# Does any major branch of Christianity still consider usury a sin? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291 "2004-10-20T22:07:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/1 "2004-10-20T22:07:21Z")
…or any minor one, for that matter? I actually mean this more as a General Question, but due to the subject matter, I figured it’s safer in GD. In some of my literature and history courses, I’ve come across a lot of Medieval literature condemning usury in no uncertain terms – demons coming for the souls of usurers, sacred earth rejecting the bodies of usurers, Dante’s usurers in the burning deserts of hell, weighed down by their bags of money. Usury was defined strictly as making _any_ money off a loan, not just large amounts. My question is, **does Catholicism or any other branch of the Christian family tree still condemn usury**. And if not, what’s the explanation for the change in policy? ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/2 "2004-10-21T00:18:52Z")
I’m sure you can probably find some fundamentalists out there that wuuld. After all, there is a prohibition against usury somewhere in the Old Testament. Of course, the fact that both the Jews and the Christians both saw this prohibition as applying to only their group, and the lack of other jobs available to Jews, created the stereotype of money-hoarding Jewish bankers. Though quite frankly, seeing as how interest is such a vital part of economics, I can’t imagine any large denomination prohibiting usury. What would an interest rate have to be now to be considered usury anyway? ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/3 "2004-10-21T00:44:44Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > What would an interest rate have to be now to be considered usury anyway? It used to be anything above 18% in many states. Then we had the Carter presidency and interest rates went through the roof. Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act in 1980 which preempted existing state usury laws. Out-of-state banks are free to ignore state usury laws. Cite: [House of Cards](http://wiretapmag.com/print.html?StoryID=8004&wiretap=yes) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/4 "2004-10-21T05:00:33Z")
From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury:) > [@](#): > > Usury is scriptually and doctrinally forbidden in many religions. Judaism forbids a Jew to lend at interest to another Jew. It’s forbidden in Islam. The most recent Catholic teaching on usury is by Pope Benedict XIV in his Vix Pervenit ([http://papal-library.saint-mike.org/BenedictXIV/Encyclicals/Vix\_Pervenit.html](http://papal-library.saint-mike.org/BenedictXIV/Encyclicals/Vix_Pervenit.html)) from 1745 which strictly forbids the practice, though many Jews, Catholics and Muslims break their own laws in this matter. > > While Jewish law forbids the charging of interest to another Jew, Jews are not forbidden to charge interest on transactions to non-Jews. Throughout history, the interest attached to loans by Jews to non-Jews is widely considered to have been a central issue in causing a perception of usury, and contributing to a climate of anti-Semitism: Forceful confiscations of property, and discrimination toward Jews in business practice. Ethnic-based distinctions surrounding the application of interest charges are often perceived as pronounced, discriminatory and unjust, and can inflame existing ethnic divisions. > > Usury has been denounced by almost every major spiritual leader and philosopher of the past three thousand years. Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Jesus, Mohammed and Moses are just a few. > > Cato in his De Re Rustica said: > > “And what do you think of usury?” > “What do you think of murder?” > > **Biblical injunctions against Usury** > > Exodus 22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. > > Leviticus 25:36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. > > Leviticus 25:37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. > > Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: > > Deuteronomy 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. > > Nehemiah 5:7 Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them. > > Nehemiah 5:10 I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury. > > Psalm 15:5 He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. > > Proverbs 28:8 He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor. > > Isaiah 24:2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him. > > Jeremiah 15:10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me. > > Ezekiel 18:8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, > > Ezekiel 18:13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. > > Ezekiel 18:17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. > > Ezekiel 22:12 In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord GOD. Also – opposition to “usury” has a long history in certain strains of American populist politics, going back to Jacksonian Democrats’ opposition to the Bank of the United States, and the Populist Party’s “free silver” policy (“You shall not crucify humanity upon a Cross of Gold!” – W.J. Bryan), and surviving in some contemporary militia groups’ opposition to the International Bankers (if you know who they mean, and I think you do! 