at all. It hurts more when everyone means well. Bankruptcy is not forgiveness, and forgiveness is not forgiven, if you make a promise, you give yourself to that promise, when you give yourself to things of this earth and don't reclaim yourself. I am not sure. It is a question I have of myself.
The first part, Bankruptcy is not forgiveness, in the eyes of the court, it is a discharge, and there are legal consequences, that is true in the United States as well. The rest is quoted in scripture above. I can tell you that good intentions and well meaning can subjugate the truth to the relem of second fiddle.
Some truths like my belief in Paul's conversion, and therefore his words, it is the sheer magnitude of what I have to believe, in order to ignore it. It is not given, it is not carved in stone, nor written on paper. Nothing of Paul, or his good doctor, remain. Instead we have collaboration, an agreement from other later sources.
Paul the artist, wrote on something far grander, and surer than any single source. He wrote his life's journey into history. That is a nutshell of my own rational for belief. Historians can be quoted as saying travel was common back then, but you know what; that is not how it was. Common sense, and a few thought about the very basic necessities of life, should tell any thinking person why.
Those tiny little things, like food, water, shelter, children, and the things, they get in the way of travel, oh yeah they do. But folks are still saying it out loud like it makes sense. Knowing that that is true, it follows travel then is as travel now, is enjoyed by relatively few usually rich if they are getting around. I've walked a few miles in my life, but I didn't say things that upset people everywhere I walked.
Oh he got a few beating, but nothing like what he would have done. I would be thankful too. I would also want to keep my mouth shut. Paul had no good reason to do this, and it wasn't to his benefit, but it was to ours. He tells us it is to the glory of God he does his work; I believe him. Because no way he was getting paid enough here on earth.
But now, if Paul thought he had debt to pay in this world, he might work really hard to clear his name. I believe that too. After the conversion, Paul worked for God, by preaching the words of his messenger, and our saviour, Jesus, nobody else. I don't know what else a man can do, to be right with Christ, but Paul gets my vote. Not that it counts. His journey was some show.
I guess like bankruptcy the truth is never that simple after all. In light of the conversion I feel that the walk and the talk are testament to what is in a name. It is order or chaos, if words mean nothing, why use them?
Sincerely,
Steven Maurice
Bankruptcy is a choice made by people in this world about things that go on in this world. Read Luke 12, it seems clear enough what Christ cares for the things of this world. Now as for the people of this world that is another matter, of those Christ wants all.
I face debt when I quit my job, just as Steve says poor financial planning can be a bummer. I worked in the banks I worked with stock bonds options and commodities, nothing is safe from exploitation in that world. Especially not a soul. Now whether we allow ourselves to be exploited or not is another matter. I can not remember a time in my life when I did not know about God. I just haven't always listened to what I am told.
Or as my nine year old said a few week ago I am listening, I am just not obeying. Anyway, The creditors started phoning, and I was honest with them, and they kept phoning, and I told them what I was doing, and not doing. You see I left the banks because I could not do that work anymore. I had to leave, or jump in front of a bus, I left.
I can not go back to that work. At first the phone calls were fine, my creditor have a right to be informed; no where in the contract was there a claus saying I could default. So I told them the truth, I had lucked into the job with no education, I didn't have prospects for training in any other fields at that time, but that sooner or later, I would get back to work, and I would pay them.
I guess it was the sooner or later part that got them. Then were phoning to warn me that they would take me to court and those cost would be added to my bill. I told them I was on social assistance, I had children that I would feed first, and that at this time there was no money for them; when I get back to work it is my intention to pay this bill.
I know there job; I explain to them what options they really had, because I really did intend to pay the bill. I still owe some today, and I haven't forgotten about it. I am still using the clothes washer and dryer; I needed them, I say, but they are nothing. I told them one and all, if any filed with the courts, then I would proceed with bankruptcy.
When I recieved the notice of rite, I filed for bankruptcy. The same courts, made the same decisions they would have if I had appear for the rite, all I did is zip a few lawyers out of a fat fee. I had to pay a percentage on the total for one year. They got about ten percent. I know how much I still owe, but I will not give it to them. I delt in good faith and they did not, I will donate that money, if and when I get it. In payments as I must. But it is not for them, they got what they wanted from me, a resolution.
Bankruptcy comes with penalties, in most cases. In most cases, people ingore these with no visable consequences, all the time. The banks help them, but that's another story. I choose not to.
The last option Homer suggested, is the best of the bunch, and if this is a renegotioation of the contract is in good faith, I think it satisfies ethics in the best houses. Because it considers a re-adjustment of circumstance, a reality of life. I knew about this option but did not breach it, for pride sake.
