There is a keen theological discussion to be had as to whether usury is the charging of interest or the charging of interest to excess. I would argue that the Biblical prohibition is on making money out of people’s distress (i.e. charging interest on a loan to buy food) and not on lending to invest.
Yes, you would not be alone in arguing that way, but I can’t help feeling that this is a less strict interpretation than you follow in certain other matters . . .Â
It just seems to me that every now and then we get rather forcibly reminded that even investing via banks etc. has its dangers, which can result in real human distress.
BTW it’s certainly a good example of a complete change of mind by the church (for the first twelve centuries or more it WAS officially considered that all interest counted as usury), a rather clearer case than with slavery, which is the example I have seen most often in comments on this site.
Well, now we all understand it.
BTW, isn’t there some old book somewhere that warns us not to lend money at interest? Can anyone remember what it’s called?
There is a keen theological discussion to be had as to whether usury is the charging of interest or the charging of interest to excess. I would argue that the Biblical prohibition is on making money out of people’s distress (i.e. charging interest on a loan to buy food) and not on lending to invest.
Yes, you would not be alone in arguing that way, but I can’t help feeling that this is a less strict interpretation than you follow in certain other matters . . .Â
It just seems to me that every now and then we get rather forcibly reminded that even investing via banks etc. has its dangers, which can result in real human distress.
BTW it’s certainly a good example of a complete change of mind by the church (for the first twelve centuries or more it WAS officially considered that all interest counted as usury), a rather clearer case than with slavery, which is the example I have seen most often in comments on this site.