😉 ). Even this year, at least one Congressional candidate (James Hart, Republican-but-disavowed-by-the-party candidate in Tennessee – very amusing fellow, I started a thread about him recently) is making an issue of “usury,” by which, near as I can tell, he means charging any interest at all. From [http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/:](http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/:) > [@](#): > > **Stop Divine Right of Usurers Uphold Worker’s Rights** > > (An illustration) Once upon a time, a farmer had worked diligently to carve a thriving farm out of trackless wilderness. The preacher, noticing this highly admired and successful farmer never came to church, paid the farmer a visit to try and convince him to come to church. The preacher found the farmer working in his finely manicured rows of thriving crops, so the envy of the community. After trying unsuccessfully to convince the worker to come to church, the preacher tried his last gambit and pointing to the rows of crops, he said isn’t it wonderful what God can do? The worker pointed to an area across the creek where the impenetrable brush and briars had not been cleared and said, preacher, you should have seen it when God had it all to himself. > > (Moral) Without the worker, the human race, favored or not, would have starved and frozen to death centuries ago. And so we will tomorrow if we fail to recognize that life and labor are the focus and fulcrum and center of the universe through which everything is seen and understood and done. > > (Workers are not proletariat). In the lexicon of the third way, the workers are those who maintain the society. The proletariat is composed of less ‘favored races’ and less favored socio biological classes. These worthless bums from the slum could not tie their own shoes let alone run the government. The old lysenkoist myth that the races and classes are equal caused the collapse of the worker’s government in Russia and will soon have the same effect in Zimbabwe and South Africa. > > (When the enemy is fire or international usery, all the workers are one.) Two hundred years ago, my ancestors fought to free the workers from the tyranny of George III. The workers laughed when the king held up a crown and a scepter and claimed that these pieces of stone and metal endowed him with the divine right to tax the workers for the sun that shines and the rain that falls. Why do the workers cower today when Rothschild and Rockefeller hold up a dollar and a ruple and claim that these pieces of paper that they inherited when they were born give them the divine right to control the resources of the earth and the destiny of man. Why do the workers cower today when the priests and Ayatollahs hold up a book and claim they have a divine right to rule because they have an autographed picture of god on their desk? > > For a thousand years before the pyramids, we have fought wars and built castles and paid the usury to those who claimed the divine right of crowns and scepters and dollars and ruples and books. What about the divine right of the workers who dared to trudge across the glaciers to find food for their children, the workers who cleared the forests and plowed the fields and built the pyramids? I assure you workers, the only right anyone has is a divine right to work. I promise you workers that if you stop paying tribute to the priests, kinds, and usurers, the sun will still rise tomorrow and the rain will still fall. And when you plow a field or build a house it will be for your children. Workers outnumber priests, kinds, and usurers 10,000 to one. When we clear our minds of their illusions, we can vote anything we want. Tomorrow belongs to us. > > **Stop Promising Tax Cuts We Can’t Deliver - Issue Usury Free Money - Only Then Can We Cut Taxes** > > The politicians who tell you they will cut taxes are playing you like the shareholders of Enron. Don’t you believe it. The fact is that taxes can not be cut because the budget cannot be balanced because of usury, euphemistically referred to as interest on the national debt. This usury has compounded for years until it is now in the trillions of dollars. Why do American workers have to pay usury/interest on their own money? Ask you congressman. If the government can print usury bearing treasury bonds to finance the government, as they do today, why can they not just as easily print usury free dollars like Lincoln did? If he had not been assassinated, our national debt today would be zero. There is absolutely no reason why workers should allow bankers to claim a divine right to usury today any more than King George III had a divine right 200 years ago. My first task as congressman will to be vote to issue usury free dollars, only then can I cut your taxes. > > The statutory authority that gives congress the power to issue usury free money is clearly derived from article 1 section 8 of the constitution, which gives congress the power to coin money and determine value thereof. Clearly, if the government has the right to issue usury bearing bonds as they do now, they also have the right to issue usury free paper money as Lincoln did. It is a waste of time, it not outright dishonesty to pretend that we can solve our financial problems with tax limitations, tax reform, tax relief, balanced budget amendments or spending restraints. What we need is honest usury free dollars and I propose to give you exactly that. Every year inflation destroys the purchasing power of our dollar. Today it is not even half what is was twenty years ago. Someday it will be zero. You can thank your congressman for that. These are the relatively **rational** aspect of Hart’s platform. What he has to say about “eugenics” and “favored races” is (unlike our usury-tainted false currency) truly priceless! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/5 "2004-10-22T03:41:58Z")
And yet, they fail to understand that usury is the perfectly rational way to account for the time-value of money when trading assets for future value. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/6 "2004-10-22T03:51:54Z")
