Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Real and unreal Christians Message-ID: Date: 5 Nov 90 09:51:13 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 27 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu It seems from what I've seen that one key distinguishing factor between "real" or "mainstream" Christianity and "unreal" or "cult" Christianity is acceptance of other forms. I was brought up Baptist, switched to non-denominational as I did not want to offend anyone by being denominational. Since then, I have related {socially} to people who were catholic/episcopalian, mormon, and baptist. The catholic/episcopalian unfortunately had very little idea what they really believed. The Mormon stated steadfastly that no one who was anything but Mormon stood a chance of ever getting into heaven {Baptists particularly, I learned with chagrin, are no friends of the Mormons - oddly enough, I still get along fine with my Mormon friend}. The Baptist condemned no one religiously, but made a point of condemning any lifestyle they found offensive. Therefore, in less than a string variable, here is my view of what a real Christian is: Someone who believes in salvation through faith in Christ _and_ doesn't think that their own little niche of Christianity is the "only" way. Each denomination has its strong points and its flaws, even the "fringe" groups can teach the "mainstream" something. But if a faction overtly denounces another faction that others accept, the faction which denounces should be held as of questionable validity. -sh