(First, I hope I’m wrong here.)


   But, nowadays with instant communication at everyone’s fingertips, and everyone branding everyone else instead of thinking and having true conversation, this is inevitable.


The Bible will be banned, not only in schools, put in all public places because of its “hateful” message.


“Progressive” attempts to redact its content to make it be acceptably visible within its “black leather covers” will also fail.


For more of such an offending assertion, use the DOOR.




   The need for redaction of the Bible?

   The historians Strauss and Howe predicted this 1992¹. Not the specifics, but they predicted the foundation on which they would rest. What they did not see in their describing of the repeated cycles of Western history since the 1500’s, was the explosion of instant worldwide communication, and the consequent near universal “censoring” and branding of those with the “wrong views,” and the fierce attempt to override the importance of a balanced perspective and the insuring of “practical free speech.”

   Now what’s wrong with the Bible?

   It’s far from being politically correct–as many Christians already know.

   But modern non-Christians, as a group, have failed to “discover” the Bible because, if they’ve read it at all they’ve done it very selectively. And pulpit preachers read and preach from it very selectively.

   If anyone discovers the–whole–first chapter of the New Testament book of Romans, it’s all over².

   It just doesn’t fit what modern people know is “right and wrong”³. Such a Biblical diatribe is offensive to modern ears, wired-in to a totally different value system that they–with and without assistance from the elites–have created and applauded.


   ¹ William Strauss and Neil Howe, The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy (What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny (Broadway Books, 1997) A NYT best-seller.

   ² The Epistle to the Romans was written by the Apostle Paul who, incidentally, wrote nearly one-half of the New Testament. One has two choices here: (1) Accept the face value of Paul’s words as, he declares, were given to him from God, and are repeated in other places in the Bible. (2) Reject Paul’s words as (a) nonsense because he didn’t know any better, or perhaps ill-timed or aimed at primitive people who were unenlightened, (b) or hateful, unmitigated bigotry inappropriate for anyone at any time. If one accepts #2, the Bible is reduced to another book on the shelf, to be replaced by newer and better understandings that will enlighten us better later.

   ³ First, an apology for lack of a sharper antecedent to they. “Right and wrong,” of course, are relative terms because nobody knows what they are is a common article of secular faith today; and its corollary: The highlight of arrogance is to tell, or suggest, to anyone otherwise.