Opinion of Mark Driscoll

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He's a perfect example of the tendency in modern Evangelical (and Christian in general, really) 'thought' to submit entirely to the starting point of the temporal reign of concepts of sexuality and attempt to replace Jesus' holy silence and inhabitation of the empty space between sexual identity and nonidentity with a picture of a heteronormative Jesus that is both spiritually and temporally damaging and makes no sense whatsoever. Massive HP.

I'm not sure how it's possible to argue that abstaining from something can be a sin, unless we're talking refusal to take the Eucharist or something.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That makes sense. I thought you were saying that there might be something wrong about abstaining from alcohol for reasons of personal conviction or health reasons or lack of desire to lose inhibitions socially or whatever, which I was having a hard time wrapping my head around.

I'm not sure sin is the right word for refusing alcoholic Eucharists. In fact, I'm pretty sure it isn't. It just strikes me as a little odd, and I can see, with some effort, how others might consider it wrong.

Mark Driscoll is still an oblate to the altar of sexual-commoditized Christanity and an HP, in any case.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not sure how it's possible to argue that abstaining from something can be a sin, unless we're talking refusal to take the Eucharist or something.

this reminds me of the debate over the health care mandate.

It's much easier to argue for abstaining from something being a civil liability.