In salvation, Christ saves us from eternal damnation. In my own life right now, I’m trying to wrap my brain around the truth that Christ chose to die so I can live eternally. That’s incredibly humbling, and knowing that I am so loved, compels me to hate the sin in my life.

Yeah, I’m still human. Yeah, I’m still a sinner. But as a I continue to work out my salvation, that desire to sin is slowly (and I mean, slowly) going away.

Yeah, there are a lot of people who “accept Jesus” and continue to live lives of sin. But we all know people who say things with their mouths but don’t mean them in their hearts, right?

Ultimately, God knows our hearts–his word can divide soul and spirit. That is divine to me.

I think it’s a bit horrible that I can therefore act however I want, moral or immoral, and as long as I accept Jesus then I’m in.

Doesn’t exactly sound like a fool-proof law does it, certainly not divine in nature.

Maybe this is why there used to be so many death bed conversions.

“- If it is your view that we are all equal sinners (as suggested by Jason) on what basis am I denied entry into heaven and the faithful are allowed, again, since we are all equally sinful? (I am an apostate as you no doubt have guessed)”

The OT was an exposure to humanity that without trust and obedience to God, humanity fails itself and the world.

The Law (as given to Moses) was necessary to fully expose humanity to our inabilities: to love one another; be respectful; be caring; be forgiving, etc. The Law was a basic do and don’t do for an immoral and base people. Those few persons who managed to notice God’s Handiwork (in creation), then gave God Glory for Who He Is. Those few persons (David, Abraham, Joseph, Noah, Moses,etc.) lived with The Law written “on their hearts”.

In The NT, Jesus fullfills The Law by bringing it to conclusion. “All have fallen short of the Glory of God.” Except He Himself: Jesus, The Son of God. The OT required blood be spilled and offered as a covering over sins, blood of a pure lamb, as told in the story we call Passover.

Jesus lived pure, was born through a virgin, and offered Himself as the Last Passover Lamb, to cover all of humanity’s sins. There is indeed one necessity: You must accept Jesus as your own gift of sin covering. He will indeed forgive all sins, but not without a person first asking to be included in His New Covenant (Contract). If you accept Jesus as God’s True Son, and believe He gave Himself for you to be cleansed and ready to stand before God Our Father, then you are indeed. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. Believe Him. Receive Him. Thank Him.

http://www.richardbarnbrook.com/2008/06/how-they-a …

If you are a Christian in England then your views are not allowed, and as to say otherwise is to offend the minorities, who now are turning our churches up and down the country into Mosques.

It is a fairly intellectual global politics website, but I always enjoy having contrasting points of view since our reader base is fairly secular.

@Linden
Thanks again for your well thought response. In order for me to better understand your position, I wonder if you’ll answer a few questions:(and I put this to Sarah and Jason as well)

- If it is your view that we are all equal sinners (as suggested by Jason) on what basis am I denied entry into heaven and the faithful are allowed, again, since we are all equally sinful? (I am an apostate as you no doubt have guessed)

**I hope you can all respond to this question**

@Sarah

Thank you, I am one of these buster/mosaics in fact, my birth date lies conveniently in between the two arbitrary ranges.

I’ll simply say that Christianity itself has not left a bad taste in my mouth. My up bringing was in a very moderate Christian community filled with good, moral people who loved one another. This is what Christianity was to me as a child.

What has ruined all religious belief for me is the arrogance and solipsism required to say that I cannot be a good person as an atheist or that I’ll be punished for it. That’s cruel, for I’ll readily that there are many fine people who are stringent believers in God.

@Jason

““TO suggest that you have some universal truth and since I do not have that truth, that I am deluded and in need of help?”

So if you were sitting around cutting yourself with a knife and I told you that you had to stop right now or you could bleed to death I’d be arrogant for doing so? All truth is not relative.”

Jason, your response here is poorly thought out. You’re equating non-belief in an invisible deity who is only known of through scripture to the cutting of ones self.

If you thought like I do, you’d realize how ridiculous an analogy this is. Let me explain. I base my assumptions on something called material evidence.

To take your example, the cutting of ones self is evidently self destructive in the sense that my physical and mental health is significantly harmed by the cutting-it’s simple cause and effect. Imposing in this case is not arrogant as inflicting harm is contrary to the universal struggle for life-something all beings experience. However, I defend any individual’s right to do with their life as they wish, including suicide (unless they do not have the capacity to make that judgment).

The absence of belief in God however, doesn’t produce any evidence of harm to the subject (assuming we maintain the same standard for evidence used in the cutting analogy).

No doubt you’ll be offended by how I’ve explained the weakness of your analogy, but it’s a lesson, if learned, you’ll be the better for grasping. Because it is analogies like yours that paint Christians as unintelligent and quick to provide empty platitudes as evidence. (See the bullet “Sheltered”)

The arrogance of your statement I hope is clear to you now.

Physical health and harm (something objective) and a belief (something entirely subjective) are not analogous if you want your arguments to hold, take a class in logic.

Your question is actually very easily answered, and I already implied the answer. At the temple, a woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus and the stuffy religious leaders asked Jesus what should be done, heavily suggesting that she be stoned to death, as the Old Testament (OT) said she should be. Jesus’ reply was “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.”

Yes, the OT presents a picture of wrath and revenge, but Jesus and the sacrifice he made on the cross changed all that. Jesus’ message was love. Love your neighbors. Don’t stone the woman unless you are sinless. Love the people with leprosy. Et cetera, et cetera.

Despite what the modern church preaches (as you said, they preach that “We’re all sinners from birth, I’m a sinner, but you’re worse. Here’s how you can improve …”), to God and Jesus, we are all sinners. Sin is sin is sin. It is only we imperfect, greedy, selfish humans who say my secret sin–lets say it’s that I am so involved at church that I ignore my husband and children, which causes my marriage to fall apart and my children to hate me, a very real and common sin which, in varying degrees, has afflicted many a Christian–is obviously not as bad as your public homosexuality.

I think Jesus would see both as sins, neither worse than the other. It’s US who mess the balance up. And, as a Christian, I agree with you. It goes against my sensibilities. So I try my hardest to love the people that only Jesus could love. I try, I try so hard, but I still fail.

Many of your thoughts in your original comment are actually addressed in the book. Please don’t misunderstand the perceptions and new perceptions I listed in the review: the perceptions are existing perceptions from the Buster and Mosaic generations right now, and the new perceptions are what Kinnaman and Lyons want Christians to work toward.

I encourage you to read the book. I’m sure you’ll continue to feel strongly about it even afterward, and I’d like to hear more of your thoughts. You can leave them here or email me at sarahjoaustin@gmail.com.

So if you were sitting around cutting yourself with a knife and I told you that you had to stop right now or you could bleed to death I’d be arrogant for doing so? All truth is not relative.

“How can a moral Christian reconcile scripture (where it is often suggested that people should be stoned to death) with the morality of the Jesus ideal?”

You mean like when they brought a woman caught in adultery (a sin where the law called for her to be stoned to death) and Jesus didn’t condemn her but told her to go and sin no more?