Is it a moral or legal obligation to pay a debt to a bank?

So why is it up to a court to decide whether or not the contract is illegal, but not up to a court to decide whether or not the defaulter has truly defaulted? The bank is trying to impose God's standards on people, while using man's standards to allow it's illegal activities.

Man's standards allows the bank to commit fraud and to steal (commit usury). Man's standards also allow for a person to default or go bankrupt on a debt they can't repay.

God's standards do not allow banks to commit fraud or to steal (i.e. commit usury or charge interest on loans). God's standards also require men to honour their word with respect to debt.

The bank is using man's standards for itself (by it's acceptance of fraud and stealing to make money), but then demanding that its debtors comply with God's standards to pay back the money defaulted on. In short, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Banks have done this for too long, and this is why they are all going bankrupt. Dishonestly profiting from dishonest money.

So if it's left to a court to decide whether a contract is illegal, it's also up to the same court to make the defaulter pay back his debt.

Bankruptcy is a license to steal granted by the government. The only ethical pardon would be if your creditor pardoned you.

So is usury (interest) practiced by banks, and fractional reserve banking (fraud where the banks lend money they don't have and that doesn't exist). Either follow man's laws, or God's laws, but don't try and mix them up.

The fraud is that the bank never had the money to begin with. It's loaning money that doesn't exist, and worse, charging usury on the non-existent money.
If you signed it, you are agreeing to the rules of man, not of God. The rules of man allow for bankruptcy and default, so the bank has no cause to complain.

If it tries to pull the "moral" card, it is in default for fraud and usury, so must restitute for these crimes first.

The bottom line is, I agreed to some thing and thus am morally bound to make good on my end of the deal. I would never want to enter in to any kind of agreement with any person who places no value in their word, their promise, their commitment to do a certain thing. It really has nothing to do with the traits that the bank or lender might have. That's not my responsibility. It is my responsibility to vet the institution/person(s) I'm considering entering into an agreement with.

There are instances when you don't legally have to repay bank debts such as bankruptcy but that in itself does not relieve you of the moral obligations. For instance, you cannot morally run up credit cards to the max without the intention or fiscal responsibility to pay them off.

There are instances when you don't legally have to repay bank debts such as bankruptcy but that in itself does not relieve you of the moral obligations. For instance, you cannot morally run up credit cards to the max without the intention or fiscal responsibility to pay them off.

I agree with you. Bankruptsy would not remove the fact that I entered into a binding agreement. Morally, I would still be responsible to make good on my agreement. Full disclosure: I have no loans or debt and have made a point in my life to avoid such.

If you signed it, you are agreeing to the rules of man, not of God. The rules of man allow for bankruptcy and default, so the bank has no cause to complain.

Debt forgiveness is a thing in the bible/Law of Moses too, though; granted we don't do it the exact same way... but I would say that bankruptcy does remove any obligation to make good on your agreement... because the debt has been forgiven.

If you signed it, you weren't cheated.

read the fine print.

Forgiven by whom? If someone owes you $10,000, and they discharge it in bankruptcy without any consent from you, did you forgive the debt? You're the one owed the money, not the courts.

Right; but it's no different than when the Law of Moses made the Israelites cancel debt owed to them... we just don't do it on intervals like they did.

It actually wasn't the "law of Moses" but it was God's will for the people at the time.

Whether your creditor is a loathsome scumbag is irrelevant. If you were willing to take their money in the first place you should be willing to pay it back;

Proverbs 6:1-4
My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor, if you have shaken hands in pledge for a stranger, you have been trapped by what you said, ensnared by the words of your mouth. So do this, my son, to free yourself, since you have fallen into your neighbor's hands: Go—to the point of exhaustion— and give your neighbor no rest! Allow no sleep to your eyes, no slumber to your eyelids.

If you have put yourself in debt to the bank you have a moral obligation to make good on your debt.
you have taken an oath and a vow to the bank. you don't get to break it just because you feel like it, or because you don't like the oath anymore, or the one you vowed to, without guilt.

I... have no idea what you're saying here. That Deut.15 isn't the law of Moses; or is it because the law of Moses was the will of God- it's okay for God to make you forgive debt; but not okay for modern government to make you forgive debt?

The banks would leave you broke and homeless if they could.