Sin Blame?

How many quasi-heretics mis-think the following apostasy:

"I asked Jesus to come into my life, and accepted Him as my Savior and Lord. So now, if I sin, what the hell?

Once saved, always saved. I've been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, like it says in Hebrews 10:10 and by a single offering Jesus has perfected for all time me who is of the sanctified, like it says in Hebrews 10:14.

I'm a real Christian now, similar to what "president" Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born Barack Hussein Obama has claimed while defending Planned Parenthood and gay marriage, showing the realistic practicality that politics sometimes comes before pluralistic religious preference in a democracy. One cannot take everything in differing Bible translations literally, and has to avoid judgmentally-intolerant nitpicking and imposing selfishly-ambitious and divisively-proof-texting know-it-all dogmatism, which would not be exhibiting love for God and others.

No one's perfectly righteous, like it says in Ecclesiastes 7:20, and if we say that we have not previously sinned before we were converted and born again, we make God out to be a liar, like it says in First John 1:10. But that's all in the past. Been there, done that, and the guilt is gone forever. I'm now free to choose, like Lucifer, what is best for me, or discreetly put it off for later.

So now if I accidentally make a sort of regretted mistake or boo-boo under non-solicited duress, it - in effect - is an already-pardoned oopsie, and not a sin I would go to Hell for. Jesus paid it all, and it's thus automatically been covered by the blood. Not a big deal anymore.

If I melodiously sing a few praise songs when standing, toss a buck or two into the passing offering plate, methodically ingest some communion juice-and-cracker appetizers when I'm in a somber mood every so often while listening to the solitary First Corinthians chapter 11 snippet being read, and am non-hypocritically nice enough to fellow congregants no better and no worse than myself, what's the problem?

No need to be dressed overly-modest, and embarrass myself appearing to resort to works righteousness, especially when I'm clothed in His righteousness alone. I do not want to be criticized for legalistically being self-righteously pious.

As I said before, if I stumble because of temptation from others, what the hell? Mercy triumphs over judgment, like it says in James 2:13."

"Oh yeah?"

Do we genuine Christians "live by the Law?" Or instead live by "the gospel" (whatever the fart that is related or not related to)?

If it were not for the Mosaic and other Law throughout both [both!] the Old and and the New Testaments of The Holy Bible, we would definitely have no idea whatsoever what "sin" [as determined by God] was nor what was "sinful" in the past, nor is and is still "sinful" at the present time.

We would then, of course, invent our own lunatic and self-destructive superstitions what we thought it was.

Trifling-nitpicky legalisms galore. Concocted "do-and-don't" regulations and statutes without end.

Those who do not want to find out what the entire and complete Law [of the LORD, of course] consists of (by reading the totality of The Bible) probably do not want to find out what "sin" is so that they, in their self-deluded illusion, imagine that they, thereby, have a feckless excuse to continue to commit and not perform whatever type of sin they suspect they might be committing and do not want to quit committing.

If it were not for the Mosaic and other Law throughout the complete and honestly-translated Holy Bible [comparing the usually-accurate KJV and Wesley and JB2000 with nefarious-but-linguistically-comfortable more modern quasi-translations, examples being crucial wording differences of First Corinthians 6:9, 7:1, and 11:16, First Timothy 5:14, First John 5:7, Revelation 22:14], we would have not a clue what was meant by "holiness without which no one will see the Lord."

Even the stated "fruits of the Spirit" [e.g. "love," "peace," "patience," "kindness," "goodness," "faithfulness," etc.] are actually examples and manifestations of lawful living and, of necessity, defined by Law - not simply as opposites to strife, impatience, meanness, wickedness, unfaithful disloyalty, etc. - but requiring Law to determine who and for what one should be at peace with, patient with, kind to, good toward, faithful to.

To elaborate, should one love The Devil? Be at peace with impenitent murderous abortionists? Patient with defiling belligerent bullyboy homosexuals, actually trying to stick their sodomizer up your rectum or into your mouth? Kind to ruthless deviants raping your wife and bashing then burning alive your kids? Faithful to atheistic communists or genocidal terroristic islamic extremists and suicidal japanese kamikazes heading straight for your only ship with you on board?

Goodie-goodie-trait successories [e.g. determination, honesty, perseverance, tranquility, courage, etc.] are frequently used to further the objectives of Lucifer and not the Lord. It all comes down to what the ultimate intentions are, and grade-school-taught axioms are simply means to whatever end is planned. Leave It To Beaver without the Lord is worse than a fruitless eunuch, as are capital-punishment-omitting episodes of The Lone Ranger, Superman, and Batman.

To the evil-hearted: Go ahead and throw your pearls before pigs, giving dogs what is holy. See where it gets you, as you clearly disobey and disregard Christ's admonition to love your neighbor by turning the other cheek, so that you and your dear ones are brutally beaten into blasphemy, and the kingdom of Christ does not come on Earth as it is in Heaven, with you the wimpish coward facilitating it and ending up outside the future Golden City with the other damned.

