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

Peter, you might find the noble ideal of a "brotherhood of man" only in the god that failed, communism, others would say that the ideal of a brotherhood of man (and a sisterhood of women) is the driving force behind democracy and, yes, christianity.

If you really believe that, "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", then why not just say out loud: "Greed is good". Unfortunately, this contradicts the gospels.

Big Al, I understand that you are a Roman Catholic and that you worship Mary, the "Queen of Heaven". What happened to the second commandment?

Greed is certainly not good. I was trying to point out that we do not in fct know the difference between good and evil even after eating the tree of the fruit thereof. The mistake that religious people make is that they think that moralizing will give them a privileged view of the world. Unfortunately this leads them to a shallow story of the world. President Bush's talk about evil is a blasphemy.

Rowan Williams, in his Christmas address gets it right: Morality, said one prominent modern Greek Orthodox theologian, is not about right and wrong, it's about reality and unreality,

Grace Pettigrew, You've got it wrong again. I didn't say we worship Mary. I said "Mary is revered". I thought you would have known the difference. We only worship The Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Blessed Trinity.

Sells, I haven't forgotten you, I'll be back later.

Sells, I'm not finished with Ruth yet. I don't want to be facetious, but if Rut had really wanted to seduce Boaz, the story would have turned out differently, and Ruth would not be praised in Bible commentary as she is. The story should be read in conjunction with the customs of the time and Levirate marriage, See www.womenintheancientworld.com/ruth

To later matters:

1. I note that you refer to the Spirit of God as "Her". If you mean the Holy Spirit, what is your authority for using "Her"? In Romans 8-26, it says "..the Spirit Himself intercedes for us.."

2. Your quote from a Greek Orthodox theologian that" Morality is not about right and wrong, it's about reality and unreality". I think he should consult a good Dictionary. He is trying to redefine the obvious and doing a poor job of it. Some theologians these days feel compelled to spread confusion, and they are doing a much better job of that.

3. You accuse George W. Bush of blasphemy! There are such things as Good and Evil. I don't know what statement you are referring to, but if he means Osama bin-laden and Saddam Hussein and his sadistic regime are Evil, he is quite right. But how did George W get into this discussion anyhow?

Big A, It seems to me that you are interpreting the text of Ruth from a moralistic stance and you miss what is in the text. That is exactly my point about Mary, Catholic piety posits her as the pure queen of heaven and she is connected to sexual morality. That means we miss what is actually going on in Matthew's text.

Holy Spirit: granted "He" is good. I remember something about Hebrew and the spirit being feminine but I could not vouch for it, hence my slip.

I do not understand your objections to the quote from Rowan Williams.

The theological point about evil is that it is not up to us to name it, hence my obscure reference to the knowledge of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In the text this is a grasping after the things of God who alone knows he difference between good and evil. That does not make us morally impotent, we may still oppose the violent, but it is not up to us to name them evil.

Big Al, your fine distinction between "revere" and "worship" would be lost on the many millions of poor Roman Catholics around the world who think that Mother Mary will save them from poverty and natural disasters. Are you avoiding my question about the second commandment as recorded in the original hebrew text?

Peter, on the subject of sexual morality, I understand that the words "adultery", "fornication", "whore" and "whoredom" are mentioned more than 500 times in the bible, whereas the word "morality" is not mentioned once. Biblical scribes and scholars were sadly obsessed with the sexual behaviour of women, much the same as the islamic fundamentalists of today.

Grace, I'm surprised that you are having difficulty in distinguishing between "revere" and "worship". As far as I can tell, the many millions of "poor Roman Catholics" have no trouble. The second verse of he "Hail Mary" says "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death Amen. So if Catholics "worshipped" Mary as Divine, they wouldn't ask her to pray to anyone else would they? I checked the Cathechism of the Cathoic Church which says p253 that devotion to Mary "differs essentially from the adoration "given to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I hope that puts your mind at rest.

I am not trying to avoid your question. Please quote your version of the second Commandment.

Grace, what do you think my article about Mary was trying to say? In the face of traditional proscriptions about sexual immorality that we find in any culture we have this strange tradition that sees the hand of God in less than regular sexual relations. I think you will find that the Old Testament is not so easy to pin down. The other point I would like to make is that we see sexuality through decades of libertarian movements that have set us free for all kinds of behaviour, much to our dis-ease.

Big Al, I am surprised that you misunderstood my point about revere/worship. Its quite simple really. Whilst you were able to refer to page 253 of your catechism to check the difference and confirm your understanding, millions of poor and uneducated people around the world who worship Mary do not have access to written authorities such as yours, do not have the skills or the incentive to debate the issue, and would find the distinction meaningless in their daily lives.

On the subject of the second commandment, this shameless infidel is boldly venturing into arcane religious exegesis as follows.

It is my understanding, on the basis of secondary sources, that the second commandment in the Catholic Catechism reads, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain".

By contrast, the Hebrew version apparently reads, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments."

The Protestant version apparently reads similarly to the Hebrew, omitting the first line of the Hebrew version, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me".