Seems like kind of a bizarre prohibition for so many of the ancient religions to stress so heavily. Are their any theorys about _why_ these prohibitions started? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/7 "2004-10-22T04:20:17Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > Seems like kind of a bizarre prohibition for so many of the ancient religions to stress so heavily. Are their any theorys about _why_ these prohibitions started? Usury was seen as taking advantage of another’s misfortune. He didn’t have (say) $10, but needed it (otherwise he wouldn’t be trying to borrow it). This was an unfortunate situation to be in. You did have it, but didn’t need it (otherwise you wouldn’t be offering to lend it). Why should you profit from his misfortune? Sure, it overlooks the fact that usury is the perfectly rational way to account for the time-value of money when trading assets for future value, as **Sam Stone** so elegantly points out. But I don’t think these concepts had been identified at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/8 "2004-10-22T10:50:19Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > And yet, they fail to understand that usury is the perfectly rational way to account for the time-value of money when trading assets for future value. Small comfort to the poor soul who is burning in Hell. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/9 "2004-10-22T13:21:36Z")
A lot depends on how you define usury, of course, and my dictionary gives four of them. Defining all moneylending at interest as usury (and therefore a sin) seems much too extreme to me, but even so some forms of moneylending ought to be considered usurious and morally contemptible. Some lenders deliberately design their policies and practices so as to trap many or most of their debtors into an endless cycle of crushing debt. This can hardly be considered moral. The “company store” so well known and thoroughly despised by coal miners and share croppers is an example from history, and the “payday” loans are a contemporary example. Today many credit card issuers are howling about the record numbers of bankruptcies that are piling up and want the bankruptcy laws changed so that it would be much harder to discharge all of one’s debts through the courts. The obvious response is, “If it’s such a problem, why the hell don’t you tighten up the standards by which you issue credit?” Throughout history in many lands, the wealthy and powerful have used such tricks to exploit the poor and powerless, and that’s one of the reasons many people tend to be naturally suspicious of moneylenders. It really does seem to me that Christians ( as well as a lot of other folks ) should raise their voices against such practices. ---
**Author:** ![Rufus\_Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@Rufus\_Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rufus_Xavier)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/10 "2004-10-22T13:33:07Z")
The trend in recent years has been the passing, in a large number of States, ‘predatory lending’ laws. I believe this indicates that voices _are_ being raised about this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Hemlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Hemlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hemlock)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/11 "2004-10-22T13:58:26Z")
So the original idea was to prohibit what we now consider ‘loan-sharking’? After all, without ‘interest’ there would be no money markets, banks, mortgages, credit cards (OK, maybe that’s loan sharking), easy terms for buying a car, etc etc… ---
**Author:** ![chukhung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e79b87/32.png) [@chukhung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chukhung)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/12 "2004-10-22T14:16:12Z")
> [@Hemlock](#): > > After all, without ‘interest’ there would be no money markets, banks, mortgages, credit cards (OK, maybe that’s loan sharking), easy terms for buying a car, etc etc… No banks without interest? Admittedly, Islamic banking institutions are a different breed from what most non-Muslims are used to, but they do exist. From this [page](http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/economics/islamic_banking.html): > [@](#): > > The essential feature of Islamic banking is that it is interest-free. Although it is often claimed that there is more to Islamic banking, such as contributions towards a more equitable distribution of income and wealth, and increased equity participation in the economy (Chapra l982), it nevertheless derives its specific rationale from the fact that there is no place for the institution of interest in the Islamic order. > > Islam prohibits Muslims from taking or giving interest (riba) regardless of the purpose for which such loans are made and regardless of the rates at which interest is charged. In practice, the end result seems pretty similar to dealing with banks that do charge interest, though: > [@](#): > > Leasing or ijara is also frequently practised by Islamic banks. Under this mode, the banks would buy the equipment or machinery and lease it out to their clients who may opt to buy the items eventually, in which case the monthly payments will consist of two components, i.e., rental for the use of the equipment and instalment towards the purchase price. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/13 "2004-10-22T15:59:21Z")
Orthodox Christianity theoretically forbids usury, but recognizes that it is absolutely necessary to operate in the modern world, as our current fiscal system is based around it, and so allows its members to deal with it as necessary. It’s still better to not have it, though. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/14 "2004-10-22T16:11:30Z")
Are there any religious traditions that draw a distinction – as the law does – between a usurious rate of interest, and a legitimate and permissible rate of interest? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/15 "2004-10-22T16:20:23Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > Orthodox Christianity theoretically forbids usury, but recognizes that it is absolutely necessary to operate in the modern world, as our current fiscal system is based around it, and so allows its members to deal with it as necessary. It’s still better to not have it, though. It is unfortunate they can’t be as reasonable about abortion and homosexuality. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/16 "2004-10-22T16:28:17Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > It is unfortunate they can’t be as reasonable about abortion and homosexuality. Why is that? Huh? Whuzzat?! Hey, come on, don’t try to tell me that Orthodox (i.e., **Greek** 😉 ) Christians have a problem with homosexuality! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![chukhung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e79b87/32.png) [@chukhung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chukhung)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/17 "2004-10-22T16:34:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Are there any religious traditions that draw a distinction – as the law does – between a usurious rate of interest, and a legitimate and permissible rate of interest? This [page](http://www.americanfinance.com/financing/HistoricalCritiqueUsury.shtm) has some interesting information about various religion’s prohibitions against usury. > [@](#): > > Usury in Hinduism and Buddhism > > Among the oldest known references to usury are to be found in ancient Indian religious manuscripts and Jain (1929) provides an excellent summary of these in his work on _Indigenous Banking in India_. The earliest such record derives from the _Vedic_ texts of Ancient India (2,000-1,400 BC) in which the “usurer” (_kusidin_) is mentioned several times and interpreted as any lender at interest. More frequent and detailed references to interest payment are to be found in the later _Sutra_ texts (700-100 BC), as well as the Buddhist _Jatakas_ (600-400 BC). It is during this latter period that the first sentiments of contempt for usury are exressed. For example, Vasishtha, a well known Hindu law-maker of that time, made a special law which forbade the higher castes of _Brahmanas_ (priests) and _Kshatriyas_ (warriors) from being usurers or lenders at interest. Also, in the _Jatakas_, usury is referred to in a demeaning manner: “hypocritical ascetics are accused of practising it”. > > By the second century AD, however, usury had become a more relative term, as is implied in the _Laws of Manu_ of that time: “Stipulated interest beyond the legal rate being against (the law), cannot be recovered: they call that a usurious way (of lending)” (Jain, 1929: 3-10). This dilution of the concept of usury seems to have continued through the remaining course of Indian history so that **today, while it is still condemned in principle, usury refers only to interest charged above the prevailing socially accepted range** and is no longer prohibited or controlled in any significant way. > > [Bolding added] ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/18 "2004-10-22T18:15:19Z")
> [@](#): > > It is unfortunate they can’t be as reasonable about abortion and homosexuality. Why is that? One thing to remember is that usury as it is usually practiced today is different from the type that was practiced in the ancient world. Today, it’s one of the bases of the modern economy; remove it from the picture, and the financial world comes crashing to a halt. In ancient times, usury was a means of screwing a person in need when he was down; most cases of this are prohibited by modern law, but in areas where it still happens, such as fast-cash paycheck loan places or underground loan sharks, it’s still completely forbidden. Abortion is considered the taking of an innocent life, and there’s no circumstances that change that; hence, it is only permissible for the same reasons that killing (for example) a toddler would be permissible, which isn’t bloody often. Homosexual acts (not orientation) are taught by the Church as being intrinsically sinful. I personally don’t understand completely why they are; I’ve never heard a logical reason for proscribing them. I do believe, however, that the commandment to not partake of them was indeed given by God, and is still in effect; hence, I refrain from them. Honestly, though, this is way down on the list of sins that need to be fought societally, if it’s even on that list at all. It doesn’t hurt me for others to engage in homosexual acts; that issue is between them and God. Mote, beam, and all that. I’m infinitely more concerned with ending abortion and pointless foreign military excursions, myself. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/19 "2004-10-22T18:29:20Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > One thing to remember is that usury as it is usually practiced today is different from the type that was practiced in the ancient world. Today, it’s one of the bases of the modern economy; remove it from the picture, and the financial world comes crashing to a halt. So it is not really a matter of morality as much as expediency. The Bible still says it is wrong, but these days it is just too darned inconvenient. I think there is a word for that… I am convinced that if a way could be found to amass a fortune by buggering little boys, it would become a sacrament. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291/20 "2004-10-22T19:38:38Z")
> [@](#): > > So it is not really a matter of morality as much as expediency. The Bible still says it is wrong, but these days it is just too darned inconvenient. I think there is a word for that… Indeed. It is called ekonomia, and is a well-established principle in Orthodoxy, where rules may within certain limits be adapted to new situations, according to the guidance of the bishop. > [@](#): > > I am convinced that if a way could be found to amass a fortune by buggering little boys, it would become a sacrament. Sorry, you must have us confused with the Catholics. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-any-major-branch-of-christianity-still-consider-usury-a-sin/270291.md?page=2)