-*---- In article <C5Jzz7.9G7@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes: > Well, the whole *point* of making these the "base" commandments is that > they *aren't* reducible to rules.  A set of rules is a moral code or a > law code or an algorithm for acting.  Such things can be very helpful > to individuals or societies -- but not if they are used *instead* of a > personal involvement in and responsibility for one's actions. ...  The two commandments *are* rules; they are merely rules that are so vague that they are practically devoid of meaning.  Michael Siemon acknowledges this every time he writes that the resolution of an argument over them turns on secular and cultural assumptions that are independent of these rules.   > ... The Great  Commandment is, more than anything else, a call > to act *as if you were God and accepting ultimate responsibility* > in your every action. ...  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." 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.   > ... "Conservatives" may twist this "act as if you were God" to  > mean "lay down rules for other people and be as nasty to them > as possible if they don't keep YOUR rules."  They are so > insistent (and obvious) about this that they have convinced a > lot of people (who rightly reject the whole concept!) that such  > idiocy IS how God acts. ...  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 cannot refer to "base" claims or base commandments to show that such readings are "twisted," because this divergence in understanding occurs even in trying to interpret the "base" claims and commandments.  In addressing conservative Christians, Michael will necessarily draw upon secular and cultural notions that these conservative Christians will reject.    > But why should anyone BE looking for an ethical system, since our > society is eager to hand us one or more no matter what we do?  It > may be that we need a principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems > -- in which case I will profer the _agapate allelou_ once again.  But these base commandments are too vague to serve as  "a principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems." The meaning of these base commandments for any believer derives from the secular and cultural notions that the believer brings to them, from how the believer mixes their demands with straightforward readings of other Biblical passages, from a particular sectarian tradition, or from some combination of these things.  These commandments lack sufficient substance in themself to serve as a basis for criticizing ethical systems.  What meaning they have comes from the ethical system the believer brings to these commandments.   > And different bodies of Christians have, from the beginning, urged > *different* "ethical systems" (or in some cases, none).  As a result, > it is bizarre to identify any one of these systems, however popular > (or infamous) with Christianity.  Christianity DOES NOT HAVE A TORAH. > It does not have a QU'RAN.  Specifically Christian scripture has very > little, if anything, in the way of "commandments" -- so little that > the "Christians" who desperately *want* commandments go "mining" for > them with almost no support ... The one, single, thing in the gospels > which Jesus specifically "gives" as "a commandment" to us is "love > one another."  Jesus explicitly states that this summarizes Jewish law, which would seem to bring in all of it if we properly understand what it means to love God and love our neighbors.  There are *many* parables and teachings the gospels attribute to Jesus that are straightforwardly read as ethical commandments.  The Pauline epistles are similarly full.  If it is not clear that these all come together in a sensible understanding of ethical behavior, the problem is *not* a lack of raw material.   -*---- > 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.  > ... Why don't I and the (myriads of) other Christians like me > tell you something about Christianity? ...  In a sense, the wide variety of interpretations does tell us something about Christianity.  It tells us that the New Testament authors left a sufficiently vague hodge-podge that it can serve as the source text for many, vastly different beliefs about the nature of the Christian god and about what men should and shouldn't do.   The irony here is that there is *nothing* in Christianity per se that Michael can use to support the cause of lesbians and gays.  *Every* Christian principle he turns to this cause is effective only through the extra-Christian principles through which Michael interprets his religion, and the homophobes apply the *same* Christian principles, with equal justification, to their cause.  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.    Michael paints a picture of "standard American atheism" as the rejection of the evil in many conservative Christian interpretations of the Bible.  But I think it is even more damaging to Christianity to note that the New Testament presents such a vague hodge-podge of notions about the nature of God and the nature of the good (except, of course, when it is ordered by an interpretation that relies on extraneous principles).  Here, I think we should apply a Christian parable, where a cold drink can have its value and a hot drink can have its value, but the lukewarm we should spit out.