Lawful Money redeemer here, how do I purchase a home?

[Gavilan]

He goes on tangents as a cry for attention to keep people coming back in my opinion.

[David Merrill]

Absolutely not. Redemption (in this context) is in codified in US law, not any religious text.

I certainly have no standing to request or demand that people stop theological debates, but if LM and its application is something you want to share with others - and I must infer that to be true, since, as you mentioned, this forum is public - suggesting that newcomers study your personal religion is harmful to that goal.

Can we please keep things factual and relevant to US law? teamsnowden raises an interesting question which folks who are interested in this process may need to consider; if LM is not compatible with taking on a personal debt from private mortgage companies, just plainly say so.

Also, we cannot interpret your messages the same way you intended when writing it. Formatting and punctuation is imperative to bridge that gap, so that we can understand the information you're trying to convey.

I believe you do have this here. So long as we stay civil I will usually let things slide. - But that depends on my mood too...

Commercial priestcraft is the essence of religion. Redemption is the cure for debt/death/doubt. So getting the history correct, that the Bible is a Mesopotamian history parable is critical to remedy brain damage caused by the canonized interpretation.

He goes on tangents as a cry for attention to keep people coming back in my opinion.

I know Xparte is difficult to understand but I spent years adjusting my reading lens to his poetry. It is funny how reading him is like shifting gears, so much that I find myself writing responses in the same poetic iambic rhythm. But it took a very long while. So I can expect that reading his posts gives you a headache, like me before I exercised a lot of patience.

But if he is writing like that to promote StSC then thanks Xparte. I hope it helps keep things edifying around here.


P.S. Simply put.

You are talking about going into debt. Picture debt as the opposite of redemption. Mutually exclusive ultimates. You cannot have one in the same context as the other. Like sugar and glass. The sugar caramelizes and incinerates long before you will find the glass is liquid enough to dissolve the sugar.

A private financier might be the only way. Somebody of financial means might become trustee and allow you to use the home as beneficiary. Without redemption, home ownership is nothing more than an illusion anyway. It becomes a choice of which trust do you sign endorsement of trust to.

[marcel]

simply put.

You are talking about going into debt. Picture debt as the opposite of redemption. Mutually exclusive ultimates. You cannot have one in the same context as the other. Like sugar and glass. The sugar caramelizes and incinerates long before you will find the glass is liquid enough to dissolve the sugar.

A private financier might be the only way. Somebody of financial means might become trustee and allow you to use the home as beneficiary. Without redemption, home ownership is nothing more than an illusion anyway. It becomes a choice of which trust do you sign endorsement of trust to.

^^.this.^^