Pope angers muslims

[Elok]

Oh, I'm not saying it wasn't violent, just that it wasn't uncalled for in that situation. For why it wasn't uncalled for, see the teachings of Christ in general about obeying the spirit of the law rather than the letter. I always thought of temples as places where you were supposed to have a sense of decency and decorum, as opposed to hawking merchandise for cash.

I'm not sure that we are supposed to emulate Christ exactly in this instance (i.e., actually go in and smash up the place when it turns corrupt); I believe He was acting as a wrathful God and not as man there. He says "judge not, lest ye be judged," but that doesn't make Him a hypocrite for judging; it's part of the difference between divine and mortal responsibilities.

And I think drawing parallels between this incident and a deliberate war of conquest that claimed the entire Arabian peninsula by the time the Prophet died (IIRC) is absurd.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok


Fair enough. Islam is "violent" insofar as it allows spreading the faith by military conquest and offering a choice between conversion and death to idolaters, at least judging by the actions of its founder. Christianity is "violent" insofar as it (by this reasoning) allows for physical force in removing corruption from the church itself.

Muhammed managed to get power right away, living among a group of disorganized arabs looking for a leader. Christianity, living under Rome, didnt gain political power for 300 years. At which time the notion that theres no coercion in matters of faith was more or less forgotten. Now maybe Constantine et al were all wrong in their interpretations. Sure. But lets do a little science here - Islam is liberal about coercion, in the early part of Mo's career, when he is weak, and gets all rough tough on idolators when Mo attains political power. Christianity (as a historical phenom, not Jesus himself) is all against coercion, when its out of power, and goes for the false, coercive interpretations when it takes power. Sadducean Judaism is ok with coercion under the Hasmoneans, coercion is opposed by the rabbis who are OUT OF POWER, and then, continuing to be out of power, they remain generally opposed to coercion.

Id say that the correlations of being out of power with being against coercion is far stronger than any correlation with the content of founding documents.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh, I'm not saying it wasn't violent, just that it wasn't uncalled for in that situation. For why it wasn't uncalled for, see the teachings of Christ in general about obeying the spirit of the law rather than the letter. I always thought of temples as places where you were supposed to have a sense of decency and decorum, as opposed to hawking merchandise for cash.

I'm not sure that we are supposed to emulate Christ exactly in this instance (i.e., actually go in and smash up the place when it turns corrupt);

Good, cause otherwise Id have to keep you out of my Shuls gift shop. Without going into a lot of other Jewish practices, suffice it to say that there are different views of what is decorous and what is indecorus. Instead of saying "hawking merchandise for cash" say "supporting and enabling the details of worship, for a fair price". Jesus is establishing a different notion of what is decorous, and what the spirit of worship is about. Thats fine for Christianity, I suppose. Christian churches were supported for centuries by tithes enforced by the armed might of the state. Judiasm, from an early point, supported the Temple with the donations of ordinary people, a system established in the Hebrew Scriptures.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Arrian
There is more if you count the OT, obviously. Even more if you count Popes calling for crusades and such.

This is what I was on about when I questioned the definition of "core."

-Arrian

I know, but this argument started based solely on the actions of the founders of the two faiths. What Christ did and taught vs. what Mohammed did and taught. On those grounds, Christ comes out looking a lot more pacifistic. I'm not getting into whether the grounds should be something wider when I say this.

And lotm, thank you for pointing out that power corrupts people. Is that all?

[Arrian]

From what I know, I'd have to agree, Elok.

-Arrian

[Elok]

Dude, we're not talking about donations here. Jesus didn't kick over the collection plate or something. My church has a bookstore, if it comes to that. This is a matter of merchants doing their business on God's turf. They're openly profiteering. Divine Halliburton.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh, I'm not saying it wasn't violent, just that it wasn't uncalled for in that situation. For why it wasn't uncalled for, see the teachings of Christ in general about obeying the spirit of the law rather than the letter. I always thought of temples as places where you were supposed to have a sense of decency and decorum, as opposed to hawking merchandise for cash.

.

Well since you were raised that way, naturally youd have that sense. I know lots of people who think that places of worship should have decorum, and not have men and women sitting together. Is there a universal standard of decorum, accessible to reason? In the absence of such, the rules of Jewish worship are those established by G-d, in the halakha. Jesus, in effect, was invoking his personal right to establish standards, because HE was God, or Messiah, or whatever.

The question of spirit of the law and its use in interpreting halakha, is a complex one. But going around smashing things is certainly inappropriate for HUMANS.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
Dude, we're not talking about donations here. Jesus didn't kick over the collection plate or something. My church has a bookstore, if it comes to that. This is a matter of merchants doing their business on God's turf. They're openly profiteering. Divine Halliburton.

