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.

-----


This point, for the net.browsers who also still read books, is
pursued throughly in Kaufmann, Critique_of_Religion_and_Philosophy.


This is a theological statement worthy of Barth.
Dr Turpin (DD) may wear the black robe of Geneva yet! :-)


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. 


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.


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!


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 :-) :-)]


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: