[continued from previous message]   
      
   [372] The latest English translation of the Bible, or rather of some Biblical   
   texts (An Inclusive Language Lectionary: Readings for Year A), has just been   
   re-leased by the National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. Although this   
   special lectionary is    
   still treated as “provisional and experimental”, already it is creating a big   
   stir in religious circles. Ostensibly, the new translation tries only to   
   revise the already Revised Standard Version of the Bible, this by eliminating   
   all of the man-biased    
   language contained therein. But, effectively, these new readings radically   
   rewrite much of the Bible for, undeniably, the sexist language was not merely   
   a grammatical problem but, indeed, the original intention of the authors. It   
   was not just a language    
   problem that caused the Hebrews to conceive of Eve, and hence all women, as   
   subordinated to men, nor was it just a language problem that led Paul to the   
   same conclusion. (See, for example, 1 Timothy 2:1-15.) According to the   
   teachings of virtually all    
   Jewish and Christian preceptors and priests, women are inherently inferior to   
   men. So it is by no means possible to truly eliminate all of the sexist   
   language, discriminatory concepts and repressive injunctions contained within   
   the Bible without    
   radically censoring the entire holy book. The very effort to make these   
   language amendments must, ultimately, expose the spiritual bankruptcy of the   
   Jewish and Christian religions, and thus it is not surprising that two   
   Christian denominations, the    
   Lutheran Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, have already rejected the new   
   lectionary. Whether or not the Church as a whole accepts this lectionary is of   
   little import, for Western religion would seem to have reached its Waterloo.   
   Today all the evil    
   actions perpetrated by religion in order to enslave women are about to   
   boomerang. As women now throw off the shackles of suppression, their very song   
   of freedom bespeaks the inevitable extermination of Judaism and Christianity.   
      
   [373] John 2:3-4.   
      
   [374] Acts 15:19-21.   
      
   [375] Although it is a relatively recent achievement, it is nevertheless a   
   fact that Christianity is the largest religion of the world and, indeed, the   
   only religion with a truly global distribution. (See footnote 338.) It may   
   also be mentioned here that    
   the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious organization in the world,   
   having more than 400,000 ordained priests and some 950,000 nuns. (Note that   
   all Roman Catholic priests are not only unmarried but also men. Both women and   
   householders are    
   deemed to be unworthy of the ministry.)   
      
   [376] The better educated among such people present as arguments in favor of   
   Christianity such facts of questionable significance as, for instance, that   
   the Western system of chronology – BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini) –   
   refers to Jesus and    
   centers around his life. These people, of course, neglect the similar fact   
   that the months of July and August are named after Julius and Augustus Caesar,   
   whom no one worship  these days.   
      
   For similar reasons, some Jews refuse to use the BC/AD system, replacing those   
   initials with BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). They don't   
   really negate by this means the fact that Western chronology still centers   
   around the life of Jesus    
   and thus automatically refers to him. All that they achieve is to remove the   
   objectionable word, “Christ”, from their reference system – an accomplishment   
   of dubious value, considering that few people ever contemplate the distinction   
   between the words    
   Jesus and Christ while fewer still contemplate the meaning of the initials   
   “BC” and “AD”. But, even accepting the value of distinguishing between Jesus   
   and Christ, still the motivation for altering the BC/AD initials remains   
   cloudy in light of the fact    
   that no one has yet been so bold as to propose replacement names for the   
   months of January, March, May and June, which month-names relate to specific   
   Roman gods and goddesses, or July and August, which month-names apparently   
   were meant to deify two Roman    
   emperors.   
      
   [377] Genesis 13:14-18, 17:1-8.   
      
   [378] Genesis 34:1-31.   
      
   [379] See, for example, Deuteronomy 23:3-8.   
      
   Remember here that Deuteronomy is generally considered by historians to be the   
   work not of Moses but of Jewish elders and rabbis who lived as much as one   
   thousand years after the time of Moses.   
      
   [380] Matthew 23:15.   
      
   [381] Luke 9:49-50, 10:1-2 are just two examples of this psychology.   
      
   [382] Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-20.   
      
   As mentioned previously, the inclusion of the Trinity in this passage from   
   Matthew is one of the tell-tale signs that this material is a later appendage,   
   because the Trinity was not recognized as official Church doctrine until the   
   year 381. Similarly,    
   the verses at the end of Mark (16:9-20) are considered by most Biblical   
   scholars to have been appended at a later date to justify salvation for   
   non-Jews. What is significant here is that both of these passages encourage   
   zealous proselytization by the    
   Christians of both Jews and Gentiles alike.   
      
   [383] The Christian socio-sentiment was more subtle than the Jewish   
   socio-sentiment in that it conceived, or was compelled to conceive, of a   
   religious community which was not so obviously conditional upon a common   
   ancestry. However, the Christian socio-   
   sentiment was also much more dangerous than the Jewish socio-sentiment,   
   because the Christian point of view treated those who refused to accept the   
   Christian faith as children of the devil (See 1 John 4:1-3), whereas the Jews   
   fundamentally acknowledged    
   all human beings as the children of God, albeit they regarded themselves as   
   the “first-born son” (See Exodus 4:21-23.).   
      
   For this reason, despite the fact that the Christians could theoretically   
   conceive of more subtle human relations than the Jews, Christians nevertheless   
   developed a greater intolerance for non-Christians than the Jews generally   
   displayed toward non-Jews.    
   Moreover, Christians have been known to treat other Christians in a far worse   
   fashion than Jews generally treat Jews. Although the present-day relationship   
   between the Ashkenazim and Sephardim in Israel is certainly less than   
   inspiring, still it may be    
   noted that the early Zionists did include many elements of a welfare state in   
   their plans for Israel. Whereas ancient Judaism could give birth to such   
   socialistic communes as those of the Essenes and the early Christian Jews, and   
   whereas modern Judaism    
   could inspire the development of kibbutzim, Christianity, on the other hand,   
   has engendered precious little in the way of progressive social reform,   
   although the Christians, particularly the Catholics, may well be praised for   
   their somewhat exemplary    
   spirit of social duty and service.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)