It seems a person can eat away the whole of a lifes foundations just by following their pride. I have known about God forever, in a limited sense, but I have not walked with him. I am afraid, always have been.
I have been to lots of different churches, all through my childhood. You might say tasting the denominations was part of my early education. Everybody has a spin, but there is lots of common ground too. I left the brokerage to all outside appearances as if on a whim, I lied to the people at work when I said, I had been working on plans for my own business. I had no clue what I was doing. All I could tell my family is I had to leave that job, I couldn't do it anymore.
I thought I couldn't tell them that I could no longer participate in the lying and cheating and stealing that I was so good at, and instead go back to nothing. There was nothing left. Turns out I have far too much interest and understanding about the consequences of Cesar on people everywhere.
When people lie to me, I usually know, I can usually figure out why. People don't lie for grand reasons, they tell little lies everyday, and it hurts them, and they don't know what or why, but little by little, they feel the pain. I can not stand to see it, not like that, not that close.
Bankruptcy is a creation of 'modern man', if you knew banking law, and some basic economics you would recognize it as just another cog in among some other cogs. They are designed to extract money, in a more protracted way, using other agencies. Who cares if you are bankrupt here on earth, pay your debts, who can afford to be bankrupt in heaven?
I know some of the consequences required to honor debt. I have been alone with myself for many years, I am alone with my three children now. It is harder now, I have not asked anyones help. I accept help when it is freely given. I make sure about my debts to people now. I see how freely trust and a person's word are flung into the wind, on a hope and good intentions.
Jesus doesn't care if you make more, why should you, it is not your money or lack thereof Jesus wants. I am a sinner and I know my sins. I pray for forgiveness, though I would judge myself guilty. Thankfully, I will not be the judge, and it not justice I will be asking for; I am a sinner. I carry debt, and if I can't pay it off, unlike houses and land and cars and TVs and computers, I think I will take the debt with me. (this is not like karma - this is a promise broken, and a debt unpaid nothing grand just another lie.)
If one thinks of their creditor as Christ, then the idea of bankruptcy becomes bad at best, for what gets the credit, but your own word. Your signature, whatever, a person gives; their word, they make a promise, and then they keep it or the don't. I feel like I renegotiated the contract but have outstanding unpaid debt, the money sure wasn't mine, and it's still not. That is the point of unpaid debt, I still have the benefit.
My reason for assuming I still have debt is that I may only think I renegotiated, I have been wrong before. Far easier to pay it sooner than later if at all possible. It is so easy to talk the talk, it is hard to walk the walk, it is so hard. Paul says it would be good for men to be like him; but, he understood we all have our own life path to walk.
Paul has always been a favorite of mine, because he's a man(human). Few things give me faith in the bible as the conversion of Saul. After his wake up call; one is left with two possible outcomes: one; Paul's whole life from that moment forward was a complete breach of faith and a lie, or two; Paul talked the talk, he took a stand, and made it clear where it was he was standing, and boy oh boy did he walk the walk, and thus the conversion was a real thing.
A knock on the head, I can do probability math. Generally such a change in personality is accompanied by a seriously foreshorten lifespan. Now the stuff Paul was talking, that should have met him up with someone just like him, only not converted, and accompanied by a smaller more statistically normal lifespan. He must have had a good doctor.
.I don't read the bible all the time, I read everything I can, I go to the next book. It is just one of the very few I return to. I have been using computers since the early eighties, yet these are my first posts. I logged and thought to post, and logged out again, but I had to come back here, because this is personal too.
How do we communicate with each other, with words, spoken or written, maybe somewhat with picture and sign, but the core of communication is words. If one of the words you use to decieve others is your name, oh brother. That is why we must not lie, that is why we must pay our bills. Render unto Cesar, If you've given him your name, you should do all you can to get it back soonest! I think a time will come when that word is everything or nothing.
Renegotiate in good faith - great option, not pay your bill, bad plan. We silly humans. This thread is like just another minute in the bank, which is why I don't attend church. It's not our fault, we lie to ourselves and to each other. We don't lie by telling lies, we lie by making complex what is simple. This happens as a matter of course, when folks get together, meaning well.
It is more distrubing when they don't mean well at all. It hurts more when everyone means well. Bankruptcy is not forgiveness, and forgiveness is not forgiven, if you make a promise, you give yourself to that promise, when you give yourself to things of this earth and don't reclaim yourself. I am not sure. It is a question I have of myself.
The first part, Bankruptcy is not forgiveness, in the eyes of the court, it is a discharge, and there are legal consequences, that is true in the United States as well. The rest is quoted in scripture above. I can tell you that good intentions and well meaning can subjugate the truth to the relem of second fiddle.