Assuming you agree with the general thrust of my quotations (and Peter might like to add comment from the protestant perspective), my point should be obvious. Why does the Roman Catholic church omit the bits about bowing down to graven images (such as statues of Mary sold in shops)? Is it because this might disallow the worship and adoration of saints?

Peter, you appear to me to be lecturing women about their sexual behaviour, just as the bible does, interminably and obsessively. You appear to be saying that it is a marvellous thing that your god recognises and names a few "fallen" women in the bible, because this shows that even "sinful" or "less than regular" women can be saved if they believe in your god (and be damned if they don't). You believe that modern society is somehow sexually diseased, presumably as the result of political correctness, communism, abortion, adultery etc. As I understand it, you do not support the "politically correct" social progess made by women in recent years, presumably because such progress contradicts our predestined biblical roles as either damned whores or god's police.

Dear Grace, I have the increasingly uncomfortable feeling of being forced into places by you that do not fit. Perhaps this is because you are not a careful reader and perhaps it is because of your obvious anger at any statement about morality by a male. I reject your inference that males have no right to discuss female as well as male behaviour as though we are different species. The is the dangerous side of feminism that causes nothing but schism between the sexes. I am happy to see women doing all kinds of things in society as their hearts desire and their skills enable. Would you please read me closer and stop projecting all kinds of gruesome tendencies on me.

I recently visited Ely cathedral in Cambridgshire and the lovely Lady chapel. The home of Oliver Cromwell is in the villiage. I mourned the empty niches that left the walls bare of statuary. Of course there is idolotry in the church and not only in the Catholic. Protestants have their own form of it when they believe that every event that is related in the bible actually happened and every law in Leviticus must be obeyed (although they seem to omit that bit). It is my understanding that images in the Catholic tradition are aids to reflection, particularly in Medieval times when most were illiterate. This is a long way from idolotry. When it comes to idolotry the secular world is most expert, the market, progress, individual happiness, limitless material extention etc.

Sells, Happy New Year! To get down to business,I don't understand how you can say that "only God knows the difference between Good and Evil" and "..it is not up to us to name them evil". If this were true, why did God give us the Ten Commandments, setting out right from wrong, good from evil? St. Paul in Romans 1 and 2 has no hesitation in declaring some things to be evil. If we are not supposed to name things as evil or good, why did He establish His Church to "go teach all nations". How do we teach all nations unless we say some things are good and some are evil?

When you say "there is idolitory in the church and not just in the Catholic" I presume are talking about the modern day "worship" of money power and prestige. As you go on further, the images in Catholic tradition are merely an aid to reflection and prayer. They are definitely not used as idols as the pagans use them. Thank you formaking that distinction. Grace please note!

Grace, Happy New Year to you and all contributers. First of all, you seem to be the only one of us having difficulty with the terms "worship" "adoration" "revere" "venerate" etc. All those "poor Roman Catholics" have no such difficulty so don't go to bed worrying.

The only reason I quoted the Cathechism Of The Catholic Church was for your benefit, so you could see I wasn't just making this up.

So far as the Commandments are concerned, the one you are quoting is the First.[Exodus 20] God wanted to stop the Israelites from falling into the pagan Egyptian practice of worshipping idols [graven images, such as the Golden Calf]. He did not ban images altogether, as can be seen in Exodus 25.

The statues of Mary and the Saints are NOT idols to be worshiped as the pagans do with idols. As Vatican II declared, "Whoever venerates an image, venerates the person portrayed in it". Not the image itself. I hope this clears up this question.

Big Al. You are right to demand that I calify about the calling of evil. The creation narratives declare that the creation is good. God does not create an evil being. But in the second narrative the serpent tempts Eve by promising that she will know good and evil. If we take this to be ontological knowledge, that is what beings are good and evil then my distinction becomes clear. Man may call not being good or evil, all beings are God's creatures and have been created good. Men may certainly do evil deeds as you rightly point out Paul does in Rom 1 and 2 but nowhere does he pronounce that men and women were evil. I hope this helps.

Peter dear, I am not angry at you, but you are making fanciful assumptions about me that are quite unjustified. If my "dangerously feminist" comments upset you, by "forcing" you into "uncomfortable places", then take consolation in the fact that I am only one of two people who have so far bothered to comment on your essay. But then perhaps others tried a "careful reading" of your essay, and found your writing to be a bit too confused and confusing.

It is also very naughty of you to say that I "inferred" that you have no right to speak about women, just because you are a man. Tell me exactly how and where I "inferred" this Peter.

Big Al, my use of the word "poor" seems to bother you, so be assured that I am not using the word scornfully, but in reference to poverty. That is, those millions of poor people around the world who cannot feed their children properly, who cannot read and have never been to school, yet worship Mary in your temples in the vain hope that she can help.

I remain convinced that Mary is indeed worshipped by millions of poor people, and that the Roman Catholic Church has conveniently cherry-picked the original biblical texts over the centuries to allow this to happen. Otherwise, many of the poor and uneducated in Africa, Asia and the Americas might desert the Roman Catholic church and rediscover their own female pagan dieties.

