kwmc@hou5d.UUCP (K. W. M. Cochran) (10/24/83)
I have two questions to ask concerning the National Council of Churches' new "Inclusive Lectionary" in which an attempt is made to de-sex references to God and Christ .... 1) Does anyone in netland LIKE this lectionary ? I don't, and I don't know of anyone, of any belief/persuasion who does. I would be interested to know WHY someone who likes it does like it. 2) What do people think the effects will be ?. (I do not intend to defend the premises I am about to make in this paragraph ... maybe some other time). Assuming God inspired the Bible, that He will make "The Word of the Lord endure forever" and that Satan would like to twist God's Word ..... What is Satan up to ?. I think this attack on the Bible is too unsubtle!. Is it possibly a smoke screen for an attack of the form "ALL Modern translations are bad ... If the King James was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me " ? Comments please, Ken Cochran hou5d!kwmc
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (10/26/83)
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.
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (10/26/83)
The National Council of Churches should have been particularly careful in "translating" the Book of the Revelation to John--the warning at the end sounds ominous! ---------------------------------------- Dave Decot ..!decvax!cwruecmp!decot