I do actually know a self described "Christian Fundamentalist" who is a leftist. The dude is some flavor of Baptist (can't remember which denomination specifically) and is really rad. He explained it to me once by saying that fundamentalism means following the strictest and most literal word of something. Applied to Jesus and the Bible, that means helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and not trying to hoard wealth.
I’m curious, does your friend think that anyone who does not accept Jesus as their savior will spend an eternity in a state of eternal torment? To me that’s kind of the dividing line between the true “fundamentalists” and everyone else.
Before I deconverted, I tried to embrace Karl Barth Thought since he was basically universalist without explicitly saying so, and I liked a lot of what he had to say. But that part I was too far gone.
(btw Barth is also cool because he incorporated dialectics into his theology!
Edit: a more religiously inclined Marxist should write a book titled “Between Two Karls” about an imaginary conversation between Marx and Barth.
As a random aside, coming from my religious background I tend to cite the end of the narnia novels as a healthier view on the whole be saved or go to hell rhetoric. I personally kind of hate most of those books now but the final book does make it clear that people who do good works, regardless of faith, end up in heaven. Coming from a Christian I feel like it’s a good way to segue into talking about the injustice of a good a just divine figure damning people for being born into a different faith (or atheist) setting.
I guess what I’m saying is that the repent or be damned rhetoric can be wiggled around, but it comes down to how philosophical a Christian is at heart, or if they are just dead set in the rule as it seems to stand in their specific orthodoxy
I think Narnia is pretty cool but god i hate the "Susan didnt get to come back to Narnia because she was too much of an icky girl" thing (note that idr the full details of this and might be getting it slightly wrong)
I dont like Lewis, but he himself said that Susan is kind of the Author insert. (Egg CS Lewis discussion tba) and that her exile from Narnia is temporary.
Also, I'd point out that hopeful universalism is a far older position than fundamentalism, going back to Clement I, who was personally made a priest by Peter. Slightly later Justin Martyr makes a case for the salvation of the virtuous pagans such as Socrates, using a Middle Platonist argument. Prots don't know this because they've never considered reading another book.
On a related note, "eternal hell unless you accept Jesus as Savior" doesn't mean what evangelicals think it does. Because John makes clear Jesus is literally the Divine Motive force of all creation before and after he was made flesh.
He proceeded from the father before creation as the divine idea of creation itself, reflected back upon creation by god. Those who study eastern religions will note some parallels here with Brahma/Buddha nature/Tao.
So you kind of have to try really quite hard to not be saved. Some people do of course.
I'm writing all this from the perspective of Catholic theology of course, not expecting anyone to accept it as true.
Yeah, the whole "Hand yourself over to us or you'll face eternal torment beyond anything you can imagine" thing always kind of seemed like dodgy salesmanship to me. A little too on the nose. A little too convenient for the one making the pitch.
I need the occasional reminder that there're people out there who aren't just the usual 700 club type and that there's often significantly more depth to theology. One of the pitfalls of avoiding human contact whenever possible out of fear of the more reactionary elements of the populace.
I do actually know a self described "Christian Fundamentalist" who is a leftist. The dude is some flavor of Baptist (can't remember which denomination specifically) and is really rad. He explained it to me once by saying that fundamentalism means following the strictest and most literal word of something. Applied to Jesus and the Bible, that means helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and not trying to hoard wealth.
I’m curious, does your friend think that anyone who does not accept Jesus as their savior will spend an eternity in a state of eternal torment? To me that’s kind of the dividing line between the true “fundamentalists” and everyone else.
Before I deconverted, I tried to embrace Karl Barth Thought since he was basically universalist without explicitly saying so, and I liked a lot of what he had to say. But that part I was too far gone.
(btw Barth is also cool because he incorporated dialectics into his theology!
Edit: a more religiously inclined Marxist should write a book titled “Between Two Karls” about an imaginary conversation between Marx and Barth.
As a random aside, coming from my religious background I tend to cite the end of the narnia novels as a healthier view on the whole be saved or go to hell rhetoric. I personally kind of hate most of those books now but the final book does make it clear that people who do good works, regardless of faith, end up in heaven. Coming from a Christian I feel like it’s a good way to segue into talking about the injustice of a good a just divine figure damning people for being born into a different faith (or atheist) setting.
I guess what I’m saying is that the repent or be damned rhetoric can be wiggled around, but it comes down to how philosophical a Christian is at heart, or if they are just dead set in the rule as it seems to stand in their specific orthodoxy
I think Narnia is pretty cool but god i hate the "Susan didnt get to come back to Narnia because she was too much of an icky girl" thing (note that idr the full details of this and might be getting it slightly wrong)
I dont like Lewis, but he himself said that Susan is kind of the Author insert. (Egg CS Lewis discussion tba) and that her exile from Narnia is temporary.
Also, I'd point out that hopeful universalism is a far older position than fundamentalism, going back to Clement I, who was personally made a priest by Peter. Slightly later Justin Martyr makes a case for the salvation of the virtuous pagans such as Socrates, using a Middle Platonist argument. Prots don't know this because they've never considered reading another book.
On a related note, "eternal hell unless you accept Jesus as Savior" doesn't mean what evangelicals think it does. Because John makes clear Jesus is literally the Divine Motive force of all creation before and after he was made flesh.
He proceeded from the father before creation as the divine idea of creation itself, reflected back upon creation by god. Those who study eastern religions will note some parallels here with Brahma/Buddha nature/Tao.
So you kind of have to try really quite hard to not be saved. Some people do of course.
I'm writing all this from the perspective of Catholic theology of course, not expecting anyone to accept it as true.
Yeah, the whole "Hand yourself over to us or you'll face eternal torment beyond anything you can imagine" thing always kind of seemed like dodgy salesmanship to me. A little too on the nose. A little too convenient for the one making the pitch.
I need the occasional reminder that there're people out there who aren't just the usual 700 club type and that there's often significantly more depth to theology. One of the pitfalls of avoiding human contact whenever possible out of fear of the more reactionary elements of the populace.