Yes, we authentic Christians certainly DO "live by the Law" - in the sense of wanting to know all of what it is so we do not continue in sins which we were not aware were antisocially harmful to us and others [Duh!] the sense of desiring to obey the Law God wants us to obey instead of desiring to disobey the Law God wants us to obey [Duh!] the sense of wanting to perfectly obey His Law 24/7 instead of being a fkd-up two-timing adulterous bitch screwing other dudes other than her husband when he is not around nor aware of it, then rebelliously spitting into and slapping her husband's face when he returns and wants return affection (because "she is not under law but under grace").

Actual and real Christians want to obey civil government law obviously relating to and based upon God's Moral Law -- unless one likes being arrested by the sheriff or police, fined, jailed, and maybe executed if the State figures they have a compelling interest to save the taxpayer money and exterminate the errant one without extreme prejudice.

Are Christians who intrinsically love God to blame when they sin? Yes, but no.

Are non-Christians who intrinsically hate God to blame when they sin? Yes, period.

Did Jesus die "for" "the" "sins" of "the world?"

Because of the peculiarities of English-language semantics, let's answer that with a negative, because it would be goofy to purport that He cherished such a dark concept (as "sin" - however that is defined) so much, or that that abstraction (of "sin" - whatever that is)....related to morally-sentient beings....would be so overwhelmingly powerful that "it" would do Him in and cause His demise.

Did Jesus instead die "because of" the sins of "the world?"

Not that either, pertaining to the same rationale, and let's get one thing clarified about the weird phrase: "the world:"

"The world" is sort of a euphemistic or metaphorical or symbolic term not describing the physical planet and sundry environmental components of Earth, as compared to or in contrast with other planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, or even Venus or Mars. Instead, it is a strange figure of speech referring to the people - the totality of human beings living on whatever planet they happen to be living on at the moment (which in most cases is planet Earth).

So if Jesus did not die for nor even because of people (specifically: their "sins") typically residing on planet Earth, what was the purpose of His death?

The Lord Jesus died to eradicate, or take away, "the" "sins" (whatever they are) of people living on planet Earth.

Of all people? Included the immoral majority He is going to eternally torture while they are suspended within the invisibly-flaming outer darkness forever?

Great to look forward to, instead of the myth of one big beer party down under with the horny red devil raising a glass to toast with his buddies at table with him, all surrounded by pretty nude virgin teens ready to escort their selections to the bedrooms of their choice.

In reality, The Trinitarian LORD will, in love, express His righteous rage by taking away from the irrevocably-relentless livid wicked everything which in any way reminds them of God, His creation, and His religious-right saints.

God, through no fault of His own, has not yet removed all the sin of the sinful on planet Earth, and the defiled garbage they have heaved out into space.

We do not currently see theocratic righteousness rule on this planet, for the most part, but instead see crime, warm-weather immodesty of female-human loose-long-haired mopheadedness, sleevesless naked arms, slacksless nude legs exposed by shortened skirts, shortened capri slacks, or shorts, and naked feet partially bared in noisy flip-flop sandals. We see consequential porn in print and on screen, lying, dishonesty, stealing, vandalism, vulgarity, drunkenness with marijuana and other narcotics, overuse of alcoholic beverages, noxious pollution, antisemitic Jew-hatred, and gunning down victims without warning whenever and wherever.

Did Jesus then fail to take away the sins of Earth's humans by His death?

To a large extent (but knowing such would happen beforehand) yes, but not completely?

So is He at fault for all sins not being eradicated on the planet? Are Christians to blame for themselves defiantly or non-defiantly sinning at times?

Do Christians like to sin, because if they did not like doing it when they infrequently actually sin, they would not actually sin, right?

The wicked sin also, and do they similarly not like doing the sinning they do?

What's the difference between a Christian, who intrinsically loves God, sinning....and a non-Christian, who intrinsically hates God, sinning?

Here's the difference, and it is revealed by the following tidbit of enlightenment:

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the Law of God, in my inmost self....

Voila! There it is! In a nutshell!

That's the difference between a penitent Christian who:

(1) admits that the sin he or she did was indeed sin,
(2) regrets doing that sin in temporary disregard of his or her intrinsic love of God and desire to perfectly obey His Law 24/7
(3) humbly with sincere-intent-to-never-ever-do-that-sin-again repentance and confessional attitude accepts the shed blood of Christ on some cross nearly 2000 years ago over in the Middle East to absolve their reluctantly-committed sin done under duress from Satan, his demons, and humans diehard-loyal to both.

....and a non-Christian who hates God and does NOT admit that the sin they did was sin, and/or does NOT regret doing that sin, and would certainly love to do it again if they had the opportunity, and does NOT accept any type of reconciliation offer of any gospel for the shameful thing they glory in.

