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. >