Grim wrote: I think it was an indictment of the questionable morality of making a profit from the sale of money itself, in the absence of any labour created commodity; an act that must have been -and still is- abhorrent to many tradesmen.

Dear Grim: It is not questionable morality at all. The moneychangers provided a needed service in changing coinage and were entitled to payment for that service. In order to be a moneychanger one has to accumulate money in the various currencies at issue. Jesus was at fault in not recognising the worth of that service. After the moneychangers had been driven from the Temple pilgrims would have to use the currency they came with, and prices would be higher. The rise in prices would be legitimate as the providers of food and lodging would have to bother to take the money paid by the pilgrims and change into local coinage.

It is quite legitimate for my bank to charge me a fee to change the income I get from the United States to Australian dollars.

One is entitled to make a profit from the sale of money itself. The transaction requires effort. There is no tangible commodity produced, but the intangible value of convenience to the pilgrim is of value.

In a cash economy a financial sector is necessary. Where there is more than one currency moneychanging is necessary. The moneychangers were not thieves but businessmen providing a service for which they were entitled to payment. Possibly Jesus wasn't capable of seeing the value of the service. He was another misguided wowser resorting to violence like Carrie Nation who broke up saloons with her axe.

Dear Relda,

You have pointed additional reasons for the act which may be valid. However, I feel that the worship in the Temple had more in common with the behaviour of worshippers at current charismatic services and revival meetings than with the orderly Anglican services of this time.

Oliver,
Tillich, the chaplain, had to bury the dead. As the violence of the war intensified, he found himself spending more time digging graves than attending to his sacramental duties, and on this front he found very little company.

You said, “Can you please elaborate on the notion that fabrications are permitted in Christianity, but not other religions? Herein, Christian scripture does not need to be taken literally, yet the scriptures of other religions must be dismissed as fabrications and any falsifications treated literal.” I said to you back on the 8th of this month, “So, as you can see, there is a considerable convergence and an integral basis amongst the so called ‘competing religions’.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#154955) I’m unsure of where you get your ‘notion’ from. I can see a congruency amongst some religions, and this can only occur where the ‘scriptures’ of each are not taken literally, or not as inerrant. I often speak from the vantage point of Christianity, because this is the religion I most intimately know – that doesn’t mean I cannot appreciate or equally, gain understanding from another.

I wouldn’t objectify “God’, or his adversary for that matter, but I do understand what it is to be antagonistic, which incidentally, I'm not accusing you of.

bushbasher,
“i have a feeling a couple of billions of christians might beg to differ.”
Sounds a bit of an exaggeration… but I haven’t done a head count.

Dear david f,
Early Christianity and the Judaism contemporary with it, both possess, more or less, a common broader Weltanschauung or mutual background. Apart from the noisy atmosphere of the Charismatic’s, a misappropriation of funds, along with some scandalous sex, seem to bedevil many of our associations, whether religious or not.

David, I think you need to dig a little deeper.
“It is quite legitimate for my bank to charge me a fee to change the income I get from the United States to Australian dollars.”
How much?
Is there no point at which you would say “no, that's too much; I think you are profiteering”? If your bank did charge too high a price for the service, would you not say the bank's morality was 'questionable'?
And who sets the exchange rate?
Were all the money changers in the temple governed by a regulated fee, set or distributed by runners from Rome?
Remember, (the real or mythical) Jesus was apparently not just a humanist, but very clearly a popularist revolutionary; whether or not he was actually an essene.
Was he working on behalf of his 'Father', in emptying His house, or was he playing to his audience?
Politicians throughout the ages have known the key to overthrow is to appeal to the prols wallets.
Interestingly, the other famous quote of Jesus about money was “give unto Caesar, that which belongs to Caesar”. Taken literally, this would be a reference to seigniorage, rather than direct or indirect taxation. This is an acknowledgement that printed coin is a labour based commodity, and not an arbitrary tax set by the publicans according to whatever they thought they could get away with – which is basically still how taxes are set.

Dear Relda,

My "notion" gained regarding Christianity vis-à-vis other religions was drawn from the following (12/11):

“… the catch is, we don’t know if a given fabrication is aligned to God or is just a common garden variety fabrication.” – Oliver

“Well, actually, you do... within Christianity.” – Relda

From your post, I read your posit to say that Christianity has a privileged position.

The comment regarding God objectively knowing Satan was loosely influence by Thomas Hagel’s, “What’s Is It Like To Be Bat? With all our science, we might indeed learn a great deal about bats, yet do we what is it like to be a bat, objectively? If God is not so constrained, and God objectively knows what it is like to be Satan, and, Satan exists, what does that say about God?

Sells,

Your welcome to join in.

How does Relda manage a critique of 'then' that sounds like a critique of 'cults' of Christianity, and other bloodsucking religions, 'today', not to mention that great edifice supported and promoted by religion, capitalism, and yet still appear to hold the whole hegemonic power structure in awe, as if it were 'magnificent' and held meaning beyond the Earthbound power that it all delivers to those lucky few who work its arcane mysteries for their own, all too frequently, base and nefarious ends?

Especially since it is still women that mostly fall for this peanthimble nonsense?

Apart from within Coptic Christians, Islam, and Judeaism, as I recall from the last ABS census figures, where men dominate the footslogger ranks.

>> Sounds a bit of an exaggeration… but I haven’t done a head count.

no it's not, as if it matters. what matters is

(a) you talk of christianity in a manner which would surprise, and probably offend, the overwhelming majority of christians.

(b) you want to claim something special of christianity, without actually claiming one iota of substance to justify this specialness.

the more i read these vacuous threads, the more i appreciate sellick. at least he has balls. at least he's willing to claim that his beliefs have some connection to reality, that they have meaning and consequence. he puts up and then, weirdly, shuts up. you guys are the exact opposite: you never shut up, and you never put up.