According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[HoreTore]

In heaven or hell?

This is one of the main reason why I'll never be a christian was a Hindu. He did not follow christ, and as such shouldn't be in heaven right? Only through me and all that... If he isn't in heaven, then he must be in Hell, or I guess somewhere less pleasing than heaven for those who do not believe in hell. Can't claim the ignorance and limbo thing on him either, as he certainly knew about christianity and jesus, but decided not to convert.

But what god would punish Gandhi? Seriously? The man who organized a succesful independence movement not through war, but through total nonviolence, and also inspired a bunch of other nonviolence movements all over the world. To punish such a man would be rather.... evil, wouldn't it? On the other hand, if he isn't punished in any way, if he got into heaven ass a Hindu, then what's the point of accepting christ then? I could just go about being a good boy, and no harm will come to me in the afterlife...

Is there a christian here who can address this for me?

[Fragony]

Still in hell MUHAHAHAHAHAHA the fool

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In heaven or hell?

Well, as I'm not God, I don't have an answer. However, as you asked so nicely I'll try to ellucidate some of the issues.


This is one of the main reason why I'll never be a christian was a Hindu. He did not follow christ, and as such shouldn't be in heaven right? Only through me and all that... If he isn't in heaven, then he must be in Hell, or I guess somewhere less pleasing than heaven for those who do not believe in hell. Can't claim the ignorance and limbo thing on him either, as he certainly knew about christianity and jesus, but decided not to convert.

Ok, well this is a fair gripe, but you need to take a nuanced view about this. Why didn't he follow Christ? Pride? Racism? Cultural prejudice? These are all attributes attached to Ghandi at one time or another, racism against non-Hindu's and Blacks in particular is the most infamous, I believe.

To simply assume that Ghandi should get into heaven is therefore unjustified, whatever he may have done he was also deeply flawed as an individual.

On the other hand, rejection of Christ assumes not only exposure, but also effective preaching. If Ghandi was not actually exposed to both then he might be judged as not having actually "rejected" Christ. In which case, he would be judged as a Christian would, I believe, this means his penitence and his wish to know God would be the deciding factors.


But what god would punish Gandhi? Seriously? The man who organized a succesful independence movement not through war, but through total nonviolence, and also inspired a bunch of other nonviolence movements all over the world. To punish such a man would be rather.... evil, wouldn't it? On the other hand, if he isn't punished in any way, if he got into heaven ass a Hindu, then what's the point of accepting christ then? I could just go about being a good boy, and no harm will come to me in the afterlife...

Is there a christian here who can address this for me?

Was Ghandi really a good boy, though? Don't forget that his legacy was also riots and continuing hostility between India and Pakistan, two unequittable and deeply corrupt democracies. India has been run for decades by a political dynasty founded on his lineage.

Also, who is to say that Ghandi was right to push for independence at that time? Canada and Australia indicate that London was willing to grant home-rule when it considered the Dominion/Possession to be capable of supporting it.

Finally, it's worth remembering that had Ghandi converted he would have suffered far worse at the hands of his own people because of their religion than he actually did at the hands of the British.

[Beskar]

Depends on your theory of heaven and hell.

I believe in the catholic faith, all those who reject god but live good lives go to limbo, which is a peaceful, but sad place. Some other christians believe that all good people go to Heaven while others have non-Christians go straight to hell.

Some others believe that different gods have different kingdom's, so the Christians believe they go to yahweh's Kingdom, while Vikings believe they go to Valhalla, and those blue Aliens from Avatar believe they join the ecosystem.

My own personal opinion is that any real example of heaven or immortality is in the minds of the people of the world. In this way, people like Churchill (not the nodding dog) is alive in the minds of the people who remember him and his duties during WW2, unfortunately, this says to same about a couple of other figures during that period too. Death itself is more returning back to the earth, in a less pleasant way, if you get buried, you become plant food, in the ecosystem we call life.

[The Wizard]

Gandhi had little to do with riots, pogroms or the splitting of British India. You'll have to look at British colonial policy (divide and conquer) for that, as well as the Muslim elite, bitter as they were that they wouldn't get back the power they held before the conquest of India (Mughal age). Everybody knows Gandhi fasted to oppose the pogroms and was adamantly opposed to Jinnah's plans to split British India in two. Moreover, his racist views date from his earlier years in South Africa, were AFAIK not an issue later in life (when he did most of his famous works) and are finally entirely expectable and excusable in that day and age.

