Thinking About Certain Christian Beliefs

An argument about the concept "personal Savior".

There is nothing "personal" nor idiosyncratic about Jesus: it is not "my Jesus" one should talk about, for that is as specious as talking about "my truth".  What does it mean when the same people who tend to argue against "moral relativism" turn about and endorse "salvation relativism"?

If you be a Christian, you believe Jesus to have saved mankind from the effects of Original Sin, an effort in which each one of us plays little or no part.
However, in your own personal life, you must save yourself.
The role played by Jesus in this endeavor is very different from the role of "savior" in Original Sin; it is at least as different as "Jesus died for your sins" is from "Jesus will die for your sins".
And to say that "Jesus died for your sins" is not strictly true, rather "Jesus died for your propensity to sin".

And so on...
I personally feel that the notion of a "personal savior", particularly the Southern Baptist concept of it, is a form of religious and moral group-relativism disguised under the cape of doctrinal rigidity.
By group relativism, we show that we wish to include the dynamics of groups into the relativistic philosophy. Usually we speak of individual moral relativism, such as saying "That is true for me."
It is different when the group acts as if  "That is true for us."

Whereas individual relativism may be seen to lead to moral anarchy, group relativism appears rigid, and these appearances have more to do with individual versus group dynamics than they do with any of the philosophies or moral beliefs involved:  philosophical and reliigious rigidity are functions of group dynamics, not of logic internal to the philosophical beliefs... even if the philosophy is formulated to be unyielding and compulsive to obedience... the language is a residue of the primary engagement of coercion between human entities.
--
pix: bigthink