-*----

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 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. 


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 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. 


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. 

-*----

No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel 
seriously.  What differentiates you is the way you interpret the
gospel.


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. 