There's some interpreters who now interpret Christ's commsand to turn
the other cheek, go the extra mile, and go naked if someone sues one for
the coat one wears as subversive, nonviolent teaching.   Christ wasn't
teaching a mamby pamby rule here.   He was teaching a new way to act to
authority,   For example, with regard to the teaching.to go the extra
mile, the Roman soldiers could force the conquered subjects to carry his
equipment one mile, and only one mile.  Any more, and the soldiers would
be in deep trouble..Can you just see it? The Roman Soldiers begging the
Jewish-Christians to stop carrying his equipment after the first mile?
See the subversive humor in it?   Christ did not quesxtion the Old
Testament laws, he questioned the  interpretation of them.  When he
said,   "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not
murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'   But I
tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to
judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable
to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of
the fire of hell."  His interpretation was so much harsher than even the
Jewish teachers of that time...

Walter Wink is one of the theologians who teaches this interpretation.
He has a number of articles on the web, and one of them is an 8 page
paper of homosexuals and the church.  If you want I can put a link of it
on here. .  ..

Elizabeth H. Thiers wrote:

>It's interesting in that when the Christ came he specifically questioned the
>old testament laws.  He was often a breaker of Judaic law and questioned
>it's legitamacy especially in the face of hypocrasy.  Christ worked on the
>Sabbath, didn't wash his hands.  I often find a lot of conflict between what
>Christ says "turn the other cheek', "meek shall inherit the earth" and
>Pauline concepts of Christianity.
>
>Beth T.
>