A true Christian "delights in the Law of God in their inmost self." A false or pseudo-"christian" or non-Christian (both of whom in reality despise God) does NOT "delight in the Law of God in their inmost self."

The pseudo-"christian" or non-Christian (both of whom really do abhor the authority of God and God Himself) does not regret sinning, but instead despises the punishment for sinning, but which dislike does not result in love-of-God desire to from-there-on lovingly obey, but instead perhaps deciding to temporarily submit in grudging compliance for the time being, until they figure out how to successfully re-do the sin they crave but next time avoid getting caught and being punished.

The blood of Christ Jesus does NOT apply for justification nor sanctification nor atonement nor redemption for the wicked who - in accord with their warped and twisted immentality - do not like the "ridiculous and absurd" idea of a free gospel gift consisting of the "disgusting" bloody death of some "embarrassing long-dead religious rabbi and magician" exonerating their "supposed" error of simply doing what they liked doing, because they do not want to feel obligated to get involved with the religious abstraction of "redemptive" "payment" and favor freely donated to them under someone else's terms, but reckon that they can get by themselves in presumption of their own "satisfactory-enough," self-sustaining and self-justifying efforts to live the lifestyle they and their friends consider "convenient, useful, enjoyable, not bound by stifling and suffocating prudishness, but fun."

So Christ's bloody sacrifice of Himself on a cross does not take away all the sins of everyone who ever lived, lives now, and will live on planet Earth, but only those who in penitence fulfill the conditions for it to apply to them (e.g. admit that the Law of God applies to them, that they are required to perfectly obey that Law 24/7, that Jesus actually lived, actually died, and that His actual death by bloody crucifixion followed by His resurrection and ascension was and is the means whereby they are absolved against their sins for occasionally not perfectly obeying His Law).

Our intention to perfectly obey the Law 24/7, and our actually obeying whatever of the Law we do haphazardly obey now and then, can never take away or absolve the sins we have already done or are now doing.

Nor are our past and present sins removed and guilt-plus-penalty-thereof absolved by presumptuous and blasphemous declaration of us sacrificing back to Christ an offering of artificial-divine-body hors d'oeuvre tidbits of "eucharistic" crackers and grape juice (or wafers and wine, for the hearty) to piously pretend expiation of our own sins by ourselves - in place of Christ offering His own body for us, once and one time only.

What is the difference between a Christian who reluctantly sins under non-solicited spam-like duress...and a non-Christian who hates God and gleefully sins when there is no duress of temptation to incite them to sin?

Christians sin under duress from Satan, demons, and/or humans willfully, deliberately, and permanently allied with Satan or demons...and so do not start the problem as malicious instigators. In stark contrast, non-Christians who hate God are the ones who start the problem as malicious instigators who deliberately cause and often coerce others to stumble into sin.

Revisionist-weaselwords-imposing activist homosexuals aggressively proselytize others into becoming and being homosexuals. They basically and rather forcefully recruit them into it. The same with immodesty-perpetuating revisionist-weaselwords-imposing public female exhibitionists and follow-up pornographers, enticing and requiring conformity under threat of exclusion and isolated segregation. Ditto concerning revisionist-weaselwords-imposing abortionists acting like the deceptive and dishonestly-lying Tempter in the Garden of Eden, plus revisionist-weaselwords-imposing evolutionists demanding that students and other victims profess anti-creationist propaganda, under threat of academia-certified discreditation and deprivation.

No freedom to choose by oneself without coercion. No tolerance of alternate nor opposing views. Instead, cruel enslavement under non-reasoning/anti-reasoning extortion of all subtle and overt types.

Live by and for the Law, for Christians? Or instead despise the Law, irrationalizing instead with: "We're saved by grace through faith apart from works of law, without works righteousness?"

I have news for the anti-Law pseudo-"christians."

That "saved by grace through faith apart from works of law" mantra-buzzphrase they mindlessly mouth is neither an excuse to defy and disobey the Law, nor a presumption that Law is not sourced from the God who graciously gave it to us so that we know what the feces is going on, nor that Law and faith are in two separate worlds which never intersect nor interact.

Instead, to have faith in the Law is vital, in that one must have faith in believing that the Law is what God wants us to do to be holy, and which mandatory-for-survival Operating Instructions never change.

And understanding that the times when we Christians, under non-asked-for duress, fall into faithless sin and do some evil and not good work, is indeed Law-defined sin and not a mere "oopsies" or "accidental misunderstandings" (even though we, in essence, did not intend to do it nor really liked doing it), and that Law-defined sin can only be absolved by (1) the sacrificial death of Christ Jesus on a cross, and (2) us believing that the sacrificial death of Christ Jesus on a cross does in fact negate the Law-defined sin, the guilt involved in committing Law-defined sin under duress, the penalty of committing that Law-defined sin, and redemption referring to and involving Law-defined sin.