They did things that were needed for the donations and sacrifices to work properly. Are you saying it would have been okay if the Priests had their own employees doing it, and they lost money? Suppose my shul decided to outsource its gift shop, and the contractor made money (we wont do that, the sisterhood ladies like volunteering there) Would that be so terrible? Why is making a living wrong?

Gods turf? Yet you think it would have appropriate elsewhere in Jerusalem, Ir hakodesh, the holy city? Your view of "God's turf" is oddly limited.

If its Gods, it means we have to follow Gods law there. Thats what holy means throughout the Hebrew scripture - set apart, with certain obligations, obligations wrt to certain people, places, and objects, taht dont inhere in other people, places, and objects. There is a basis for speaking of the spirit behind laws - certainly the Heb bible speaks of mercy, of kindness, etc which should impact our interpretation of halakha. But it seems perfectly reasonable to say that holiness is strictly a question of halakha (and no lesser a person than Maimonides thought so)

Now to Christians Jesus had a direct access to what God wanted, beyond whats in the revealed Halakha. But the people of Jerusalem at that time were not Christians.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
Dude, we're not talking about donations here. Jesus didn't kick over the collection plate or something. My church has a bookstore, if it comes to that. This is a matter of merchants doing their business on God's turf. They're openly profiteering. Divine Halliburton.

Churches have collection plates, and bookstores. So those are OK, and not indecorous. Of course.

In eastern europe, synagogues auctioned off the honor of reading certain portions of the Torah. The auction took place right in the Synagogue, on Shabbos, IIUC, though the actual payment was made after Shabbos. Would you have gone in and smashed up that. What i see is cultural chauvinism is all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok

And lotm, thank you for pointing out that power corrupts people. Is that all?

No, what i said was that the acceptablity of coercion wrt religion in a given religious tradition has more to do with the experience of power than with the founding texts.

[Elok]

You seem to be assuming that this money, or some portion of it, was going to the temple one way or another. As opposed to, y'know, the merchants just making a tidy profit for themselves. Is there something in the text that gives you grounds for that assumption?

[Elok]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In eastern europe, synagogues auctioned off the honor of reading certain portions of the Torah. The auction took place right in the Synagogue, on Shabbos, IIUC, though the actual payment was made after Shabbos. Would you have gone in and smashed up that.

Of course not, that's not my place. But I wouldn't have blamed God at all if He'd sent down an angel to smack some heads for turning a place of worship into a place where humans compete greedily for the opportunity for social prestige in the name of God. Supporting a synagogue by promoting vice is sort of missing the point, I would think. This is assuming, of course, that all the money went towards maintaining the synagogue itself. If the rabbi ever pocketed a share to buy himself a dress suit or something, I'd be downright disappointed if he didn't receive a divine kick to the crotch.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
You seem to be assuming that this money, or some portion of it, was going to the temple one way or another. As opposed to, y'know, the merchants just making a tidy profit for themselves. Is there something in the text that gives you grounds for that assumption?

http://www.kadosh.co.il/mkdsh209.html

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



http://www.kadosh.co.il/mkdsh209.html

"It is interesting to note, that according to the New Testament, when Jesus the Christian went up to Jerusalem and saw the money changers in the Temple court, who exchanged the money of the pilgrims for the money required for purchase of the various types of the sacrifices, and the sellers of pigeons who sold pigeons to women who had given birth and were obligated to bring them as a sacrifice, he saw this as profanation of holiness and caused a great commotion in the Temple court. Here we see the tremendous difference between us and Christianity. What he saw as a profanation of holiness, we consider to be greater holiness. Making money and materialism subservient to holiness is the greatest form of holiness"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok


Of course not, that's not my place. But I wouldn't have blamed God at all if He'd sent down an angel to smack some heads for turning a place of worship into a place where humans compete greedily for the opportunity for social prestige in the name of God. Supporting a synagogue by promoting vice is sort of missing the point, I would think. This is assuming, of course, that all the money went towards maintaining the synagogue itself. If the rabbi ever pocketed a share to buy himself a dress suit or something, I'd be downright disappointed if he didn't receive a divine kick to the crotch.

What vice took place there? Wanting to get social prestige from reading the Torah was considered perfectly acceptable, and far better than many other ways of gaining prestige. What more should one be greedy for than for the opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah of reading Torah in public? And if it pays the shul expenses, so much the better. (We dont do that anymore, out of a good liberal belief that poor folk too should get to read torah, and cause we are westernized in our views of decorum. Chabad, a more traditional group, still has an auction of that type once a year, for old times sake. )



Do you think the money changers took their money to spend on vice? Perhaps thats in the NT. If so the vice is the sin. My understanding is that any profit was used in the same ways as any other persons income. Why is business profit associated with vice?

It wouldnt be my place to do it, but if G-d were to send an angel to smack your head for your narrowminded belief that the rules of decorum of your own culture apply to everyone, I wouldnt blame Him.