Grace, there seems no way to convince you that Catholics DO NOT WORSHIP Mary. I don't know whether you are inferring that the people of Asis, Africa and the Americas would be beter off worshipping pagan deities than they would be venerating and showing devotion to Mary. Surely not! Pagan deities don't establish schools and medical centres in those countries such as the Catholics and other Christian missionaries do, even helping to feed tham as well. The people are responding well and Christianity is growing in Africa for sure. I'm not sure about the other continents, but I think it's doing OK there too. I have a Salvation Army missionary friend in Bolivia and she says her mission helps feed and clothe and educate many poor people, and provide medical services. Don't see any pagan gods helping out there or anywhere else. Similarly with our own country. Take a look at the capital city phone books under Catholic, Anglican and Salvation Army and see how many services they provide for the poor and the sick. How many do their critics provide? Zero.

Sells, I can't see why we can't "call a spade a spade"and identify things as "good" or"evil". Also people in history. Just for argument's sake, Satan is evil. So was Nero. So was Hitler, Himmler and their cohorts in Nazism. Mussolini and Fascism were evil. Stalin, Beria,Mao and their leaders in Communism were evil. Osama bin-ladin and all terrorists are evil. On the other hand, Mother Teresa was good, Ghandi was good, and so on. I can't see what the Archbishop was trying to achieve by saying that morality is not about right and wrong, but about reality and unreality.

Big Al. I think we must take the theology of creation seriously, especially the first account in seven days. At the end of each day we have the phrase "And God saw that it was good" After the creation of human kind the phrase is intensified: And God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good." To say that the monsters of history are evil is to ignore these crucial verses. How did they become evil? at what point in their lives did they turn from God's good creation to become evil? Were they not born innocent babes? We may trace their development and see how the various forces in their own lives made them the way they are but that does not mean that they were inherently evil. I repeat, we may call their deeds evil but they are still, one and all, children of God. This is central to the compassion of the church and why the death penalty is an abomination.

The thing about reality and unreality is that we see reality only through the eyes of the gospel. Without the gospel we only see through the eyes of human brokenness, we do not see the truth. The men you list saw the world through this distortion and did not see the faces of those they killed, they did not see that their deeds were evil because they were caught up with the powers of the world that opose the gospel.

SELLS, I agree that God saw everyhing He made was good. He gave Mankind Free Will. But then came the Fall, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God by listeing to Satan's lying promises and ate the Forbidden Fruit, thinking they would be as knowledgable and powerful as God. That wrecked everything, they were expelled from Eden, stripped of their privileges ,Cain murdered Abel. Evil was abroad. Today Evil is still abroad.

We see it in paedophilia [made even more repugnant when done by those in positions of trust like clergy and teachers] , drug dealing, abortion, domestic violence, crime, pornography, racism , genocide, sex slavery and now terrorism.

The people responsible for this violence, [Idi Amin and Pol Pot are two I should have included with Hitler and co.] and nameless millions of others are using [or abusing] the Free Will given to all of us by God, and deserve to be called evil. I think you are being too kind to them. They are ruthless and cruel and have to be held accountable in this life and the next.

I think people often feel overwhelmed, swamped by the evil which floods our TV, cinemas and print media, whether as news or "entertainment". Christians can always "have Faith" remembering the promises of Jesus: "The gates of Hell will not prevail against us" and "Behold I am with you always, even to the end of the world"

The final victory will be God's and we have to play our part and stay loyal to Him.

ADDENDUM When say "we have to play our part" I mean to actively resist evil. It's no use just sitting there wringing our hands and grumbling. Christians are considerable in number and occupy positions where they can have a strong influence. We can write letters to the Press and politicians, TV stations etc. expressing our opinions. The Secular Humanists and other opponents certainly do this.

I remember one very wise man saying "We can't do everything, but we can do something".

Jesus also encouraged us with the words: "Let not your heart be troubled" and "Be not afraid". In fact,"Be not afraid" occurrs 366 times in the Bible, one for every day including Leap Year!

Greetings people... and those who choose not to use their real names. A Happy and discerning new-year to you all!

Just a note worth mentioning here, and that is, we are all people created by God and deserve respect on that level, so I love you all! Seeing we will all stand naked before our Creator without excuse, at least let's disagree with each other's views with dignity and respect. Some of us have articulate gifts and ways with words like Peter Sellick, and he can use them to the glory of God or Satan. That is his choice, just as it is any of ours. If you feel strongly that Peter is not speaking out of wisdom from God, then try using other phrases than the ones in your mind 'you son of the devil' and stuff like that. Perhaps use phrases like 'Peter, I strongly disagree with you on this point as I believe your stance is unbiblical...let me explain....etc.

Jesus never rebuked a man before knowing his heart.... I cannot see Peter, but I know he has some knowledge of God but I do not know yet if he is born-again by the Spirit of God. This comes through time when you get to know someone 'electronically'.

Yip I know that sounds a bit funny but I think we're mature enough to know what that means. If you need to say something ,attack or support them, with the other person's dignity still in tact.

...man, that felt good! ...now carry on. Try follow on with that Raymond Brown thing, although the man is dead, I'm sure he'll be interested in what this forum has to say about him :) I'll be watching...

Thanks
Lance