Clerics of 3 Faiths Protest Gay Festival Planned for Jerusal

Usury, though, shift. That’s really bad, according to the bible, isn’t it? I mean I don’t remember Jesus kicking the queers out of the temple, only the money lenders. So why are bankers acceptable now, but not gays?

Because most of them were part of the Mosaic Law which was for the Jews pre-Christ. <shrug> Short answer.[/quote]

Which parts of the New Testament condemn homosexuality as an abomination before God?

It’s that fucker Paul (Romans 1:18-32):

18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20: Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
21: for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22: Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23: and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24: Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25: because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27: and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
29: They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
30: slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31: foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32: Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
10: nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The translation for that is varying, I’ve seen it point out both the “effeminate” and “men who have sex with men”.

Is it just me that can’t see the secret code???

It wouldn’t be secret if you could now would it?

And if he releases it to a mainstream audience there is always the danger that the vatican will denounce it.

Who is Paul TALKING about in that? Sounds like fire and brimstone from the past.

In fairness, the “virtually every christian” that he meant in his original is probably (going out on a limb here) talking about the ones you see in the news: the hard core nutjob Evangelicals. Surely he hasn’t interviewed or surveyed a reasonable cross-section of non-politically active Christians and found their thoughts (or thinking twice) on the issues at hand? I could be wrong.

This doesn’t make any sense!

I said “virtually every christian” in conjunction with “will not think twice about eating shellfish or touching a menstruating woman” What the holy fucking hell do you think I said?

Sorry, missed this from earlier. As a rule of thumb, one can presume that writings concerning “rules” in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deut form parts of the Mosaic Law.

Usually I understand your questions, but here you’ve lost me. Sorry. I’ll try and answer your question but if I’m off base I’ve already admitted not understanding the question and maybe you could re-pose it.

The Bible does not say that banking is a sin, but it does say that homosexuality is. Where does the Bible say that banking is usury?

I can picture you jumping up and down and yelling while writing this. I think it’s funny that almost every reply you write to me in P&R has this tone. Almost every single one.

Anyways, what you said, right after the list of quotes, was not written nearly as clearly as your second iteration above, but was precisely this:

Now, take a good long look at that list.

Now, tell me why virtually every christian in the world would not think twice about doing any of them.

Now, tell me why they care what the bible says about homosexuality.

and I have no idea what you meant, which is why I posted what I thought you “probably” meant. If I misread you, my bad. Honestly, I haven’t a clue what you meant to say.

and I have no idea what you meant, which is why I posted what I thought you “probably” meant. If I misread you, my bad. Honestly, I haven’t a clue what you meant to say.

You have a serious lack of reading comprehension.

Where does the Bible say that banking is usury?

Virtually every (this mean nearly every, let’s be clear here) banker in the western world is also an usurer. It’s what banks do. For a great long while, Christians went to the Jews for their money-lending needs. This has fallen by the wayside as christians have decided that the rule is inconvenient, and thus doesn’t need to be followed.

You’re absolutely right. All of your writing is direct, clear and concise, and I’m just too much of an idiot to even begin to comprehend it.

Heh. That’s what they should call it. Desecration '05.

[size=6]“Desecration '05! We got your Temple of the Mount right here!”[/size]

I hate using the “I must not have made myself clear” excuse, but the general opinions and thoughts being expressed in this thread make absolutely no sense to me in light of what is supposedly being discussed (assuming, of course, that the discussion is founded on logical thought, rather than religious fervor of any type. That assumption may not be true).

G.K. Chesterton does a better job of getting at some of what I thought I was saying:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

I wonder how the clerics would react if the International Bacon Producers Confederation chose to hold their annual trade show in Jerusalem.

That Chesterton quote is brilliant, one of his best. However, the problem here is that most people who demand reform from the church regarding homosexuality know exactly why that metaphorical fence is there: People hate and fear what they do not understand, and in this case that hatred and fear was long ago made part of a very powerful and influential institution. Therefore, as said fence is solely meant as a divisive and destructive barrier between an artificially-defined “them” and “us,” its use is an abhorrent one, and it should be removed.

