I sorry if you misunderstand; of course there is a difference. However, what is similar is what is important. Geocentrism and a strict understanding of usury are both beliefs that Christians once subscribed to, in a world largely devoid of secular people who disagreed, and have since been abandoned. Almost no Christians hold these views anymore. In spite of this, they are still commonly brought up as examples of backwardness by adherents to secularist philosophies that came to exist centuries after these beliefs had been abolished. Neither are any more relevant to a discussion of Christianity in general, than Communism is to secularism in general.
The fact is, Christian moral precepts are a lot more complicated and involved than you seem to believe. The Catholic Church (around which the usury debate is usually framed) has always held the doctrine and our understanding of morals a. develops and b. must be applied to the circumstances.
The fact is, 'usury' is still forbidden, but what in fact entails usury has been greatly refined. It was once assumed that the charging of interest granted the loaner a living that did not depend on him making contributions to society. The dynamics of banking and such have since reassessed and investment has since been shown to very valuable to the growth of an economy. IE., it has been demonstrated that those who loan money, do in fact, contribute through the act of loaning money. Witness the importance of VCs to startups, (arguably of far greater malice than pawn shops. ;))
The thing is, the concerns over which interest was considered wrong, have since been shown to be misplaced. Activities which allow one to profit of of others without contributing are still considered wrong, under similar language, but what constitutes 'usury' is no longer clear cut and is open to debate.
Comments
I sorry if you misunderstand; of course there is a difference. However, what is similar is what is important. Geocentrism and a strict understanding of usury are both beliefs that Christians once subscribed to, in a world largely devoid of secular people who disagreed, and have since been abandoned. Almost no Christians hold these views anymore. In spite of this, they are still commonly brought up as examples of backwardness by adherents to secularist philosophies that came to exist centuries after these beliefs had been abolished. Neither are any more relevant to a discussion of Christianity in general, than Communism is to secularism in general.
The fact is, Christian moral precepts are a lot more complicated and involved than you seem to believe. The Catholic Church (around which the usury debate is usually framed) has always held the doctrine and our understanding of morals a. develops and b. must be applied to the circumstances.
The fact is, 'usury' is still forbidden, but what in fact entails usury has been greatly refined. It was once assumed that the charging of interest granted the loaner a living that did not depend on him making contributions to society. The dynamics of banking and such have since reassessed and investment has since been shown to very valuable to the growth of an economy. IE., it has been demonstrated that those who loan money, do in fact, contribute through the act of loaning money. Witness the importance of VCs to startups, (arguably of far greater malice than pawn shops. ;))
The thing is, the concerns over which interest was considered wrong, have since been shown to be misplaced. Activities which allow one to profit of of others without contributing are still considered wrong, under similar language, but what constitutes 'usury' is no longer clear cut and is open to debate.