Pope angers muslims

[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.

In eastern europe in the old days rabbis usually were not Synagogue employees. Jewish services are led by a Chazzan, or Cantor, and sermons in those days were usually not delivered as part of the Synagogue service.

You just MIGHT want to understand a culture better before you judge it.

Which seems to be the whole point of this thread.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Heresson
let me reiterate my post: christianity, unlike islam, has no legal system that christians believe is inspired by God. It has a couple of general, pretty obvious rules, some of which no-one is demanding as instituting as law (like: "respect your mother"). Unlike in islam, christianity accepted distinction between sin and crime.

What about canonic law?

[CrONoS]

But this was not in the gospel; unlike the Torah or the Coran. It was made by the church. I'm not sure but I dont think there is any legal laws in the NT.


@Wiki:
Canon law is the term used for the internal ecclesiastical law which governs various churches, most notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion of churches. The way that such church law is legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely among these three bodies of churches. In all three traditions, a canon was initially a rule adopted by a council (From Greek kanon / κανών, for rule, standard, or measure); these canons formed the foundation of canon law.

[Elok]

The exact nature of who did what is irrelevant to me, lotm. Whether it was a Rabbi who did X or an official by some other name, the money was either going towards the synagogue or towards personal use. If the former, good. If the latter, bad. And the quote you provided does not indicate that the proceeds of those pigeon sales and other crap went towards the temple. It seems these guys were just making money for themselves by capitalizing on the immediate need for their services in the vicinity. They were not priests/scribes/officials, they were just ordinary merchants making money in a place supposedly set aside purely for the worship of God, and if they put on an aura of holiness to disguise their opportunism that only makes it worse. How is that not offensive?

By vice, I meant the desire to use a sacred duty as a means to earn social status. Each man wants to show his neighbors up by getting the prize and keeping it from them. The patina of sanctity just makes it worse, as these services are supposed to be to the glory of God rather than whoever wins the auction. Perhaps vice is the wrong word. Sin, iniquity, what-have-you. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his oxen...nor anything that is thy neighbor's, but using church services as a means to lord it over thy neighbor is A-okay!"

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Actions of God versus actions of man. You have a lot of verses, but little understanding.

Jon Miller

QFT

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Why is making money off of worship offensive? Is making money off of the fact that humans need to eat offensive? Is human life less holy than Temple worship? why cant it take place in a forecourt of the Temple, if theres no halakha against it? Not all parts of the Temple were equal in holiness, and, OTOH, the entire city of Jerusalem is holy to some degree. Indeed, the entire land of Israel is holy.

Look, Im not attacking Jesus. What he did was a key to establishing new outlook, that of Christianity, which has produced many valuable things. But the attempt to say that it wasnt violent, cause of how bad what was being done is, seems to be special pleading. What do muslims think of the things being done in Mecca at the time of Muhammed - flagrant idolatry, etc.

Peh,

come on dude,

even I don't buy that.
Its not the same violence.

[SlowwHand]

I like the story about David and Goliath.

Here's this 9 1/2 foot Billy Badass, and some teenager whacks him in the head with a rock. Now that's violent.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
The exact nature of who did what is irrelevant to me, lotm. Whether it was a Rabbi who did X or an official by some other name, the money was either going towards the synagogue or towards personal use. If the former, good. If the latter, bad. And the quote you provided does not indicate that the proceeds of those pigeon sales and other crap went towards the temple. It seems these guys were just making money for themselves by capitalizing on the immediate need for their services in the vicinity. They were not priests/scribes/officials, they were just ordinary merchants making money in a place supposedly set aside purely for the worship of God, and if they put on an aura of holiness to disguise their opportunism that only makes it worse. How is that not offensive?