Some truths like my belief in Paul's conversion, and therefore his words, it is the sheer magnitude of what I have to believe, in order to ignore it. It is not given, it is not carved in stone, nor written on paper. Nothing of Paul, or his good doctor, remain. Instead we have collaboration, an agreement from other later sources.
Paul the artist, wrote on something far grander, and surer than any single source. He wrote his life's journey into history. That is a nutshell of my own rational for belief. Historians can be quoted as saying travel was common back then, but you know what; that is not how it was. Common sense, and a few thought about the very basic necessities of life, should tell any thinking person why.
Those tiny little things, like food, water, shelter, children, and the things, they get in the way of travel, oh yeah they do. But folks are still saying it out loud like it makes sense. Knowing that that is true, it follows travel then is as travel now, is enjoyed by relatively few usually rich if they are getting around. I've walked a few miles in my life, but I didn't say things that upset people everywhere I walked.
Oh he got a few beating, but nothing like what he would have done. I would be thankful too. I would also want to keep my mouth shut. Paul had no good reason to do this, and it wasn't to his benefit, but it was to ours. He tells us it is to the glory of God he does his work; I believe him. Because no way he was getting paid enough here on earth.
But now, if Paul thought he had debt to pay in this world, he might work really hard to clear his name. I believe that too. After the conversion, Paul worked for God, by preaching the words of his messenger, and our saviour, Jesus, nobody else. I don't know what else a man can do, to be right with Christ, but Paul gets my vote. Not that it counts. His journey was some show.
I guess like bankruptcy the truth is never that simple after all. In light of the conversion I feel that the walk and the talk are testament to what is in a name. It is order or chaos, if words mean nothing, why use them?
Sincerely,
Steven Maurice
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Bankruptcy
Having read some of the posts on this matter I thought you might like to hear from someone who works daily in the area of bankruptcy and debt. I have worked as a debt counsellor for more than 10 years, over 6 of these in a Christian ministry (in the UK) that assists people both non christian and christian. Having studied business law at uni in the UK I can confirm that the English legal system incorporated bankruptcy into its statutes having direct reference to Old Testament principles of releasing the poor from unmanageable debt. The first thing to note is that people get into debt for many reasons, some as a direct act of irresponsible purchasing whilst others are manipulated by creditors or fall into difficulty because of sickness or other problems. In the UK at the moment the media are investigating insurance policies that never pay out and leave people in debt.
In the UK every credit agreement that is signed makes reference to a consumer credit act which determines the rights of the borrower and the lender. The creditor is aware that it is a legal right of his borrower to file for bankruptcy and the creditor lends on that basis, incorporating the overall possible losses into the interest rates charged.
Many of the poor people that I work with pay "home collected credit companies" 169% apr on cash loans. Some of these people are Christians. Whats really sad is that we come down on these people when prehaps as a body we should be asking ourselves why we don't provide help. What a testimony it would be to the world if whole congregations of believers paid off the debt of a poor brother or sister rather than telling them that they should not have taken that credit agreement.
Yes I would agree that on the whole the system of credit is an enslaving system that gives people what they want NOW without having to demand a wage rise and then once they are in debt it tends to keep them in employment as they can't afford to leave.
The whole issue is very complex and each individual case will give a different set of circumstances.
In the UK every credit agreement that is signed makes reference to a consumer credit act which determines the rights of the borrower and the lender. The creditor is aware that it is a legal right of his borrower to file for bankruptcy and the creditor lends on that basis, incorporating the overall possible losses into the interest rates charged.
Many of the poor people that I work with pay "home collected credit companies" 169% apr on cash loans. Some of these people are Christians. Whats really sad is that we come down on these people when prehaps as a body we should be asking ourselves why we don't provide help. What a testimony it would be to the world if whole congregations of believers paid off the debt of a poor brother or sister rather than telling them that they should not have taken that credit agreement.
Yes I would agree that on the whole the system of credit is an enslaving system that gives people what they want NOW without having to demand a wage rise and then once they are in debt it tends to keep them in employment as they can't afford to leave.
The whole issue is very complex and each individual case will give a different set of circumstances.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Thanks, Mark, for an insider's perspective.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Thought it would be good to update everyone interested in this. The person who was contemplating bankruptcy did not feel able to negotiate with the credit card companies so I did. They settled all the debt for about 35% of the total owed; one bank even said they could settle for 5% less than I asked for!
I took this to the congregation we both attend and we did just what Mark G said: "what a testimony it would be to the world ...."; we raised the money and paid the debt off.
I took this to the congregation we both attend and we did just what Mark G said: "what a testimony it would be to the world ...."; we raised the money and paid the debt off.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean