Thursday, 2 February 2017

How Distinguishing between "Excessive" and "Reasonable" usury Totally Violates the Law of God and Wreaks of Rotten Humanism

Many in the modern Church in the west make the vile distinction between "excessive" and "reasonable" usury. This itself is not only compromise with sin. It is the utter perversion of the Moral Law of God in prohibiting usury. 

It is as vile as distinguishing between "excessive" child sacrifice and "reasonable" child sacrifice, another distinction which pro-life Christians do actually make, all without realising it. They make this despicable distinction whenever they support things like "20-week bans" or "fetal heart beat ban" on abortion, which still allows child sacrifice before the child is 20 weeks old or before his or her heart beats, and prohibiting it when he or she started to reach the 'excessive' age of 21 weeks, or when his or her heart beats. 

If one can't even see how one makes such an obviously vile distinction for child sacrifice, how can one see how one makes a vile distinction between 'reasonable' and 'excessive' usury in relation to usury?

Distinguishing between "excessive" and "reasonable" usury is to make man out to be the one who determines what amount of usury is right and what amount of usury is wrong. This itself is to reject God's Word, His Moral Law on usury, which still applies today. 

Such a vile despicable man-made distinction lays the philosophical foundation for treating usury as wrong, on the basis of how it 'takes advantage of someone', rather than on the basis that it offends God. That is exactly demonstrated by John Calvin's views on usury. It is to apply a consequentialistic ethic to the issue of usury, no different from how secular humanists apply consequentialistic ethics to child sacrifice and assisted suicide, also called "euthanasia". 

You may think that this is to ridicule you who make such vile distinctions between 'excessive' and 'reasonable' usury by drawing an analogy to the issue of child sacrifice, and feel offended about it. If it ridicules your vile thinking on usury, that is warranted because the belief that a distinction between "excessive" and "reasonable" usury is just absolutely foolish. It is your problem that you have this vile thinking on usury, because of your respect for this sin, which God hates. That is why you feel offended. Because you don't believe usury is a sin when clearly is. It is like a pro-child sacrifice person who feels offended when child sacrifice is equated to genocide. She feels offended because she does not think it is a sin, whereas she is opposed to genocide, (or least, thinks she is).

The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying,
What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,
And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,
And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
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,
Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.
10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things,
11 And that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife,
12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination,
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.
14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,
15 That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife,
16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,
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.
18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.
19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

(Ezekiel 18:1-22).