when your book is so vague you can craft any meaning into it, arguments like this run out of steam quickly.
they are not bound by the book, but their fluid interpretation thereof. divinity my asshole
The Bible isn’t vague on this one https://www.openbible.info/topics/usury
Very clear:
“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.
Whoever multiplies his wealth by interest and profit gathers it for him who is generous to the poor.
Lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.
“You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.
In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take interest and profit and make gain of your neighbors by extortion; but me you have forgotten, declares the Lord God.
Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you.
You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.
I took counsel with myself, and I brought charges against the nobles and the officials. I said to them, “You are exacting interest, each from his brother.” And I held a great assembly against them
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
This one gives mixed signals:
You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.
Unfortunately most of these are easy to argue against if you’re a morally bankrupt right wing Christian.
“It says when you lend money to the poor, but the kids going to college aren’t poor. Just look at the kids these days, they always have money for iPhones and marijuanas.”
“Well it’s the government lending money, that Bible verse is just meant for individual people, from brother to brother” (this is the response from my dad when I asked why he wasn’t Communist when the Bible teaches sharing money and not being greedy)
“These kids have to learn how the real world works, I mean how else will these companies survive if they can’t charge interest?”
“I believe that but, as much as I want to, we can’t change the law just for my religion!” (Proceeds to ignore this before and after because they truly have no shame and aren’t affected or concerned by hypocrisy)
“If you’re a Christian, surely you know the verse 'Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s… ’ so these kids should be rendering all that interest to the people it belongs to”
Probably some other batshit crazy arguments. Our government sucks
The last part is pretty clear if you assume brother isn’t blood, but your group of people.
Don’t shit where you eat, but if you don’t eat there, shit away.
Don’t shit where you eat, but if you don’t eat there, shit away.
I guess now we know why people from and in the Middle East insist on offering you food when you visit…
From the viewpoint of a banker or politician, students are not “their group” of people, but foreigners…
Right. They’re the prey.
Sounds like those rules are just between Jews. Kinda like how there are different slavery rules depending on if the slave is Jewish or not.
The language for the last one is interesting, but I can see some merit to it. If I’m loaning to someone across the border, the distance for travel is really what the interest is charging on. It’s a way to support global work while promoting local collaboration first.
Then it gets all manifest destiny and I get kind of at a loss.
“Oh but most of those were from Old Testament, and those are more rough guidelines. Christ brought new commandments.”
I believe Christ would still be flipping tables in the square.
When the Evangelicals started calling the teachings of Christ “too weak” I really hoped there’d be some people doing double takes. Just like the GOP, they stand for nothing.
Yup. So end result:
Only some specific flavor of evangelical christian is eligible and people need to convert if they want to have their loans dropped.
This is a common misconception. The words are written by people. …And then edited by people to ‘sell’ an ideal. Don’t agree with something? Don’t include it!
Not my bible! I don’t even know king james! I only keep my mien ka— ahem-- my king trump edition which is a very good, the best even, version of the bible. Everyone agrees!
divinity my asshole
And other anecdotes from the diary of Teenage Jesus
Brought to you by Teen Jesus and the Jean Teasers
I mean, the Dems could, but the problem is they’re all multi-millionaires that are also profiting off the same corruption they claim they want to change.
Therefore, unlikely.
Going on record as a hypocrite, to bait someone else into being a hypocrite doesn’t strike me as a great strategy.
Especially when the other person is immune to hypocrisy.
And they will just use their projection strategy, saying, “They only use the words of the Bible when it suits them!” And they won’t be wrong.
Amenbreak! Hallelujah, and pass the snakes.
Only one party cares about hypocrisy. And it ain’t the fucking Republicans.
Well, they don’t care about their own hypocrisy. They’re happy to paint their opponents as hypocrites, even if they have to make something up to do it.
That’s because Republicans know that Democrat voters care about hypocrisy. Republican voters don’t care.
So Republicans take advantage of that and shove hypocrisy in Democrats’ faces because it scores them political points whereas Democrats doing the same doesn’t phase Republicans one lick.
Y’all are talking hypocrisy but shouldn’t this generally be a bill?? Student loans shouldn’t have interest. They’re an investment into the future of the country and economy. They’re still loans, and absurdly ruthless at that.
Especially because education in capitalism is just a subsidy for businesses. Educated workers don’t need to learn basic skills at the expense of the employer meaning businesses will be more likely to set up shop in your country.
So whether it’s from a progressive pov or a conservative economic one, student loans having interest is BS.
Federal loans? Maybe. Sure. Good discussion.
Private loans? They are free to have interest.
Should private student loans exist? Probably not, but the market need existed so they were offered.
Easy
Just lend the money to a Jew … Medieval European finances were basically built on this premise.
Christians could charge usury with Jews and Jews could charge usury to Christians because neither group could charge their own people according to the Bible.
So you are Christian and you want to charge usury to your fellow Christian brother Bob? Give the money to your Jewish friend Larry and charge a fee. Larry then gives the money to Christian Bob and charges the same fee. Jewish Larry charges a slightly higher fee to make it worth their while.
Bob pays Larry, Larry pays you, none of you broke God’s laws and sky guy is happy and gets your place in heaven ready for you.
And this is how God made middle men.
Also … believers in fairy tale religions convincing themselves that they could out smart the all knowing, all capable God they believed in.
Must be based on the very last on this list, which says:
You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.
Of course, the others on the list are more definite and contradictory, but this one exists! You can’t get mad at me God, it’s in your book!
The precedent would be chilling though, and illegal.
