Home / Email Featured / Email from Jerks: Life on the Internet
Print Friendly and PDF
Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

23 thoughts on “Email from Jerks: Life on the Internet

  1. Joseph C. Moore says:

    I, sorrowfully discount any one's theories if they, that person, is so woefully ignorant of the correct use of lose and loose. This seems to be a ubiquitous grammatical error in comments.

  2. Gary North: "It is clear in Matthew 25 — Jesus’ parable of the talents — that He did accept the legitimacy of interest payments for commercial loans. To argue otherwise is to adopt the principle of biblical interpretation that says that whatever the text specifically says must be ignored."

    This position makes Christ a sinner and unable, therefore, to be our Savior. For an alternative interpretation, see our latest blog article: "WWJD? Are You SURE You Want to Know? Pt. 2" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/wwjd-are-y….

  3. Winston says:

    My study of the parable of the talents is not a “loan” from the owner of the assets, but he had to make a trip and left same “investing” responsibility to those with he wanted to trust and test. It wasn’t a “loan”.

  4. AD Roberts says:

    Wrong, Mr. North. You have extrapolated YOUR view of a verse to come to what you called an obvious conclusion. You are wrong. Jesus was not talking about approval of the action but was focusing on stewardship.
    How disappointing. I have seen this used by "preachers" who have their own church from their manipulation and twisting of scriptures. It is wrong too.
    As to the lady whose comments your just gave, SHE IS BASICALLY RIGHT.
    To emphasize that point. The parable of the Good Samaratan does not advocate robbing and beating people almost to death. Neither does the parable of the talents advocate usuary or even loaning at interest.
    The most WORTHLESS people in society are those who live off of the labors of others by "investment in predatory loans".

  5. Two sides arguing the interpretation of Biblical text is akin to Bill Clinton trying to define what "is" is. And it accomplishes about as much. No ones opinion will be changed. Form your opinions thoughtfully. Try to do good. And keep ypur opinions to yourself. You will be considered a wise person. As far as interest on a loan goes, it is banned under Shariah law so it must be a good thing. See my blog at http://cranky-conservative.blogspot.com

  6. "Predatory loans" Ok, so what makes it "predatory"? Because you say so?

  7. bojidar says:

    There are still hungry, Gary!

  8. Kig DavidII says:

    "interpretation of Biblical text"
    A mistake, take it literally,
    for to interpret is to rationalize,
    and the outcome is what one wants it to be.

  9. I thing a predatory loan is when a person is walking through the jungle and a tiger jumps on that person and bares his fangs with a roar. Then he stuffs about $1500 in the man's pocket and says, "If you don't pay me back with interest I'm going to eat you for dinner."

    Other than the above scenario, like you, I've never been able to figure out what a predatory loan is.

  10. Finkster says:

    Were the Money Changers in the Temple just small business men or were they the equivalent to our bankers?

    However, we are not to charge Usury to our brothers.

    And to top off the Evil of Usury, the Federal Reserve was voted in back in 1913, on Dec. 23, before the Holidays. Similar as to how our Corrupt Politicians wait until the end of a Congressional Secession, Vote against the Will of the People, and then hide for the Holidays. The Federal Reserve has created the worlds most Corrupt Money Changers System in History. It will eventually bring in the Mark of the Beast by instituting a Cashless Society. It's coming down the pike folks. We all ready have the MASTERS CARD.

  11. Finkster says:

    Being a Tea Party Supporter, I guess I'm a Jerk for Jesus. That is a good thing, No?????

  12. Here's an excerpt:

    "…Did Jesus change Yahweh’s law regarding usury in order to make it lawful under the New Covenant, as some Christians claim? Put bluntly: God forbid! If we are counting on Jesus’ blood-atoning sacrifice as our propitiation for sin, we had better hope He did not. Had Jesus changed this or any of Yahweh’s moral laws, He would have been promoting disobedience to Yahweh’s ethical nature as codified in His law, which would have made it impossible for Him to be our Savior. He would have been no better than the Pharisees or today’ antinomians:

    '[Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition … teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' (Matthew 15:6-9).

    "With this in mind, let us reconsider the parable of the talents from the paradigm that Jesus could not and did not alter Yahweh’s law on usury but instead upheld it. Note first that, in addition to accusing the nobleman (who represented Jesus) of being an austere or harsh man, the wicked servant also accused him of taking up what he had not laid down and reaping what he had not sown. In other words, the servant accused his master of being a thief. Immediately following these false accusations, the master responded:

    '…OUT OF THINE OWN MOUTH will I JUDGE thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest [or considered] that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow. Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?' (Luke 19:22-23)

    "The master declared the wicked servant would be judged by his own standard. Because this wicked servant considered his master a thief, the very least he could have done was steal for his master in the easiest possible way, by putting his money in a bank that paid usury.

