Russell Turpin, as is his wont, has raised some interesting issues  in his struggle with the Christian texts and the Christians.  Unfortunately, he seems to be hoping for simplicity where it is  not available. The lukewarm stew he detects may well be an inevitable  result of the divine mixing himself up with a bunch of losers such  as humanity.   Also unfortunately (perhaps) I have a deadline in two weeks, the  responsibility for which prevents me, in good conscience,  from writing a more considered response and fully entering the fray, as it were.   Let me then say what I can, briefly.  -----  >The two commandments *are* rules; they are merely rules that are >so vague that they are practically devoid of meaning.    This point, for the net.browsers who also still read books, is pursued throughly in Kaufmann, Critique_of_Religion_and_Philosophy.  >The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself can be viewed, >in part, as reminding man that he is not God and cannot act as if >he has "ultimate responsibility."   This is a theological statement worthy of Barth. Dr Turpin (DD) may wear the black robe of Geneva yet! :-)  >Indeed, many traditions present >an interpretation where believers are supposed to interpret >loving one's neighbor as following various other rules, and >relying on their god to make things come out right, precisely >because it would be wrong for man to assume such "ultimate >responsibility." Once again, we are confronted with good sounding >goo that means whatever the reader wants it to mean.   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.   >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.  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. To drive Russell Turpin's point with adequacy, one needs to begin with NT texts (probably from Matthew, and probably about damnation) (Just trying to help :-) )  This part is, I discover, what most moves me to post:  mls> I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.  >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 much govern.  The equation of radical = liberal,  which seems implied by Russell Turpin  is wrong.  Radical conservatives are  possible (if sadly lacking in numbers at present). Thomas Merton was a radical, even though conservative in some ways. St Francis was a radical, similarly. How many examples are needed?  mls> ... Why don't I and the (myriads of) other Christians like me mls> tell you something about Christianity? ...  Michael's question gets to a heart of the matter (Klingons have two hearts, so my metaphor is not mixed, just extraterrestrial :-) ) 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!  >The irony here is that there is *nothing* in Christianity per >se that Michael can use to support the cause of lesbians and >gays.    How can one answer this while staying on the more general issue? I'm on the other side of the interpretive fence (from Michael) on this issue, yet '*nothing*' is a hideous overstatement.  One verse is enough to refute it; I'll offer two, from Paul (of all people):  'In Jesus Christ there is neither male nor female...'(Galatians 3:28 {I don't quote single verses as a rule, and I don't carry  them in my head}) and '*Nothing* shall separate us from the glory of God...'  (roughly, from Romans). [If Russell would promise to convert based on these or any other verses,  I'd promise to get the full context for any that he requires :-) :-)]  >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.  Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com These are my opinions & activities alone  QOTD: