Interest Is Considered As Sin Nevertheless Commercial Banking Reliant On It: A Detailed Study in the Context of Major Religions in the World (Published)
This paper is unique in the sense that authors are raising a very sensitive issue of interest which is prohibited in almost all divine religions. We do not claim ourselves as an authority on religious matters however have taken the courage raise discussion among scholars and intellectuals to find a way where conventional banking harmonizes with economies that consider interest contradictory to religious thoughts. This paper is simply looking into different religions’ point of view about interest and explores whether all or some factors of conventional banking contradict with religious values. In case we identify there are few factors that contradict with religious values then could these factors be replaced to integrate major divine religions’ economics thoughts. Interest is a very interesting thing; almost in all major religion Interest isSin including Judaism, however one side in Judaism, the Torah and Talmud encourage the granting of loans if they do not engage interest, on the other hand the halakhah [applicable Jewish law] on the subject of without charge loans pertain only to loans through the other Jews but it is tolerable to provide loans with Interest to non-Jews. Commercial Banking legal inference of all theories of Interest are based on that money has been treat as an article of trade. It is, therefore, squabble that just as a merchant can sell his article of trade for a higher price than his expenditure, he can also sell his money for a higher price than its face value, or just as he can rent his property and can have some remuneration against it. Commercial Bank can also let somebody to use its money and can claim some kind of remuneration thereupon. As per Encyclopedia Britannica, “In Old English law, the taking of any compensation whatsoever was termed usury. With the spreading out of trade in the 13th century, however, the requirement for loan amplified, dictated an amendment in the characterization of the word. Usury then was functional to overpriced or unconscionable Interest charges. In 1545 England set an officially permitted or upper limit interest; every sum in glut of the upper limit was usury. The practice of setting a legal maximum on Interest rates was later followed by most states of the United States and most other Western nations.”
Luther’s Theological Grounds for the Reformation (Published)
By presenting Maritain’s harsh criticism of Luther, this article attempts to clarify Luther’s theological grounds for his assault on the Church. Essentially, the Church believed that man could be saved by a combination of faith and works, despite his sin and that the Church was the divine instrument of God. Luther believed in the irremediable sinfulness of man and the world, including the Church .Only faith and God’s grace could save man. Once Luther understood Paul in this way, the Church became sin itself, as much in need of God’s grace as the most depraved man. The violence spawned by the Reformation cannot be understood without an appreciation of Luther’s radical and profound denial of the worth of the Church and all other manifestations of the World.
The Causal Correlation of Sin and Suffering (Published)
The paper analyzed the causal relation of sin and suffering, including illness. Modern/postmodern societal perception of suffering, and relationship with ill persons was studied. In addition, the Bible (the Books of Job and Luke) was investigated on the subject. The idea is to use Jesus’ actions and teachings as the assessment criteria. The study is important because it may help minimize or stop the practice of wrong accusations against victims who suffer in any way that their plight is their own doing. The findings of the paper are that: to a great extent people’s perception of illness or suffering in modern/postmodern society and that of the biblical times are similar despite the enormous social and historical gap between both eras. Illness or suffering is seen as a reflection of the sinful state of the victim. This explains why people disassociate with victims of ‘disgraceful’ illnesses. The study concludes that to a large extent, modern perception of illness, particularly, of the debilitating ones, as well as relationship with victims are unethical because it does not tally with that of Jesus whose way of life, actions and teachings form the fons et culmen of Christian ethics and therefore, must be corrected.