Also, am I the only one who finds this view of PVC's absolutely sickeningly arrogant, that Gandhi was in the wrong not to accept the Christian dogma? What gives Christians the monopoly on being morally right? Absolutely nothing.

P.S. The Nehru-Gandhi family is called that way for a reason... it isn't related to Mohandas Gandhi. Its progenitor was Jawaharlal Nehru, another Congress figure and first PM of India. The Gandhi comes from another Gujarati, Feroze Gandhi, who was not related to Mohandas.

[HoreTore]

Gandhi had little to do with riots, pogroms or the splitting of British India. You'll have to look at British colonial policy (divide and conquer) for that, as well as the Muslim elite, bitter as they were that they wouldn't get back the power they held before the conquest of India (Mughal age). Everybody knows Gandhi fasted to oppose the pogroms and was adamantly opposed to Jinnah's plans to split British India in two. Moreover, his racist views date from his earlier years in South Africa, were AFAIK not an issue later in life (when he did most of his famous works) and are finally entirely expectable and excusable in that day and age.


Indeed. His philosophy was strict non-violence. That Martin Luther King followed his example is perhaps the best reason why the civil rights struggle in the 60's was relatively bloodless. India is a big country with a billion people; of course he can't stop all of them from hating each other. Why was he right in pushing for independence? Because that's what the indian people wanted, and as such its a democratic obligation... The point, however, is not whether or not to do it, but the way in which it was done, ie. the non-violence.

Gandhi ranks among the finest examples the human race has ever produced. To punish him in any way is just wrong. If he isn't punished then there isn't really any point for me to follow jesus either....

[Centurion1]

Martin Luther King followed his example is perhaps the best reason why the civil rights struggle in the 60's was relatively bloodless.

Martin Luther King was not a saint either.


As to Gandhi's right to heaven I believe that God takes into account culture and other religion but judges you as more a whole individual not on a single thing. Basically (this is my life now) if you were applying to university he would look at your grades but also your extracurricular and sports. So personally following God by the christian faith is just one of many paths to reaching him. He believes that all paths are paths to Him as he is simply different manifestations of Himself. Sorta stolen from the Hindu's belief but I am not arguing.

As to PVC's right to think Christianity is superior........ well if you personally follow something of course you think you follow the right path and you have a superior religion. Do you have a religion Wizard. Because if you do you probably think deep down you are right and they are obviously wrong. Even if you do not and are an atheist as i know you are Horetore you probably think you know better than us poor saps who actually believe in a God. Better to be safe than sorry though, eh.

The part about different paths was told to me directly by my Catholic priest, the biggest Christian sect so I would say what he think is relatively accurate as to beliefs of the church.

And Beskar are you talking about purgatory? Just wondering

PVC while the racism comment may be a tad overdone considering most peoples feelings at the time I understand what yo are saying, nobody is a real saint in everyone's eyes, even actual christian saints.

[The Wizard]

I am an agnost, so no, I do not have a religion.

[Beskar]

And Beskar are you talking about purgatory? Just wondering


No, it is a different concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory


Limbo is a place between Heaven and Hell, for the good non-believers. Purgatory is a temporary punishment for believers who weren't all that good.

Edit: Also, there are all sorts of theories and theotorical thoughts which are different to this as well.

[Centurion1]

Do you understand what i am saying though. People have a natural tendency to think their beliefs are right and others are wrong. To attempt to do anything else is impossibel because no matter how hard you try to equalize religion you are going to think your particular dogma is the RIGHT ONE.

[Centurion1]

No, it is a different concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory


Limbo is a place between Heaven and Hell, for the good non-believers. Purgatory is a temporary punishment for believers who weren't all that good.

Huh makes sense.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I do not understand the charge against Christians of them being arrogant.

First of all, it is no more arrogant of PVC to say that he believes Christianity to be the only true path, than it is for someone else to say that many paths lead to God. The fact that the latter belief system is more inclusive says nothing of personal traits such as arrogance on the part of those who follow it.

Secondly, Christians do not believe themselves to be superior to anyone else on account of their faith. A born again Christian will believe that without redemption in Christ's blood they are quite simply the scum of the earth. Christianity teaches that if you break one of the commandments, then you have broken all of them, since sin is just an expression of your true nature... a Christian will believe they are no better than a theif, an adulturer, a murderer etc. So how someone can be called arrogant for believing this is beyond me.

