he had a folder full of women to choose from.

Why weren't there any women in the Roman Senate?

A really stupid question.

The living incarnate of the omnipotent God of the Universe, couldn't overcome the prejudices of his times?

Have you overcome the prejudices of your time?

nor am I omnipotent or omnipresent.
But I'd say I have less prejudice than many and I try to see when I do.
But thanks for comparing me to your Lord, I must say I am flattered.

You "have less prejudice than many". Ok, I'll take your word for it.

Than the common man. Guess he wasn't.

Guess I was wrong.

I am just taking your answers at face value, how is that prejudice?

His actions with the money changers was a response to their actions, not a prejudice.

If one were to use your definition then you would have to take the position that everyone discriminates because everyone has some behaviors which they disapprove.

that you don't like.

Technically you might say he was prejudiced against people who interpreted religious texts differently. Religious intolerance.

What motivates it is a different issue and doesn't determine whether or not the behavior is discriminatory.

The civil rights workers at Selma were discriminating against the white majority?

Well, well. Learn something new every day.

Not all discrimination is a bad thing, as those examples show.

But since "discriminate" is ususlly interpreted as a pejorative, perhaps a better word choice here would be "distinguish among/between. "

the pejorative meaning seems to be appropriate. From what I read long ago, what the money changers were doing was perfectly within Jewish law and not offensive. They were performing a needed service. Jesus was violently imposing his own restrictive ideas on them, to the inconvenience of everyone else. Very Talibanish.

They were cheating the public. They were a part of the practice of forcing worshippers to buy sacrificial victims from the "authorized dealerships" in the Temple, rather than bringing their own animals. We'd call them scam artists. Jesus calls them "a den of thieves."

The implication, to me, is that he considered them thieves because of what they were legitimately doing, not because they were cheating people:

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Are you assuming that the author of the gospel might not have considered Jesus' action appropriate?

In the gospel of John, Jesus stops the legal execution of a woman "taken in adultery." Was that "Talibanish?"

No one today does.

The "Talibanish" comment referred to Jesus imposing his narrow ideas about what was appropriate within the Temple -- a rigid, puritanical morality. The execution story presents a different picture, but it's also a different gospel. The various versions of the myth were not well integrated.

is also narrated in John.

Would it be correct to assume that you have never read the narratives on which you are commenting? That's the only way I can account for your statement that neither you nor anyone else today knows the mindset of the gospel writers.

I was not brought up a Christian.

it would become clear from the text that the purpose of the gospels, from the writers' points of view, is to establish that Jesus is the Messiah. This means that his coming inaugurates a new Kingdom of Heaven not subject to the rule of the Roman occupying forces or their collaborators in the Temple hierarchy. The gospels do not present either of those organizations in a favorable light. This makes the clearing of the Temple an act of justice non behalf of the people of Israel.

Because we don't even know who they were. Do you have any evidence at all to the contrary?

I think that Carter had a different definition in mind as well.

Perhaps it would be best to go with his in this case.

I sometimes feel like I'm closer to God than most religious folks, especially as it pertains to the average Christian right-winger.

I don't understand that.

understanding the non-existence of that thing. The atheist is closer to a full understanding of god, a oneness with the reality of the god concept, than the theist.

I might as well say I'm close to an understanding of Zeus. Or Wippyshaw, a god I just invented.

They are blinded by their faith and cannot see the emptiness of their belief.

...if he didn't stand up for the equality of women and he didn't call for an end to slavery, he was being discriminatory.