In the gospel according to Peter Sellick, men and women with noble ambitions to improve the world are destined to fall flat on their faces, because “political correctness” will solve nothing unless the old bloke in the sky agrees. The bible tells us all we need to know about life, and the way things are is the way they should be. Anyone silly enough to want to improve the lot of women in the world (noble stuff about alleviating poverty, disgrace and degradation, and war and violence) better stop it or we will all go blind. That would be politically correct social engineering in defiance of god’s wishes.

But don’t worry ladies, Peter’s magnanimous god has selected at least five women over the past 2000 years for special treatment – they actually get named in the gospels! And surprise, surprise, they are all immoral and scandalous prostitutes, seducers, and tricksters! We should be so grateful. These few women are allowed to enter the gates of heaven, because they have serviced men to god’s satisfaction. All the other prostitutes and seducers can go to hell. Nice one, Peter.

So here are a few more biblical injunctions for us to ponder over the festive season:

You must not pray in public, otherwise you are a self-serving hypocrite (Matthew 6:5-6)
You must give to everyone who begs from you; and when someone takes your things, don’t ask for them back (Luke 6:30)
You must not charge interest on loans (Deuteronomy 23:20)
You must not eat oysters or prawns (Leviticus 11:7,12; 19:26) – there goes Xmas lunch!

Grace has gotten me wrong as a short perusal of my other articles would make clear. I am not a traditional theist with that old man in the sky, neither am I a biblical fundamentalist that believes that all we need to know is in the bible nor am I a fatalist. My point about good intentions is that they often backfire on us. Surely Communism had the very best intentions, the brotherhood of man. We live in a time in which these noble intentions have failed all over the world, whereas an ideology based on greed, (capitalism) has produced reasonably liveable societies. While liberal democracies look successful they are leading us into a drastic cultural meltdown that threatens the whole structure. I can understand how my point could be missunderstood because it was not explained. We need a deeper understanding of what it means to be human. The church would point to the history of Israel and the person of Jesus as the source of that understanding. Without it we will continue to play out the old mistakes. It is usual that people who are angry with Christiantiy pillory it as an authoritarian system that suffocates the human spirit with its arbitrary rules and regulations. The is the result of hundreds of years of libertarianism that has left a void at the center of public debate. It is easy to look up obscure legal texts in the Old Testament to make fun of the tradition, I could come up with better ones. But this is a cheap shot that ignores the nature of biblical texts and the scholariship that has been built around them. I would ask Grace (nice name!) to put her aversion to one side long enough to see what I am saying.

I have re-read the story of Ruth, and it is made plain that she did not have illicit sex with the man she eventually married. Rather she is portrayed in a very favourable light. Also I think it is an insult to Mary to talk about her in the same fashion as the other three, who were definitely shady types to put it mildly.

But who would like to be held responsible for the sins of one's ancestors? This is definitely not fair to Mary who was the embodiment of the very best in womanhood. In the prayer "Hail Mary" Catholics say "Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is he fruit of they womb, Jesus". High praise indeed, and Mary is revered as the greatest of all creatures, Queen of Heaven, second only to the Blessed Trinity.

However this not good enough for Grace Pettigrew, who lumps Mary in with the worst. Perhaps because Mary was not a firey feminist Leftie, she doesn't rate with Ms. Pettigrew.

I would also like to comment on Grace Pettigrew's extracts from the Bible. For brevity' sake I'll call them 1,2,3 and 4.

1. This was aimed at the Pharisees who liked to "grandstand" and "bignote" themselves as good holy people when they were anything but.
2. If Ms. Pettigrew had quoted the next verse [31] which says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", {the famous GOLDEN RULE it would be plain what was intended.
3. The passage says that interest CAN be charged to foreigners but NOT to "brother Israelites". Not quite what Ms. Pettigrew indicated.
4. There was probably a reason for this regulation of food, but as I don't like oysters or prawns it doesn't really grab me.

Anyway I hope all contributers and editorial staff have a safe and happy Christmas, and you enjoy that seafood Grace.

Big Al 30. I did not mean to disrepect Catholic piety, Mary is certainly the first of the saints, but the connection I made between the women in the genealogy and Mary is present in Matthew's text. I owe my discovery of it to Raymond Brown "The birth of the Messiah" a very famous and very Catholic biblical scholar

Catholic biblical scholar Mr. Brown may be, but with respect to him and your good self, I still feel very strongly that both Mary and Ruth have been unfairly portrayed.

On her mother inlaws advice, Ruth bathed anointed herself and put on her best clothes. Then she waited until Boaz was contented after eating and drinking she lay at his feet. When he awoke and found a woman at his feet she says to him "I am Ruth your servant, ;spread your cloak over your servant, for you are next of kin." That sounds like seductive behaviour to me! The conclusion of my article is not that the women in the genealogy are terrible people and that Matthew joins Mary with them. It is that God is seen working through unlikely avenues. By the way, Raymond Brown was not just a Mr Brown as you will see from http://www.cin.org/archives/cinroman/199808/0077.html