[Husar]

Why was he right in pushing for independence? Because that's what the indian people wanted, and as such its a democratic obligation...

You're assuming that god would always agree with public opinion and support democracy in general, maybe the catholic church bows to the will of the people over the years but that is not how the bible describes god. What the indian people wanted might have just been plain wrong in god's eyes.

[HoreTore]

As to Gandhi's right to heaven I believe that God takes into account culture and other religion but judges you as more a whole individual not on a single thing. Basically (this is my life now) if you were applying to university he would look at your grades but also your extracurricular and sports. So personally following God by the christian faith is just one of many paths to reaching him. He believes that all paths are paths to Him as he is simply different manifestations of Himself. Sorta stolen from the Hindu's belief but I am not arguing.


Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

So.... Jesus was lying?:inquisitive:


You're assuming that god would always agree with public opinion and support democracy in general, maybe the catholic church bows to the will of the people over the years but that is not how the bible describes god. What the indian people wanted might have just been plain wrong in god's eyes.

So.... God hates freedom?:inquisitive:

[The Wizard]

I do not understand the charge against Christians of them being arrogant.

First of all, it is no more arrogant of PVC to say that he believes Christianity to be the only true path, than it is for someone else to say that many paths lead to God. The fact that the latter belief system is more inclusive says nothing of personal traits such as arrogance on the part of those who follow it.

Secondly, Christians do not believe themselves to be superior to anyone else on account of their faith. A born again Christian will believe that without redemption in Christ's blood they are quite simply the scum of the earth. Christianity teaches that if you break one of the commandments, then you have broken all of them, since sin is just an expression of your true nature... a Christian will believe they are no better than a theif, an adulturer, a murderer etc. So how someone can be called arrogant for believing this is beyond me.

It isn't arrogant to believe that if you reject the Christian dogma, you're the same as a murderer? And it isn't arrogant to assert that your views hold a monopoly on what's morally right? :dizzy2: I smell something, smells like logical fallacy...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you understand what i am saying though. People have a natural tendency to think their beliefs are right and others are wrong. To attempt to do anything else is impossibel because no matter how hard you try to equalize religion you are going to think your particular dogma is the RIGHT ONE.

Quite, in fact holding a belief you don't see as superior to others in hypocritical.

As far as the Racism issue, my point was that Ghandi took actions that benefitted his own people, and there is evidence he looked down on at least one other "race."

Also, for the record, prejudice does not become acceptable in a particular context.

[HoreTore]

Quite, in fact holding a belief you don't see as superior to others in hypocritical.

As far as the Racism issue, my point was that Ghandi took actions that benefitted his own people, and there is evidence he looked down on at least one other "race."

Also, for the record, prejudice does not become acceptable in a particular context.

So....

You're basically saying that almost every single British monarch, the founding fathers, heck, almost every single person on earth up until modern times were bastards...?

No, I'll stand by my claim that Gandhi was among the best humanity has ever produced.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It isn't arrogant to believe that if you reject the Christian dogma, you're the same as a murderer?

Why would it be? To be arrogant suggest viewing others as inferior to yourself... how is a Christian doing this if they believe they are just as sinful as any other person.

At a personal level, Christianity must surely be one of the least arrogant belief systems of all. It teaches that all people are born in the same state of sin, and that any good qualities are a gift of God and ought to be attributed only to him. Contrast this with the other belief systems out there, that often make people righteous of their own accord simply because they act more 'morally' than others. This reminds me of all those people who claim to be 'moral atheists'. Personally, I could not stomach the thought of claiming to be a good or moral person.

In fact, this idea is quite relevent to this thread. HoreTore and others clearly believe Ghandi was a great and moral individual, no doubt a better person than many others. And yet, if you look at Ghandi himself, one of the aspects of his personality was just how humble he was.


And it isn't arrogant to assert that your views hold a monopoly on what's morally right?

Of course it isn't, that's what everyone does. In claiming many paths lead to God, you have already rejected outright the Christian worldview and assumed that your own belief system is correct. You then go on to make personal judgments on those who do not share your more broad outlook on morality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So.... Jesus was lying?:inquisitive:



So.... God hates freedom?:inquisitive:

If Jesus actually said that, it's a matter of context and interpretation because what he said was that all those who turn towards God will be saved; and that message came only from him.

as to whether God hates Freedom; that's a matter of denomination.


