re christian meta ethics 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 r c c cass ma bull com ddavis cass ma 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 russell