    "Jesus did not change the law on usury; He validated it. He identified usury for exactly what it is—theft, plain and simple…."

    For a more exhaustive treatise on usury, see http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/onlineBook….

  13. navigator30 says:

    Right On Mr. Owen!. I can't imagine many folks would be willing to loan money if they didn't get a bit of interest. Right now the Federal Reserve is balancing the budget on the backs of retirees and savers by keeping interest rates abnormally low. Next thing you know they will be charging us to store savings in their banks.

  14. navigator30 says:

    The money changers in the temple had a deal with the temple priests that only Jewish coin could be used to purchase doves, lambs, and other animals to be used in sacrifice. Of course most of the "out of towners" had foreign coin that had to be changed at rates set by the money changers at very unfair rates of exchange. Of course the temple priests got a "kickback". Ever changed your dollars for foreign currency at an airport? Usury is interest charged at MORE THAN THE LEGAL RATE. There is nothing immoral or illegal about interest on a loan. The Federal Reserve is currently creating money at an alarming rate and balancing the budget on the backs of savers and retirees. Why should the banks pay interest on your savings when they can get it from the Federal Reserve for virtually nothing.

  15. I have not studied this topic enough to have an informed opinion.

    However, I tend to like Gary North's positions on Biblical economics. He has actually put many years of research and study into them. He does not simply have an opinion on it based on what his Sunday school teacher taught him one Sunday. Does this make his position on this correct. Not necessarily, but it is more than simple opinion.

    If you read his book on Leviticus, Gary takes the position, if I remember correctly, that particular laws of the Old Testament were meant to separate Israel from the other nations and cultures around them and that after Christ these were no longer necessary or valid. I don't know if this applicable in this case or not.

    I am curious if any of Gary's critics on this position here have a mortgage, car loan or a 401K or other investments. I also wonder if any of the critics here are not theonomist. Both would seem a bit hypocritical to me.

  16. Jews were not to charge interest to their fellow Jews. This was charitable giving, since the lender was foregoing the use of the fruits of his labor for a time with no compensation. Gary's critic makes the definition of "brother" excessively broad: "Economy is brotherhood, and is where the spirit is present." The general public ARE our neighbors, but not necessarily our brothers. (But of course, that's assuming the jump from the Levitical law pertaining to Jews to believers under the New Covenant economy can be made intact. I'm a little reluctant to do that.) Business should be conducted honestly and fairly, and I see no reason getting a fair return for allowing someone else the use of your capital is dishonest or unfair.

  17. Chris Lee says:

    Gary North: "It is clear in Matthew 25 — Jesus’ parable of the talents — that He did accept the legitimacy of interest payments for commercial loans. To argue otherwise is to adopt the principle of biblical interpretation that says that whatever the text specifically says must be ignored. In fact, the opposite position must be maintained. Jesus said that the owner of the capital asset, a coin, had done the wrong thing when he buried the coin. He should have turned the coin over to moneylenders, so that the owner of the coin would have a positive rate of return."

    The only thing that's clear here is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    Christ would not violate His own law: Exodus 22: 25; Leviticus 25: 36 & 7 (for the poor). Deuteronomy 23: 19 covers ALL loans. Only those not of your race (people) is interest allowed. See Verse 20.

    Christ was saying to this wicked servant, in essence: "Hey, if you thought I was so bad and reaped where I did not sow, etc., then you should have put the money where I could reap some more of what I did not sow."

    As an "economist", you should that paying off all the loans that are made with interest on money of substance is a mathematical impossibility !

    And you say that Christ is cool with that ?!

    "Rightly did Isaiah say of you. These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me."

  18. Chris Lee says:

    Correction:

    "As an "economist", you should that … ", should read: " … you should know that … "

  19. My father used to drive a truck, and belonged to the Teamsters. Each week, the union rep would come around and say "Hey, X, you're borrowing $100 this week; I want $120 next week." Anybody who declined got beaten up…or worse. (One young guy who tried to resist had acid thrown in his face.) Now *THAT* is predatory lending. Anything short of that…eh…not so much.

  20. Ted, also as written in 2 Peter 1:20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of private interpretation." verse 21. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but set-apart men
    of Yahweh"(The Aramaic Peshitta has "Elaha" here). That is that "all scripture is read using only didactic interpretation." I'm just saying…

  21. D. Brook says:

    Is that first comma properly placed?

  22. Thank you for sharing excellent informations. Your website is very cool. I am impressed by the details that you’ve on this web site. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for more articles. You, my pal, ROCK! I found just the info I already searched all over the place and just couldn’t come across. What a perfect web-site.

  23. Originally, usury was interest charged on a loan, contrary to Luke 6:34, "And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks are to you? for sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much." Basically I think the idea was to create a culture of free giving, rather than strict loan and repayment (and/or adding interest). Nothing wrong with lending to a brother and him voluntarily repaying and giving a free gift for help ("voluntary interest").