So....

You're basically saying that almost every single British monarch, the founding fathers, heck, almost every single person on earth up until modern times were bastards...?

No, I'll stand by my claim that Gandhi was among the best humanity has ever produced.

No, I'm saying they're not perfect; and niether was Ghandi.


It isn't arrogant to believe that if you reject the Christian dogma, you're the same as a murderer? And it isn't arrogant to assert that your views hold a monopoly on what's morally right? :dizzy2: I smell something, smells like logical fallacy...

You're missing the point. Christianity is not about "perfecting" the individual, but about repairing the individual's relationship with God. I would not phrase it in the same way Rhy does, because it produces this sort of reaction. However, I do agree with him in that the apparently guiltless man keeps dark secrets in his heart and the serial killer is capable of contrition and thence redemption.

[HoreTore]

No, I'm saying they're not perfect; and niether was Ghandi.

....Which isn't really relevant to the question of where he is now.

If he's in hell, then the christian god is evil in my opinion. If he's in heaven, there's no point in being a christian. If there's a third alternative, please explain...

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's not my intent to troll nice people who are religious, because it may offend them and that's not my intent. But I still feel like I can share my opinion, can I not? Spoiler'ed anyway to protect people's feelings.

For me it is a moot point, because I cannot bring myself to think that a kind and loving creator being would burn me forever simply because I didn't blindly accept one man's opinion that he was God.

It's sort of a contradiction in terms. The benevolent, merciful torturer of his own children. There is no morally righteous God if it values blind faith over reason, and assigns EITHER of them a moral value. Faith nor reason are inherently good or bad. Plenty of men have faith and commit terrible atrocities, some men have reason (flawed reason) and commit terrible atrocities. Faith has nothing to do with morality. Then you get into the No True Scotsman argument- no Christians are evil because they accepted Christ, but those who commit evil didn't really accept Jesus into their heart. If the main selling point is that no matter what I do, as long as I accept Christ I get into heaven, and if I don't I am cast out, that right there tells me that the true value is the church coffers and the church pews never being empty. The main moral value in organized religion is money and political power.

The flowery "we're all evil, just as bad as murderers, if we don't accept Christ" argument is total hooey. That means every person who lived before Christ is in hell. Oh, but we can make exceptions, yes? Sure we can. See God made a special pact with everyone before Jesus, the old covenants and such. And those poor native Americans that never heard about Christ? Well they can't get into heaven but they can be judged on their merits and sent somewhere less bad than hell. Goody, so they are denied eternal paradise because they were born in the wrong place? Isn't that God's fault, not theirs?

If all else fails, Noah's ark. I urge someone to collect all the species in their own locality, nevermind the whole of the Earth, and build a ship and herd all the animals on it, and then after the flood is over, re-distribute them across the lands in such a way that only certain species are found on certain continents, and islands! Don't forget islands! Noah must have used the ship just to find all the animals. Must have taken a long, long time, too, unless he has Santa Claus "visit every Christian household in one night" super speed powers. Because "with God, all things are possible" means it doesn't have to make any sort of sense, and I'm a terrible person for thinking logically. That's evil and I'm going to hell.

Finally, if God has a divine plan, created me, and knows my heart, then he intended me to be a skeptical of him. He's also done a very good job of convincing me that he isn't real or he isn't involved at all. The crime of not believing in ancient mythology shouldn't be a perpetually damning offense. If there's one thing I know, more than anything else, is that not believing in something is NOT A CRIME.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is no morally righteous God if it values blind faith over reason, and assigns EITHER of them a moral value. Faith nor reason are inherently good or bad. Plenty of men have faith and commit terrible atrocities, some men have reason (flawed reason) and commit terrible atrocities. Faith has nothing to do with morality. Then you get into the No True Scotsman argument- no Christians are evil because they accepted Christ, but those who commit evil didn't really accept Jesus into their heart.

In Christianity, neither faith nor reason are given any moral value in their own right. Also, you seem to use the no true Scotsman argument yourself, in that while you admit that reason can, like faith, lead to atrocities, you still went to the trouble of pointing out that it must be 'flawed reason'. So all the genocides in human history weren't caused by reason, it mustn't have been true reason, just flawed reason. Presuming you agree that 'atrocities' are morally bad, this also suggests that despite attacking Christianity for it, you yourself haven't in reality separated the concepts of reason/faith from morality, since you seem reluctant to ascribe bad things to pure reason (as opposed to 'flawed reason').


