Opinion of the Christian left

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

Take a guess.

That list is kind of weird though especially with the inclusion of various "liberal Democratic politicians who are Christian", which is basically "liberal Democratic politicians who aren't Jewish, Keith Ellison or Pete Stark."

*or André Carson

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

Entirely setting aside the sheer ridiculousness of the idea that the precise means by which the poor are provided for is of anything approaching primary importance, why on Earth would you assume that leftist Christians do not preach repentance from sin?

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

Entirely setting aside the sheer ridiculousness of the idea that the precise means by which the poor are provided for is of anything approaching primary importance, why on Earth would you assume that leftist Christians do not preach repentance from sin?

He's obviously referring to LGBT acceptance.

Oh, the messaging that I'm engaging in with regards to the ridiculousness of what jmfcst is saying isn't directed towards jmfcst any more, believe me.

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

Entirely setting aside the sheer ridiculousness of the idea that the precise means by which the poor are provided for is of anything approaching primary importance,

hey, BRTD is the one that brought it up, as if Jesus' miraculous healings is somehow a command to vote for universal healthcare by proxy (through the use of someone else's taxes), instead of making it a personal responsibility to care for others....BRTD is somehow tapping into Jesse Jackson's way of thinking.

But, if you think providing for others by proxy (taxing others) is a substitute for the commands of Jesus, then you're not reading the same book as I am.

I don't think it's a 'substitute', no, mainly because I don't artificially separate these issues according to the dictates of a bourgeoisie, at heart profoundly secular political tradition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sexual immorality - primarily fornication and homosexuality
[/quote]

If that's your definition of sin, then I suppose so, but the possibility is there that using that definition says more about your interests than it does about sin.

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

I'm not entirely convinced God is the one being stern in some of these conversations.

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

I'm not entirely convinced God is the one being stern in some of these conversations.

that's because you ignore the parts of scripture you believe are too stern

That's actually not even remotely why, but I'm seemingly never going to convince you that I actually am considerably better acquainted with me than you are, so you go ahead and keep thinking that.

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

that's because you ignore the parts of scripture you believe are too stern

That's actually not even remotely why, but I'm seemingly never going to convince you that I actually am considerably better acquainted with me than you are, so you go ahead and keep thinking that.

you're forgetting that I have witnessed you doing so...

… it never rises to the level of a major theme in the NT and it's mostly the same sorts of throwaway mentions that Paul gives to, for instance, the issue of women who won't shut up in church.

as you said, you throw those passages away - in other words, you IGNORE them

---

but, hey, you're going to continue to do what you want...just don't kid yourself into believe I am going to buy into it.

No. You're applying motivations to me that don't exist because you think that your being familiar with the fact that I use roughly the same non-crypto-idolatrous method of Biblical analysis as everybody else in the pre-nineteenth-century Church means that you know me better than I do.

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

No. You're applying motivations to me that don't exist because you think that your being familiar with the fact that I use roughly the same non-crypto-idolatrous method of Biblical analysis as everybody else in the pre-nineteenth-century Church means that you know me better than I do.

Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?  Why don't you dig how beautiful God’s boundaries for human sexuality are? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?!

Because when I do you don't recognize it as righteous or hopeful. (To be fair, it's true that my attempts to be relentlessly positive about the Will of God might entail being negative about a lot of other things.) The thing about you and I is that we both suffer from confirmation biases on this issue, and will thus both downplay scripture that problematizes our claims. There is nothing any more inherently wrong with this than with any other basic feature of our fallen nature but we don't even speak the same theological language on this subject so I have no basis on which to engage you about it any more, if I ever did.

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

Mixed; Some elements of the Christian left do great things for a lot of people when they focus on social justice, preferably in their own personal life rather than only in politics (that goes for the "Christian right" and morality just the same). Many on the "Christian left" are considered that because of their economic views and commitment to the poor, even if their economic views are sometimes a bit misguided, and not because of any will to deny the existence of sin or deleted certain sins from our catechism (or whatever the Protestant equivalent might be). However, some on the "Christian left" (that is a horrible monicker, sort of how the "Christian right" isn't a great monicker) take the openness to the point where they espouse basic doctrinal beliefs that are somewhat removed from Christianity, eg. non-Trinitarian, universalists, churches that dispute the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc. Or they consider "sin" in a relativistic context that one must simply follow his feelings rather than seeing a struggle against concupiscence.

