actually i think what i can see you describing is mentioned by darrell
fasching and dell dechant in the book comparative religious ethics.

often fasching and dechant talk about a sacred society and a holy
community , the best way to describe this is holy communities exist
inside of sacred societies.. a sacred society could be christianity as a
whole they don't welcome the stranger by saying this i mean they don't
welcome different faiths, if they do it's only for the purpose of trying
to convert those people to christianity, they don't welcome questions
about the faith or else they believe they will go to hell and so will
those asking, theres actually a small list of differences, a holy
community could be a sect of christians or a certain church or ajust a
group of followers they may actually welcome people of different faiths
and share stories and casually talk, they might like to mix some of
their friends beliefs with their own, they question things in their
religion and they seek for the answer so in one way the group can
entirely close off different people, but at the same time a smaller
group can welcome them

i'm not sure if this is clear or not but if you're interested in the
idea it is a comparative religious book that uses the ideas and explains
what they are they also talk about many of the major religions
comparatively

Sororitygurl4life writes:

" i'm not sure if this is clear or not but if you're interested in the
idea it is a comparative religious book that uses the ideas and explains
what they are they also talk about many of the major religions
comparatively "

Nono, it was very clear and well-worded. Although I haven't read that
one, there are others through the years similar to it that I have read.

While reading some of the posts in this thread, another dynamic occurred
to me in this same vein-- how non-believers are often treated like
heterosexists treat gay folks.

'There not like us!'

'How do they know they won't like it if they have never tried it'.

'It's a choice, and the wrong one at that.'

'If we let one in...'

'They make me uncomfortable.'

And sometimes I feel like that in certain quarters there's an unspoken
'Don't ask, don't tell' rule for one's being a non-Christian.

I've often found that one can have a unique experience by discussion
fictional religions. Makes it less threatening for some, and people take
it less personally since they can't identify with it quite so closely.

One of my favorite examples was the religions of the Dune novels. Such
as contrasting the Bene Gesserit with the Fremen. And throwing in IX
and the Spacing Guild for good measure.

-Kerry O.

I think this is a very good, and very important question that
"invisible" asks. The Biblical depiction of Jesus is very warm,
good-humored, and embracing of sinners — bringing them into himself.
The only people Jesus really seems to reject are those who place
themselves first — selfish, narcissistic people or the self-righteous
who believe they have a right to pass judgement upon the morality of
others. Overall, this openness is the depiction of Jesus that gives
warmth to Christianity.

The other side is sin and the moral theology that is written around
Jesus. The Bible tells that Jesus' sacrifice paid the debt of original
sin that we each inherited, freeing humanity from the clutches of Hell.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through Me." (From John 14) This passage can be read in such a
way as to exclude all who never know of Jesus or never accept him as
their Lord and Savior. So, infants cannot go to Heaven. If you are
trying to take a somewhat literal approach here, there is no qualifier
to grant any form of dispensation for infants, people who are mentally
retarded, or anyone ignorant of Jesus.

The problem, as I see it, is in interpretation. First, you can't take a
truly literal reading here. If that were the case, going through Jesus
would be a physical journy passing through his torso (or worse, through
his digestive tract). Why could he not be saying that being Christlike
is "the Way" — that through emulation of him, even unwittingly, one may
reach the Father? So, on what are we really basing the notion that
belief in Jesus is the only way to Heaven?

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
(From John 3) Taken literally, those who believe in Jesus will not die.
But, it does not say that no others will achieve everlasting life.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (From Romans
3) The full passage is rather long, and it seems to clearly state (in
some translations moreso than others) that faith in Jesus, not works, is
required to receive his gift of salvation. However, the passage is
really an affirmation of something else. It assures Gentiles that they
need not adhere to the works of Jewish Law to be included, for God is
the God — not only of the Jews — but also of the Gentiles.

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the
deeds of the law. ... Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of
the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. ... Do we then make void the
law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (From Romans
3)

The meaning is less about faith than it is about the inclusion of the
Gentiles. It is a message of hope and reassurance, not about fear of
eternal damnation. It is a new convenant, superseding the archaic laws
and expanding the "chosen people" to include all peoples.

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy
faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble." (From James 2) This passage clearly states that
faith is good, but works are better. Here it does not speak of Jewish
Law, but rather basic conduct. It says, I will show you my faith by my
works. There is Biblical basis for claiming that works show a deeper,
truer faith than mere outward belief.

I think a large part of why Christianity places such importance on the
faith aspect is because of a remnant from the Reformation, when the
Protestants split from the Church because of corruption, in particular
the selling of plenary indulgences. Clearly "selling tickets" to Heaven
was a horrible transgression that should never have happened, and Martin
Luther was right to speak out against it. The backlash, however, was
the concept that no action truly mattered — that faith alone was the
only way to achieve salvation. It was an understandable stance,
particularly if one wanted to keep such corruption from tainting the
faith again.

