-*---- I wrote: >> And who is to say that this interpretation is "twisted"?  There >> are many passages in the Bible that in their most straightforward >> reading show the Christian god behaving in just this way.  In article <1r622c$c17@cass.ma02.bull.com> ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes: > This requires the assumption that all interpretations are equally > valid, that there is no way of reasonably distinguishing among > them. I wouldn't make that assumption; I don't think it is a > reasonable assumption.   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.  > Michael, and I, and others, read 'the Bible' with Christian > glasses. Among the things that this should imply is that the > NT informs the OT, even to the point of dominanting it. Some > points in the OT (ceremonial & dietary laws) are explicitly  > abrogated by the NT texts. ...  There are enough Christian glasses, varying over a sufficiently broad range of color, that I can find a few that support my example.   >> No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel  >> seriously.  What differentiates you is the way you interpret the >> gospel.  > Russell Turpin's 'No' here is misplaced, not to say inappropriate. > Michael's self-description must govern.  The equation of radical =  > liberal, which seems implied by Russell Turpin is wrong. ...  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.  > Russell Turpin (in an earlier post) had said that Michael (Michael's > theological positions, actually) didn't tell him much about Christianity; > Dean Simeon responds (this time gently): 'What do you mean?' More > direct, perhaps, would have been: 'What could you possibly mean?' > The implied rhetorical effort, to separate Michael from the tradition, > is a failure. Michael is in the tradition. If your idea of the tradition > doesn't include him, Change your idea of the tradition!  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!  >> ... In short, it is the extra-Christian principles that make >> Michael's Christianity beneficial, and I suspect they would >> be as beneficial, perhaps moreso, without being filtered by >> Christian interpretation.    > This conclusion does not follow, even in short, from the > argument that goes before. A surprising logical ellipsis.  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.)  -*---- > This is a theological statement worthy of Barth. > Dr Turpin (DD) may wear the black robe of Geneva yet! :-)  Having barely survived the effort to finish in computer science, I doubt I will attempt a more difficult field any time soon!