[continued from previous message]   
      
   [362] Not long ago, the Vatican daily, Osservatore Romano, generally accepted   
   as the official voice of the Catholic Church, decried the establishment of   
   sperm banks designed to produce highly gifted children as “deeply racist” and   
   “pseudo-humanitarian”.    
   The newspaper pontifically asserted that the use of sperm banks produce   
   geniuses reduces women to an experimental “breeding ground” though,   
   regrettably, the paper neglected to mention in which way that differs from the   
   traditional Christian evaluation of    
   the fair sex. According to the one-sided and pessimistic Osservatore Romano   
   point of view, “The results of scientific research may or may not be valuable   
   for research, but their technological use can besmirch and destroy man.”   
      
   Of late, a similar subject – genetic engineering – has come into the world   
   spotlight. Although any fool can clearly see that genetic engineering will be   
   of tremendous value to humanity because of its capacity to eliminate many   
   inherited diseases and to    
   bring about an all-round improvement in the genetic strain of human beings,   
   nevertheless the theologians worry that scientists may be playing God without   
   having adequate qualifications for the role. Indeed, this is the very same   
   argument which we have    
   been hearing for thousands of years in response to every new advancement in   
   the field of science or technology. So, it is little wonder that a large and   
   prestigious group of United States religious leaders recently signed a   
   seven-point declaration,    
   calling for a ban on introducing inheritable traits into the human gene set.   
   What is interesting to note is that, not only did the list of signatories   
   include the names of a few prominent Jewish leaders but, more important still,   
   the person who organized    
   this appeal was neither a Roman Catholic nor a Protestant, not an Orthodox Jew   
   nor even a Conservative Jew, but in fact a Reform Jew – in theory, perhaps,   
   the most liberal and most liberated denomination of the whole group.   
      
   [363] Genesis 17:9-14.   
      
   [364] Genesis 34:1-31.   
      
   [365] Joshua 5:1-9.   
      
   [366] Acts 10:44-11:3.   
      
   [367] Acts 15:13-21.   
      
   [368] One simple example of this latter form of proselytization is found in   
   the history of Norway and Iceland. In the year 994, King Olafur Tryggvason of   
   Norway extorted a large sum of money from Great Britain against a promise not   
   to make war on England.   
    When he returned to Norway, he proceeded to Christianize his country by means   
   of threats and countless atrocities. Afterward, he sent his priests to   
   Iceland, where virtually the entire country became Christian overnight in   
   consequence of some    
   appropriate bribes to certain wealthy, well-placed land-owners. These early   
   Icelandic Christians became Christians almost in name only, having been   
   allowed to continue their pagan practices, and even to worship their Norse   
   gods if done quietly.   
      
   [369] In 1201, Pope Innocent III published a papal bull in which he declared:   
   “He who is led to Christianity by violence, by fear and by torture, and who   
   received the sacrament of baptism to avoid harm (even as he who comes falsely   
   to baptism) receives    
   indeed the stamp of Christianity… [he] must be duly constrained to abide by   
   the faith [he] had accepted by force.”   
      
   [370] Leaving aside the controversy as to whether Jesus was a worldly or   
   other-worldly personality, still the first leader of the Church after Jesus   
   departed –James the Less (a.k.a. James the Just) – would appear to have   
   derived his authority from no    
   other qualification than the fact that he was the eldest of the four brothers   
   of Jesus. As Jesus apparently had no sons, the leadership naturally passed on   
   to James – that is to say, naturally if one is talking about a monarchy, for   
   James the Less has    
   never been affirmed by the Church as one of Jesus' twelve apostles.   
      
   The later history of the Church also smacks of something other than purely   
   spiritual leadership. One Pope, Benedict IX (the last Pope from the powerful   
   Tusculani family), was probably only 11 or 12 years old when he was first   
   elected Pope. He later sold    
   the papacy to his godfather, and then reclaimed it twice. On another occasion,   
   when the Cardinals could not select a Pope for nearly three years, a   
   compromise was struck by choosing a man who was not even a priest when he was   
   elected to be Pope.    
   Obviously that Pope – Gregory X, Blessed – must have had some non-religious   
   qualifications that recommended his case.   
      
   Or, to take one final example – again from Iceland – the Church in that fair   
   country became such a lucrative business that many of the largest landowners   
   had themselves ordained as priests, so that they could gain the benefit from   
   the Church taxes on the    
   common people, without having to pay anything themselves. And, for basically   
   the same reason, it was a common practice in the feudal ages, and up until   
   recently, for the second or third son in a very rich family to join the clergy.   
      
   [371] Many historians ascribe the entire book of Deuteronomy, the meaning of   
   which word is “Second Law”, to the authorship of Jewish elders who came long   
   after the time of both Moses and Joshua and, indeed, that does help to clarify   
   the other-wise    
   apparent violations of Mosaic law by Joshua. Consider, for example, the   
   activities of Joshua despite the prohibitions in Deuteronomy against punishing   
   children for the crimes of their fathers (Deuteronomy 24:16; Joshua 7:10-26).   
   or against needless    
   cruelty to animals (Deuteronomy 14:21, 22:6-11, 25:4; Joshua 11:6-9).   
      
   In a like manner and for similar reasons, several sections of the New   
   Testament have been judged by historians to have been later appendages,   
   serving a good variety of purposes as, for example, Mark 16:9-20 (to justify   
   salvation for non-Jews) and Matthew    
   28:16-20 (to support the dogma of the Trinity, which did not become official   
   Church doctrine until the year 381). In some quarters it has been suggested   
   that everything in the New Testament that is ascribed to or related to Paul is   
   also a literary    
   fiction of the later Church.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)