Usually I understand your questions, but here you’ve lost me. Sorry. I’ll try and answer your question but if I’m off base I’ve already admitted not understanding the question and maybe you could re-pose it.

The Bible does not say that banking is a sin, but it does say that homosexuality is. Where does the Bible say that banking is usury?

It almost appears that you are being deliberately disingenuous. I was talking about usury. Usury is a sin. I didn’t say banking was usury. Usury is lending money and charging interest. I can’t think of a bank that doesn’t engage in usury. Instead of concentrating on the banking reference, why not answer the real question: why is it acceptable to lend money for profit (this is still a sin for Muslims) but not acceptable to be homosexual?

Great G.K. Chesterton quote. He is entirely correct. (Which doesn’t imply the Church doesn’t need reforms.)

Agreed. Great stuff Rollory!

So just to kind of fill in the blanks a bit, what precisely about homosexuals did the builders of this fence “hate and fear” or what did they “misunderstand”?

So even when I say in advance that I may be misunderstanding your question, I’m deliberately (or it almost appears so to use a vaguely evasive dodge) being some negative adjective X. I’d be surprised if it was ever different, Tim. Thanks for being predictable.

OK so where is usury a sin in the New Testament?

You starting with “usury” and three sentences later said “bankers”. You’re a writer, surely you can see how someone may have drawn a vague connection between those two bits three sentences apart? Besides which, this is part of what I already said I may have misunderstood.

My unabridged says “exhorbitant” interest, not just interest. Am I being pedantic?

I’ll re-ask my question about your conditional: where is lending money a sin in the New Testament, not the OT (Mosaic Law), Koran or elsewhere?

I don’t get why the distinction is so important. Does it relate to all things in the bible?

And if Jesus finds something despicable (usurers), is it less important than something Paul finds despicable (homosexuals)?

Since (AFAIK) you still can’t raise pigs in Israel (there’s one kibbutz that does it, IIRC, and they’ve got some kind of loophole), I think the rabbis’ reaction would not exactly be sweetness and light. Don’t know for the other clerics, though.


My unabridged says “exhorbitant” interest, not just interest. Am I being pedantic?

Yes, you are being extremely pedantic. I was obviously talking about usury, not banking in general, and even after I explicitly point this out you continue to harp on about it. The level of comprehension required to understand that I was talking about usury (the act) and bankers (the people who generally engage in usury) was not difficult. In fact it was such as simple distinction that I can only assume that you were using pedantry and disingenuousness to deliberate avoiding answering my simple question, because it was difficult to answer.

My unabridged says “exhorbitant” interest, not just interest. Am I being pedantic?

That’s the dictionary definition, and is only tagged on at the end as “especially” at exhorbitant rates. We are talking about the bible. The dictionary definition includes simply lending money for interest as its base definition, and the bible makes no distinction, and it is the bible definition we are talking about :roll:. The traditional view of usury has been the simple lending of money for interest, and that is certainly how the Bible sees it, and how traditional Muslims continue to view it. Evidently the “especially for exhorbitant rates” part of the dictionary definition as we know it today has been added by our society to excuse the fact that we are doing what the Bible clearly defines as an abomination.

"Oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself "(Ezekiel 18:12-13). Revised Standard Version.

Now, explain for us why usury was once such an abomination for Christians that the only money lenders in Europe for centuries were the Jews (and they were hated for that). Explain how that changed, and why you now can find it acceptable for bankers (those that engage in usury) to lend money and still be good Christians, whereas those who break other rules in the Bible are hounded, slandered and discriminated against, whether they are Christian or not.

Once again, you’re absolutely right. As I’ve admitted to Euri, I am incapable of reading and understanding anything beyond the simplest of primitive communication. Please grunt your next post to me so that it’s in a language I can understand.

You only replied to one part of my entire reply to you. Does that mean you are deliberately avoiding the rest? If so, why?

