First of all, in a well regulated state, no usurer is tolerated: even the profane see this: whoever therefore professedly adopts this occupation, he ought to be expelled from intercourse with his fellow-men. For if any illiberal pursuits load those who pursue them with censure, that of the usurer is certainly an illiberal trade, and unworthy of a pious and honorable man. Hence Cato said that to take usury was almost the same as murder. For when asked concerning agriculture, after he had given his opinion, he inquired, But what is usury? Is it not murder? says he. And surely the usurer will always be a robber; that is, he will make a profit by his trade, and will defraud, and his iniquity will increase just as if there were no laws, no equity, and no mutual regard among mankind. --- John Calvin
The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury ... --- Westminster Larger Catechism
Christ, however, excluded no one from his commandment; indeed, he included all kinds of people, even one's enemies, when he said in Luke 6, "If you lend only to those from whom you expect a loan in return, what kind of goodness is that? Even wicked sinners lend to one another, to receive as much again." And again, "Lend, expecting nothing in return". I know very well that a good many doctors have interpreted these words as though Christ had therein commanded to lend in such a way as not to make any charge for it or seek any profit, but to lend gratis. This opinion is doubtless not wrong, for he who makes a charge for lending is not lending, and neither is he selling; therefore, this must be usury.
[...]
Charging for a loan is contrary to natural law. The Lord points this out in Luke 6 and Matthew 7, "As you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." [...]
Therefore, it is clear that such lenders are acting contrary to nature, are guilty of mortal sin, are usurers, and are seeking in their own profit their neighbor's loss --- Martin Luther,
Sermon on Usury
The Protestant reformers said that usury was a sin, and defined it not merely as charging extortionate interest, but as "charging for a loan"
per se. The Catholics also said that "that to affirm that usury is no sin is to be guilty of heresy" and that usurers were "infamous in life and unworthy of burial after death". Harsh words, and yet this was the unanimous opinion of Christendom ... up to a certain point, it's hard to put one's finger on exactly when they changed their minds. So when did Christians redefine sin? And on what basis did they do so? And why, Faith, why are you complaining about people "redefining sin" without you or any of your co-religionists trying to get back to the good old definition of sin as including usury, usury as being a sin, and usury, as Luther said, consisting of "charging for a loan"?
But wait, you're too busy being mean to gay people to care about that. Opposing gay marriage takes up
all the time of
all the people who are worried about "redefining sin", such that
none of you have
any free time at all left over to complain about bankers. Again I ask couldn't
half of you spend your time objecting to the usurers? A quarter of you? 10%? Or could you not personally spend three-quarters of your Christian Complaining Time complaining about gay people, and the remaining quarter on usurers? But no, you're
all way too busy complaining about gay people. Why is that, Faith? Why is that?
Well, I stand by my diagnosis. It's because conservative opinion leaders tell you to take a stand against gay marriage, whereas they're all in favor of usury. You take the handful of opinions where conservatism and Christianity arguably intersect, you fight for conservatism and you call that your Christian duty.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