By vice, I meant the desire to use a sacred duty as a means to earn social status. Each man wants to show his neighbors up by getting the prize and keeping it from them. The patina of sanctity just makes it worse, as these services are supposed to be to the glory of God rather than whoever wins the auction. Perhaps vice is the wrong word. Sin, iniquity, what-have-you. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his oxen...nor anything that is thy neighbor's, but using church services as a means to lord it over thy neighbor is A-okay!"

1. if you use money for the upkeep of a synagogue, or temple, and it goes to the carpenter who fixes something, why is that wrong? money paid in salary is wrong, but for materials is not? I dont understand you.

If money is raised to pay a synagogue official, say the sextant who manages the building would that be wrong?

2. Why is it wrong for the guy who sells the pigeons or changes the half shekels to make a living wrong? If someone sells religious articles at a shop and lives by doing that is it wrong? Is someone who lives by selling kosher meat wrong? Why?

Oh its the place. But I still dont see whats wrong. Ive been to art auctions at Synagogues. Fundraiser. Run by an outside auctioneer, who made money doing it. So what? Why is it offensive. You havent told me whats offensive about it. Holy places have different levels of holiness and different associated limits. Jerusalem was also a holy place. The whole city. It has specical status in Jewish law. Its called Ir hakodesh (and the muslims call al quds). Does that mean you cant sell anything in the entire city? Or that you cant sell religious articles in the entire city? The part of the temple where the moneychangers were was a part where it was acceptable.


Of course religious services are for God - but in the Jewish community it was accepted that to be called to the Torah was an honor, and this was (and remains true) aside from any financial aspect. Humans being humans and all that. In this case a normal human tendency, which is NOT a sin, is redirected to a holy purpose. I also dont think the person who purchases an honor is trying to deny his neighbor, he just wants the honor. In fact he may NOT want the honor, but the community pressures him to want it. Thats how a lot of fundraising works.

face it, unless youre worshipping in the woods, and have no relgiious professionals, money is involved in your religion in some way. If you have religious articles someone is making a living making and selling them. You may be too squimish to have them present under the same roof where you worship, but thats no general rule.

Lets face it, what JC was doing in the Bet Hamikdash was imposing his values on the place. Which I suppose he had to do, if he was God or messiah, to show he was such. Putting the owners stamp on.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


Peh,

come on dude,

even I don't buy that.
Its not the same violence.

well he later switched to islam spreads faith by force, while Christianity used violence for internal reforms, which i didnt much challenge. Really, if he werent going on about the thing being justified cause the situation was offensive, without understanding how his view of what is offensive has been SHAPED by this story, I would let it go.

And cmon, do you really think that what matters now is whats in the text of the Koran, as opposed to how Islam has actually evolved and continues to evolve?

[Jon Miller]

I don't see how yuo can't see that they might have been a corrupt evil lot. Especially since the Saduccees were in charge, which is something the rabinical group was against.

Instead, Jesus must have been in wrong.. Come on now.

Jon Miller

[Elok]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. if you use money for the upkeep of a synagogue, or temple, and it goes to the carpenter who fixes something, why is that wrong? money paid in salary is wrong, but for materials is not? I dont understand you.

If money is raised to pay a synagogue official, say the sextant who manages the building would that be wrong?

Not at all. People have to make a living. I was saying that if those people who auctioned off reading opportunities just used it as a means to squeeze extra cash for their personal use as opposed to being able to meet the official's normal salary, it would be very bad. I suppose if they had no other way to meet the salary it wouldn't be the official's fault, but rather the fault of the parishioners for not giving voluntarily and so forcing this farce. Payment is supposed to be given for service rendered; I don't know what chanters and such do in Judaism, but my parish priest deserves payment just for his slew of official duties. And overtime or something for Lent.