Barely. I’ll type the entire definition of usury as it appears in my Webster’s Unabridged (sans pronunciation, parts of speech, etymology, and the like):

usury 1. the lending or practice of lending money at an exhorbitant interest. 2. an exhorbitant amount or rate of interest, esp. in excess of the legal rate. 3. Obs. interested paid for the use of money.

So your implication that the exhorbitance of interest is some small piece “tagged on at the end” almost as an afterthought is patently false, unless by “tagged on at the end” you mean “the part which changed with modern usage”. You know this, but instead of admitting something simple like poor word choice, you appear to be claiming that the prepositional phrases used in a dictionary definition aren’t really an important part of a word’s meaning. With as often as you point out to people the dictionary definitions of words here on QT3, I’d think you’d be apt to agree with me here.

Let’s agree that you can stick with your obsolete and/or archaic (per Webster, wiki,, etc.) definition of usury and I’ll use the others, all of which include a synonym of “exhorbitant”, that apply to a discussion in modern English.

So the dictionary definition has actually been changed over time (hundreds of years?) by society so as to make Christians look not so bad. Got it. :roll:

Your “traditional view” is listed in every source I can find as way outdated. I’m not going to agree to your defintion simply because you assert it against all sources, especially given your, um, unusual position about dictionary changes over time above.

Ezekiel 18:13 (the “lends at interest” bit) from other translations:

  • “he lends money on interest and takes increase;” (New Amer Std Ver)
  • “and charges high interest when lending money” (Contemporary Eng Ver)
  • “lends at interest, and takes increase;” (King James Ver)
  • “lends at interest and exacts usury” (New Amer Bible)
  • “engages in usury and charges interest” (New Eng Trans)
  • “He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.” (New Int Ver)
  • “If he has exacted usury Or taken increase–” (New King James Ver)

Seems pretty clear to me, if one considers the various translations (including yours) that usury appears as something done in conjunction with charging interest, to whit: “charging interest and exacting usury”. Couple this with my previous bits about the definition itself, and I’m done.

In any event, these are also all Old Testament which, if you are keeping up with the thread, was applied to Jews in the era before Jesus had come to the earth. Even wiki’s entry on usury only include OT quotes. Curious, no?

<shrug> Historical reasons I suppose. I don’t pretend to be very well read on Jewish history. If the cobwebs clear from my head a bit, I seem to recall that the Catholic church had barred “the faithful” from lending money, and that in the Mediterranean (especially Italy, I think) Jews were actually barred from any work except money lending; that is they were already hated long before they were money lenders. This led to infamous associations of Jews with making money, a meme which still exists today (Did you hear about the new Jewish car? It can turn on a dime and pick it up too!)

So that’s my top-of-the-head explanation for Jews being the only money lenders in Europe for centuries: the edicts of the Catholic church coupled with pre-existing anti-Jewish sentiment.

Where did I say anyone who engages in usury is a good Christian? I think you’ll find if you read the thread is that I simply said homosexuality is a sin (same as any other) in this day and age because it says so in the New Testament. Am I supposed to be defending religious activists who do stupid shit like blow up abortion clinics and call themselves “good Christians”?

Usury does not appear to be a sin that was carried through to the New Testament. I don’t recall Jesus ever being anywhere near the topic except when he kicked them out of the Temple since that isn’t what the Temple was for (and he said as much); perhaps you can point me to where he otherwise spoke against usury or money lending of any kind?

Gay marriage is a hot-button topic for activist religious people today, just like drugs was 30 years ago and communism 20 years before that and drinking 30 years before that. It just happens to be the news-making issue of the moment.

The big hypocrisy I find in modern religious people (I hesitate to use the word “Christian” because they don’t much act like it) is that they spend time taking the speck out of other peoples’ eyes without removing the log from their own. Proverbs says that according to God, the seven worst sins are pride, lying, murder, conspiracy, trouble making, perjury, and sowing discord among one’s fellow believers. I can’t seem to find homosexuality, abortions, welfare, prostitution, drinking, gambling, dancing, or all the other pet taboos of modern religious activists in there. Guess I won’t be defending them to ya, Tim.