Some denominations of Christianity are much less accepting than others,
too. Calvinism, is truly a "closed" faith — it's members believing that
all actions, even belief in Jesus, is by God's hand alone and that no
one can change their wants or actions unless God deems it so. They
believe that free will does not exist (at least not anymore) and that
humnaity is too depraved to ever willfully turn to God. Surprisingly,
Catholicism (a denomination that has oft been criticized for it's rigid
theology) is rather open in many respects in regard to accepting people
of other faiths, etc. (though this certainly wasn't the case not even 50
years ago). Episcopals are more accepting than Catholics, typically.
Many denominations are very accepting, within and without the church
walls. Not all believe that non-believers will be denied Heaven and
experience the eternal horrors of Hell.

Resserts wrote:
“Why could he not be saying that being Christlike is "the Way" — that
through emulation of him, even unwittingly, one may reach the Father?”

I’ve always believed that this is what precisely Jesus meant.

resserts, always enjoy your posts, so glad you take the time to post
them.

Eljay~~~ I wasn't aware that Hitler shipped Christians off to the
concentration camps. Where did this information originate? I would like
to learn more.

Peace, love & wisdom

There is a third picture that comes to mind. That of the raised sword
and 'believe or die'.

Not all christians act this way but enough do that it makes it quite
hard to listen to the ones that speak softly and carry the true message.

Ghost;

There is a very famous German minister named Bonnhofer who was
imprisoned by Hitler. As the campaign of the 3rd Reich was moving into
the "final solution" Hitler recruited Muslims into the S.S., and their
task was to seek out Christians - who naturally were sympathetic to the
Jews - and dragged them off to concentration camps. I just watched this
on the WW2 channel yesterday. (History channel that is). I've also
nkown about Hitlers obsession with the occult. There's an interesting
book called "The Spear of Destiny" which goes into it quite extensively.

Abra;

Actually, I've always understood that man is born with a sin "nature"
- not that he was born with sin. That is a concept in Catholicism -
original sin they call it. It's why they baptize infants - in the hopes
that it will forgive the "original" sin as it's called. So the point I
was making is that everyone "sins", it is an active choice - not
something you are born with. That is illogical - is it not?

Resserts;

"The other side is sin and the moral theology that is written around
Jesus. The Bible tells that Jesus' sacrifice paid the debt of original
sin that we each inherited, freeing humanity from the clutches of Hell."

Actually - the bible says no such thing. Jesus' sacrifice was for
the sins of the world - not just Adam and Eve's. The concept of
"original sin" is not a Christian tennent, but one of Catholicism. No
one is born with sin - only a sin nature. For it was through Adam that
sin came into the world. But sin is not something you inherit - it is
something done through commision - or omission. Therefore, an infant -
who is incapable of sinning - is not barred from heaven. It is the soul
who sins who will die, and there is only one unforgivable sin -
blaspheming the Holy Ghost. As to "people who don't know Jesus" - who
might that be?

Eljay wrote:
"Actually - the bible says no such thing. Jesus' sacrifice was for
the sins of the world - not just Adam and Eve's. The concept of
"original sin" is not a Christian tennent, but one of Catholicism. No
one is born with sin - only a sin nature. For it was through Adam that
sin came into the world. But sin is not something you inherit - it is
something done through commision - or omission. Therefore, an infant -
who is incapable of sinning - is not barred from heaven. It is the soul
who sins who will die, and there is only one unforgivable sin -
blaspheming the Holy Ghost. As to "people who don't know Jesus" - who
might that be?"

I believe you're splitting hairs here. The Bible is clear that it is
through Adam and Eve's sin that we have a sinful nature — and _that_ is
the concept of original sin. Catholicism may have labeled it, but the
idea is very much a part of Christianity. Adam and Eve's trangression
lost Paradise for all of humanity and the consequences are indeed
inherited. God later made a covenant with the Jewish people — his
"chosen people" — and Jesus forged a new covenant with all humanity.

Regarding the infant concept: Again, you are picking apart my post to be
contrary. If you read my post again, you will see that I'm actually
claiming that Christianity is not as literal as some people sometimes
make it and that I don't truly agree that the Bible says infants won't
go to Heaven. My point was that interpretation must come into play, for
several reasons, and then I laid out a picture of Christianity based on
key scriptural passages (some which many Christians use to justify the
opposing view) and an interpretation that takes a broad look at
different aspects of redemption.

'As to "people who don't know Jesus" - who might that be?' Again, you
seem to have latched on to such a minor detail, and are being a bit
belligerent in your tone, to make a non-issue into a focal point. I
didn't think this was especially important, but there are a lot of
people who never hear of Jesus. Even with the widespread communication
we enjoy, there are closed socieities, like North Korea, where it is
unlikely that many are familiar with Jesus or the Bible. And certainly
there are a lot of people worldwide who have heard of Jesus in the same
way that I've heard of Shiva — they are aware he's a religious figure in
Christianity, but really know very little about him.

In any case, I don't believe there's much reason to debate these issues.
I'm only clarifying my statements. It seems that you and I are on the
same side of the coin — Christianity is inclusive and open if
interpreted correctly.

I apologize that I cannot cite any sources in this post — I'm running
quite late for work.