Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!mhuxl!mhuxi!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.women
Subject: Re: NCC Inclusive Lectionary
Message-ID: <327@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Oct-83 20:28:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.327
Posted: Tue Oct 25 20:28:33 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Oct-83 03:03:12 EDT
References: <716@hou5d.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 40

It seems that the purpose of altering existing texts of any kind in this
manner is a matter of sensitivity.  By doing this, it is presumed, those
who are somehow neglected in the text will be represented.  Thus, by
calling Jesus a child rather than a "son", it implies that he identifies
with ALL people, men and women.  And by changing other similar references
that seem to apply exclusively to males, those people who see things in that
restricted way will begin to see them in a more universal, non-sexist way.

I have my doubts about the long-term usefulness of this.  But I have even
stronger doubts about those who seem to have strong violent opposition to
it.

1) It is an example of Satan's twisting the words of the bible to his
	own evil ends.

It would seem that over two thousand years the churches have done more to
	twist the meaning of the bible than this one alteration could.
	Who is playing "devil's advocate" here?  What does it mean when
	someone says that making all references to god into ambisexual
	references is the work of the devil?

2) I'd go along with God saying "This is my child...", if the folks
pushing the change could come up with evidence of Jesus being a
hermaphrodite...

Since when does "child" mean "hermaphrodite"?  Are your "child"ren
all "hermaphrodites"?  Child means young person of either sex.
Would it shatter your beliefs in god if Jesus was indeed a
hermaphrodite?  Would it be beyond the scope of your beliefs if
"Jesus" were to "come back" in female form?

And then of course there are those who would say that any alteration of
the obviously correct King James Version is sacrilegious.  Wouldn't it
be funny if the translators used the English word "not" where they should
have translated it as "always"...  (Thou shalt always covet thy neighbor's
wife...)  If a given translation were, based on the words it contained and
the way they were interpreted, defiling the original "intended" purpose of
the words, wouldn't it behoove you to correct it.  Of course, as with
everything in religion, whether or not this defiling is happening is a
matter of faith.