Oh its the place. But I still dont see whats wrong. Ive been to art auctions at Synagogues. Fundraiser. Run by an outside auctioneer, who made money doing it. So what? Why is it offensive. You havent told me whats offensive about it. Holy places have different levels of holiness and different associated limits. Jerusalem was also a holy place. The whole city. It has specical status in Jewish law. Its called Ir hakodesh (and the muslims call al quds). Does that mean you cant sell anything in the entire city? Or that you cant sell religious articles in the entire city? The part of the temple where the moneychangers were was a part where it was acceptable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about THE temple, right? Built by Solomon, IIRC? I don't know what kind of scale of holiness the Jews were employing, but if they were letting some vendor sell stuff there, the scale's screwed up. I mean, people have to do a lot of things in order to pray, fine, but is it such a massive inconvenience to buy this stuff or change your cash somewhere else and then take it across the street to the temple? The whole building is supposed to be dedicated to God. That's what places of worship are all about, n'est-ce pas? And you've got some courtyard or atrium full of people yelling schpiels and hustling doves and crap and see nothing wrong with that picture? I don't know what else to say.

Of course religious services are for God - but in the Jewish community it was accepted that to be called to the Torah was an honor, and this was (and remains true) aside from any financial aspect. Humans being humans and all that. In this case a normal human tendency, which is NOT a sin, is redirected to a holy purpose. I also dont think the person who purchases an honor is trying to deny his neighbor, he just wants the honor. In fact he may NOT want the honor, but the community pressures him to want it. Thats how a lot of fundraising works.

Yeah, that's how it works today, which is why tons of charities now waste money manufacturing cheap crap for people to "buy" and show off to let the world know that they donated money to such-and-such research and got this crappy bracelet to prove it yadda yadda...instead of just taking normal donations. Way to pervert a good deed; now instead of doing it for its own sake, they're doing it as the means to social acceptance or status. Selling honors from the church, what's wrong with that, eh? Why, nothing. Excuse me while I go give the Pope a couple hundred acres for a Cardinal's hat.

face it, unless youre worshipping in the woods, and have no relgiious professionals, money is involved in your religion in some way. If you have religious articles someone is making a living making and selling them. You may be too squimish to have them present under the same roof where you worship, but thats no general rule.

Face it, lotm, if you have animals getting sacrificed, they have to be coming from somewhere. Specifically, from other animals. And it's a waste of time and energy trucking them back and forth from the barn to the temple. Obviously, they should have had the animals stabled and bred in the temple for convenience. You could have a designated official, slated to muck out the temple every sat-er, sunday. Unless you're squeamish, that is.

Lets face it, what JC was doing in the Bet Hamikdash was imposing his values on the place. Which I suppose he had to do, if he was God or messiah, to show he was such. Putting the owners stamp on.

Yes, I think we can agree that there were definitely some values being imposed. They just should have had them already.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Why is making money off of worship offensive? Is making money off of the fact that humans need to eat offensive? Is human life less holy than Temple worship? why cant it take place in a forecourt of the Temple, if theres no halakha against it? Not all parts of the Temple were equal in holiness, and, OTOH, the entire city of Jerusalem is holy to some degree. Indeed, the entire land of Israel is holy.

There is a difference , my friend , between making money off worship and using a temple as a marketplace . The first is borderline acceptable ( as long as you yourself believe ) , but the second is just crass .

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Look, Im not attacking Jesus. What he did was a key to establishing new outlook, that of Christianity, which has produced many valuable things. But the attempt to say that it wasnt violent, cause of how bad what was being done is, seems to be special pleading. What do muslims think of the things being done in Mecca at the time of Muhammed - flagrant idolatry, etc.

A patently ridiculous argument . Destroying a temple to another faith which you happen to disagree with is very different from throwing people out of a temple of the faith you have come to reform and fulfil .

[SlowwHand]

About says it. Thank you for your time.

[Dr Strangelove]

Oh and whole we're on the subject the president of Iran has demanded that the pope go further than simply offer an apology and that he must do "something practical". Seven churches have been firebombed in the middle east, and a variety of clerics are proclaiming the final struggle between Islam and Christianity. Apparently we are to prepare ourselves for the establishment of the jizya tax.

[SlowwHand]

Jizzhead tax?