When fundamentalists are pinned down on their absurd theology, which is next to impossible to accomplish, their argument eventually gets down to the claim that no one can, or needs to, overcome sin. Quoting Christ doesn't seem to be relevant, because corrupters see whatever they want to see in quotes, if not ignore them outright. So the purpose here is to describe the logic of the subject.

A peripheral concept is quite informative. It's reconciliation. Before fundamentalism got into full swing, about twenty years ago, the word atonement was usually combined with reconciliation. This is a complete synthesis based on the rationale for atonement, which is to appease God. The point here is that, while reconciliation is portrayed as the highest of ideals, it should be viewed more as a corruption, like exploitation and thievery. The reason is because reconciliation places the entire burden on the victims. Perpetrators are not trying to correct the wrongs; and they want no attention drawn to the subject. So who is supposed to do what? The victims are supposed to stop complaining. It's a method of promoting corruption instead of ending it. Why not call it tolerance? Because tolerance says there is still something wrong, while reconciliation claims everything is taken care of, when it's not.

This is the same perspective as supposedly getting saved without overcoming sin. What would the consequence be? If people are totally nonfunctional, then who cares. This is the implication of fundamentalists. But why would people be nonfunctional after getting saved? Christ talks about "eternal life" (John 5-24, 12-50)(Mat 25-46). And he says to make friends with this worlds goods, so when they fail, you will have friends in heaven (Luke 16:9). How can there be friends in heaven where there is sin?

But the most absurd element of the subject is that if there were no responsibilities and no reason to end sin, then why a religion, why preach and why material life? Why not just zap everyone in whatever way they are supposed to get zapped without all of the trouble? Why does God need to be atoned and reconciled, if corrupters don't need to overcome sin?

The implication of fundamentalist theology is that everyone is supposed to learn to accept sin and live with it starting with God. Why then is religion needed, and why is crime opposed? There is not a real logic to such theology. It is fraud.