-*----


No.  It follows from the fact that most Christians' choice of
interpretation stems from a mix of beliefs that are influenced by
the secular ethics of their culture and that are not fully
determined by scripture.  Whether or not there is some "right"
interpretation matters not; few Christians claim the ability to
read the mind of their god.  Dave Davis should note that it was
Michael who first stated the importance of secular and cultural
influence in this thread.  I think Michael is right in this, but
regardless, it should be noted that this has *not* been a point
of contention between Michael and myself. 

I have argued -- beyond Michael's claims -- that the Christian
scriptures are open to so many interpretations -- including a
wide divergence within the Christian tradition -- that even their
most important themes are vague.  Again, it does not matter that
there is some "right" interpretation *unless* there is a way to
determine what that "right" interpretation is.  It is the lack of
an objective measure, not the presumed lack of an answer, that
puts the force behind the line I argue.


There are enough Christian glasses, varying over a sufficiently
broad range of color, that I can find a few that support my
example. 



In my opinion, what makes Michael radical is that he fully
acknowledges that Christian scripture and tradition fail to
determine the doctrines that so many branches within Christianity
hold dear.  He is willing to live and practice his religion
within this indeterminacy, and he is willing to acknowledge that
much of his understanding of things Christian is influenced by
ideas that are not purely Christian.  Those Christians I have
called conservative must also interpret, but they do not
recognize -- or at least, are unwilling to admit -- the extent and
importance of this.


I recognize that Michael is part of the tradition.  But what does
it tell one about a tradition covering Origen, Aquinas, Jerry
Fallwell, and Jesse Jackson that it also includes Michael Siemon?
Not very much!



I think the conclusion does follow.  The purely Christian
principles that Michael has are the ones he shares with others in
the Christian tradition or that can be derived from Christian
scripture.  These, necessarily vague, are not enough to drive his
political stances.  That one should love one's neighbor is a 
purely Christian principle.  That this means showing tolerance 
for homosexuality is *not*.

As to these political stances, they are often at odds with what
is commonly held in most of current Christendom, and so I 
suspect they could be better pressed outside it.  (On the other
hand, I can well understand the counterpoint, that these 
political stances become most influential when presented to 
those who need them most.)

-*----

Having barely survived the effort to finish in computer science, I
doubt I will attempt a more difficult field any time soon!