Right; a lot of the 'Christian left' isn't really 'Christian' any more (though I would submit that it's a little easier to mount a doctrinal defense of universalism, broadly defined, than the rest of your examples; albeit still not immensely easy and certainly not as easy as Balthasar's 'dared hope' and hence not as worthwhile because daring to hope doesn't make a mockery of the matter by shrouding God's actions with absolute human statements).

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

Mixed; Some elements of the Christian left do great things for a lot of people when they focus on social justice, preferably in their own personal life rather than only in politics (that goes for the "Christian right" and morality just the same). Many on the "Christian left" are considered that because of their economic views and commitment to the poor, even if their economic views are sometimes a bit misguided, and not because of any will to deny the existence of sin or deleted certain sins from our catechism (or whatever the Protestant equivalent might be). However, some on the "Christian left" (that is a horrible monicker, sort of how the "Christian right" isn't a great monicker) take the openness to the point where they espouse basic doctrinal beliefs that are somewhat removed from Christianity, eg. non-Trinitarian, universalists, churches that dispute the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc. Or they consider "sin" in a relativistic context that one must simply follow his feelings rather than seeing a struggle against concupiscence.

Right; a lot of the 'Christian left' isn't really 'Christian' any more (though I would submit that it's a little easier to mount a doctrinal defense of universalism, broadly defined, than the rest of your examples; albeit still not immensely easy and certainly not as easy as Balthasar's 'dared hope' and hence not as worthwhile because daring to hope doesn't make a mockery of the matter by shrouding God's actions with absolute human statements).

The good old, "We have to believe in hell but we don't have to believe there's anyone in it" isn't necessarily heretical, but does require a good bit of naivety about humanity and what people actually do if it doesn't also contain a disbelief in sin. Anecdotal evidence of the world around me at least suggests otherwise, not to say that just seeing someone commit acts of grave matter necessarily means that person is headed for hell, but more understanding the likelihood that win many, many people do, at least one of them are almost certainly headed to hell if we think about it statistically. Of course, we should then "dare to hope" that my "statistical assessment" is flawed in some way and that everyone will be saved. Yet, just like the complete avoidance of sin altogether, it's more a "hope" than a "belief" when applied in the world. I think it is a belief that both the "Christian left" and "Christian right" share.

Yes, it's certainly, in the form in which it is acceptable and doesn't require such naivety, much more a hope regarding God than a hope regarding the world. It's entirely more reasonable to belief that God would be good enough to redeem all men than to believe that all men are good enough to be redeemed by God, which as you said any sort of examination of the world as it is will show not to be the case to all but the most depraved sort of moral relativist (there exist non-depraved (though still wrong) moral relativists, and in my experience being at a major university they're usually anthropologists of some description).

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

I know of at least two evangelical churches that preach openness to universal salvation (My own and one planted by a buddy of mine that I've helped out with.), at the very least they do obviously reject that no one isn't Christian can acheive salvation, that's quite obvious from some sermons at that neocharismatic (and incredibly nasty holy roller right wing one if we believe afleitch. ) Seriously though there was even a sermon encouraging people to study and look for value in other religions and the intro to Advent one took time to note the work of God is not restricted to people who are Christians noting the Magi who followed the star to the birth of Jesus were not Christians or Jews and there is no mention of them becoming so either. And this has been part of ELCA doctrine too for as long as I can remember.

That's a bit different than universal salvation, though; that's just a fairly liberal extension of the concept of the Church Invisible.

TJ, hoping is about as far as I'm willing to go too, but I try to maintain as strong a hope as I can without falling into assumption; because as you say, here to assume is to presume and one must never act presumptuous toward God.

I suspect this is another area in which we have differences of interpretation that are in the grand scheme of things theologically somewhat minor but that would unfortunately be socially constructed as much more important, if anybody actually gave sincere thought to sin or salvation any more. (Even though honestly I'd bet my bottom dollar that our views on 'extra Ecclesiam' are much more different from each other's than are our views on sexuality.)

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

I still think the most sensical and best way to conceive of an afterlife that weds absolute love with absolute justice is the traditional Eastern Orthodox model.