I don't know about the merits of the argument; I'll grant you the logic, as most people here would. It's just that people are rightfully fearful of what pro/con religious remarks can have on the quality of conversation here.

If you were trying to raise a point, you utterly failed. On two counts:

a. Your argument was vague and lacked proper distinctions. It was so to the point of being annoying and insulting the intelligence of people with even a vague understanding of history. If you want to make a point, at least be clear about it.

b. It was off topic and out of place. There was a very good discussion on how to make a living off of consulting going on and you had to distract from it with your personal pet peeves with Christians. If you want to start a debate, get your own thread.

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.

There are prohibitions against usury in the literature of most of the major religions. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Obviously, the contemporary versions of these religions have loosened their positions. Protestants, for example, haven't been seriously opposed to usury for centuries. Islam, however, is still opposed to it. The Muslim world has its own banking system. Would you have made the same comment if the OP hinted that he was Muslim?

"I would have liked to know how the OP solves the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and the accepted practices of today's world."

All you ever had to do was ask.

My email address in is my profile.

"Unfortunately, the only thing I learned is that HN threads are not to be taken off-topic."

Then you learned something that I don't believe is true. HN threads are taken off-topic all the time.

You just took this thread somewhere that most people don't believe belongs on hacker news. That's all.

Politics, religion, sports, and popular culture are areas probably better served elsewhere.

I made the mistake of saying the word "Bible" to illustrate that oppotunities can come from the least expected places. Next time I'll say, "At a group meeting..." Sorry.

This continues to be a troll, but I'll bite. Hopefully in such a way that no one else has to.

Arguing from obviousness about religious beliefs? Come on, people have fought wars over the iota in homoiousious. Arguing from obviousness in interpreting a passage in the New Testament? Learn about hermeneutics. One text, many interpretations, and as many as there are people willing to approach the text authentically.

And let me give you something only a Christian would say, so you can be educated. Bible study is not an end in itself. It is a means to becoming more like Jesus, becoming closer to Jesus. So I take a dim view of arguments that purport to assume a Christian belief and the status quo, then derive a contradiction. These arguments are about the periphery of Christianity. If you want to create some cognitive dissonance, head for the center.

I read that (crappy) Wikipedia article on usury, including the strands of Christian thought that disagree with the non-interpretation of those New Testament passages in the Wikipedia. For instance, the section on the scholastics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Usury_in_scholastic_theol...

So instead of taking the reductionist appeal to obviousness and playing word games with quotations that you interpret privately, maybe you can go through the two millennia of source material on the question and offer the definitive breakdown. Send me a link to your dissertation when you're done.

More to the point, this and many other religious beliefs inhere in systems of thought, not random answers to random questions. You just asked, "When did you stop feeling cognitive dissonance about your beliefs?", and I might rightly be skeptical that you even cared about the answer.

You don't understand a religion until you understand it from the perspective of someone who lives it. You don't understand a religious belief unless you locate it in the network of beliefs, the worldview, that it belongs to. And you don't discredit a religion by raising questions about disputable matters.

A little of both I suspect.