If the main selling point is that no matter what I do, as long as I accept Christ I get into heaven, and if I don't I am cast out, that right there tells me that the true value is the church coffers and the church pews never being empty. The main moral value in organized religion is money and political power.

Indeed, whatever you have done, if you accept Christ, then you are forgiven - I'm not ashamed of one of the core aspects of the faith.

Also, it is a massive generalisaton to say that the main moral value in organised religion is money and political power. You should really treat that on a denomination by denomination basis. What about the Plymouth Brethren that don't ask for a penny and say that if their faith isn't great enough for them to pay for a building then they shouldn't ask anyone to be there?


The flowery "we're all evil, just as bad as murderers, if we don't accept Christ" argument is total hooey. That means every person who lived before Christ is in hell.

You are making a lot of emotive statements regarding the concept of hell. But since the purpose of hell in Christianity rests upon what exactly human nature is, can you really base a solid, rational argument upon such a complex and untangible thing, and show convincingly that the concept of hell is theologically inconsistant?


If all else fails, Noah's ark. I urge someone to collect all the species in their own locality, nevermind the whole of the Earth, and build a ship and herd all the animals on it, and then after the flood is over, re-distribute them across the lands in such a way that only certain species are found on certain continents, and islands! Don't forget islands! Noah must have used the ship just to find all the animals. Must have taken a long, long time, too, unless he has Santa Claus "visit every Christian household in one night" super speed powers. Because "with God, all things are possible" means it doesn't have to make any sort of sense, and I'm a terrible person for thinking logically. That's evil and I'm going to hell.

How is this relevant to this thread?


Finally, if God has a divine plan, created me, and knows my heart, then he intended me to be a skeptical of him. He's also done a very good job of convincing me that he isn't real or he isn't involved at all. The crime of not believing in ancient mythology shouldn't be a perpetually damning offense. If there's one thing I know, more than anything else, is that not believing in something is NOT A CRIME.

Where do you get this idea that simply believing in the existence of God is what makes separates Christians from the rest?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

....Which isn't really relevant to the question of where he is now.

If he's in hell, then the christian god is evil in my opinion. If he's in heaven, there's no point in being a christian. If there's a third alternative, please explain...

Right, ok. It is relevent, because Ghandi's actions are de-valued if motivated by a belief in Indian superiority, which undermines your argument somewhat. Christianity is about turning towards God, rather than away from him. Those who do turn to God go to be with him when they die, those that don't, don't.

Whether Hell is actually a litteral pit or not is not that important. Hell is to be without God, which is to be without anything. I tend to think of it like screaming alone in the darkness for all eternity, without the comfort of darkness or the relief of being able to scream. Christianity isn't actually about Heaven and Hell, they are tangentile. Christianity is about the relationship between the individual and God.

You are complaining that Christianity would condemn Ghandi to an eternity without God, but by your own admission he wasn't interested in being with God to begin with.


It's not my intent to troll nice people who are religious, because it may offend them and that's not my intent. But I still feel like I can share my opinion, can I not? Spoiler'ed anyway to protect people's feelings.

If you genuinely don't want to offend then you might try moderating your tone and not hiding behind platitudes.


For me it is a moot point, because I cannot bring myself to think that a kind and loving creator being would burn me forever simply because I didn't blindly accept one man's opinion that he was God.

So, you don't want God, and you're complaining he doesn't want you?


It's sort of a contradiction in terms. The benevolent, merciful torturer of his own children.

How can you go to God when you die if you reject him with your dying breath?


There is no morally righteous God if it values blind faith over reason, and assigns EITHER of them a moral value.

He doesn't. So your statement is irrelevant.


Faith nor reason are inherently good or bad.

Patently obvious, point made repeatedly in the Bible.


Plenty of men have faith and commit terrible atrocities, some men have reason (flawed reason) and commit terrible atrocities. Faith has nothing to do with morality. Then you get into the No True Scotsman argument- no Christians are evil because they accepted Christ, but those who commit evil didn't really accept Jesus into their heart.

As Rhy rightly noted, you deploy No True Scotsman yourself. Faith in God is flawed because it is human. Humans stray and, when they do, commit Sin against God. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Christ, not one who is morally superior.


If the main selling point is that no matter what I do, as long as I accept Christ I get into heaven, and if I don't I am cast out, that right there tells me that the true value is the church coffers and the church pews never being empty. The main moral value in organized religion is money and political power.

Rubbish, because Christianity is not about Heaven and Hell. Some people do try to "sell" that, but the religion does not focus on Heaven and Hell, accept as the logical result of the state of the individual's relationship with God.


The flowery "we're all evil, just as bad as murderers, if we don't accept Christ" argument is total hooey.

Of course it is, that's why Christians don't use it.


That means every person who lived before Christ is in hell. Oh, but we can make exceptions, yes? Sure we can. See God made a special pact with everyone before Jesus, the old covenants and such. And those poor native Americans that never heard about Christ? Well they can't get into heaven but they can be judged on their merits and sent somewhere less bad than hell. Goody, so they are denied eternal paradise because they were born in the wrong place? Isn't that God's fault, not theirs?

I suggest you actually read some salvation Theology, sufficed to say Native Americans do not automatically go to Hell.


If all else fails, Noah's ark. I urge someone to collect all the species in their own locality, nevermind the whole of the Earth, and build a ship and herd all the animals on it, and then after the flood is over, re-distribute them across the lands in such a way that only certain species are found on certain continents, and islands! Don't forget islands! Noah must have used the ship just to find all the animals. Must have taken a long, long time, too, unless he has Santa Claus "visit every Christian household in one night" super speed powers. Because "with God, all things are possible" means it doesn't have to make any sort of sense, and I'm a terrible person for thinking logically. That's evil and I'm going to hell.

So, basically you want us all to by Biblical litteralists so that you can make fun of us. Sorry, it doesn't work like that; you have to deal with us as we are, not as your prejudice would have us be.


Finally, if God has a divine plan, created me, and knows my heart, then he intended me to be a skeptical of him. He's also done a very good job of convincing me that he isn't real or he isn't involved at all. The crime of not believing in ancient mythology shouldn't be a perpetually damning offense. If there's one thing I know, more than anything else, is that not believing in something is NOT A CRIME.S

I point you to Socrates here.

[KukriKhan]

Gandhi's ashes were poured into urns which were sent across India for memorial services. Most were immersed at the Sangam at Allahabad on 12 February 1948 but some were secretly taken away.[54] In 1997, Tushar Gandhi immersed the contents of one urn, found in a bank vault and reclaimed through the courts, at the Sangam at Allahabad.[54][55] On 30 January 2008 the contents of another urn were immersed at Girgaum Chowpatty by the family after a Dubai-based businessman had sent it to a Mumbai museum.[54] Another urn has ended up in a palace of the Aga Khan in Pune[54] (where he had been imprisoned from 1942 to 1944) and another in the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine in Los Angeles.[56] The family is aware that these enshrined ashes could be misused for political purposes but does not want to have them removed because it would entail breaking the shrines

So I submit: Ghandi (or rather: bits and pieces of him) is all over the place, including about 100 miles from me.

Where is his "soul" according to christian beliefs? Limbo, home of the innocent unbaptised and righteous. This place is similar in concept to svarga
All created beings are imperfect and thus have at least one sin to their record; but if one has generally led a pious life, one ascends to svarga, a temporary realm of enjoinment similar to Paradise, after a brief period of expiation in Hell and before the next reincarnation according to the law of karma., a sort of waiting room before reincarnation into the next life.

[Kralizec]

Gandhi had little to do with riots, pogroms or the splitting of British India. You'll have to look at British colonial policy (divide and conquer) for that, as well as the Muslim elite, bitter as they were that they wouldn't get back the power they held before the conquest of India (Mughal age). Everybody knows Gandhi fasted to oppose the pogroms and was adamantly opposed to Jinnah's plans to split British India in two. Moreover, his racist views date from his earlier years in South Africa, were AFAIK not an issue later in life (when he did most of his famous works) and are finally entirely expectable and excusable in that day and age.

Also, am I the only one who finds this view of PVC's absolutely sickeningly arrogant, that Gandhi was in the wrong not to accept the Christian dogma? What gives Christians the monopoly on being morally right? Absolutely nothing.

P.S. The Nehru-Gandhi family is called that way for a reason... it isn't related to Mohandas Gandhi. Its progenitor was Jawaharlal Nehru, another Congress figure and first PM of India. The Gandhi comes from another Gujarati, Feroze Gandhi, who was not related to Mohandas.

True, but from what I know hiis attitude towards emancipation of the Dalits was rather ambivalent.


You are complaining that Christianity would condemn Ghandi to an eternity without God, but by your own admission he wasn't interested in being with God to begin with.

Well, Ghandi was born as a Hindu. I don't know if your parents were christian, but let's be honest here: the overwhelming reason why people are christians is because their parents were. Conversions to other faiths are fairly rare. And, from my own observations, it's very rare for a person who's been raised without any religion at all to adopt one as an adult.

So assuming that christianity is the "true faith", people who are born from christian parents have a head start in reaching salvation. How is that fair?

:juggle2:

[Husar]

So.... God hates freedom?:inquisitive:

If he would, would he have created us able to think for ourselves? That however, does not mean that he will let everyone into heaven. You're not really saying democratic societies hate freedom just because they have laws one must obey to stay out of prison?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, Ghandi was born as a Hindu. I don't know if your parents were christian, but let's be honest here: the overwhelming reason why people are christians is because their parents were. Conversions to other faiths are fairly rare. And, from my own observations, it's very rare for a person who's been raised without any religion at all to adopt one as an adult.

So assuming that christianity is the "true faith", people who are born from christian parents have a head start in reaching salvation. How is that fair?

:juggle2:

Well, that's not true; people can convert in great swathes. Christianity was not in an "upper class" religion initially, but one of slaves.

As to my own upbringing: I was raised in England, but if anything my education was anti-Christian.

[Beskar]

If he would, would he have created us able to think for ourselves?

You haven't been going to bible classes. He never gave us that, technically, satan embodied through a snake actually gave us freedom, by making Adam and Eve eat the apple through their choice, thus, create sin by disobeying god. By eating the apple, Adam and Eve came to know what good and evil are, that evil is going against god and being good is obeying him.

The other consequences from this is that man realised what it was to think for ourselves, opposed to having others think for us (ie: god).

Quite interesting, don't you think?

[Aemilius Paulus]

If he would, would he have created us able to think for ourselves?
Who said we think for ourselves? It may seem so, but appearances are deceptive. Who is to say we are not but automatons, believing we have free will, yet always choosing predictable choices based on personality, upbringing, other people, general environment, etc... Does God not know every step we will make in our lives before we are even born? He does not even need to control us. We are our own slaves.

[Strike For The South]

Hell

[Myrddraal]

That quote, "No one shall come to the Father except through me" and people's reactions to it have always confused me a little. Is Jesus actually saying "you have to accept and believe in me to come to the Father"? No, not really. Perhaps he meant (which seems more likely to me) that no one shall go to heaven without my forgiveness? Whatever the case, I fear we are putting words in his mouth when we use that phrase to justify the point of view that non-Christians don't go to heaven.



Who said we think for ourselves? It may seem so, but appearances are deceptive. Who is to say we are not but automatons... He does not even need to control us. We are our own slaves.
That way madness lies... or at least, that way the twisting of logic and nihilism lies. I'll fall back on a misused and abused quote: "I think therefore I am"

[Aemilius Paulus]

That way madness lies... or at least, that way the twisting of logic and nihilism lies.
Yeah, been there, done that, still there.

EDIT: Nihilism-absurdism, that is me... Nothing surprising for my age and standing.

[Myrddraal]

Yeah, been there, done that, still there.
That's deep, coming from a nihilist :wink:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Who said we think for ourselves? It may seem so, but appearances are deceptive. Who is to say we are not but automatons, believing we have free will, yet always choosing predictable choices based on personality, upbringing, other people, general environment, etc... Does God not know every step we will make in our lives before we are even born? He does not even need to control us. We are our own slaves.


That way madness lies... or at least, that way the twisting of logic and nihilism lies. I'll fall back on a misused and abused quote: "I think therefore I am"


If I go to get some ice cream, what flavor I choose is entirely predictable based on past experiences with taste and genetic programming. I'm a slave to my own taste. I may think I have a choice, but the process is automatic.

But I still get to eat my favorite ice cream...which I bought because it's my favorite...and it's delicious. Deny that, nihilists.

[Viking]

In heaven or hell?

This is one of the main reason why I'll never be a christian was a Hindu. He did not follow christ, and as such shouldn't be in heaven right? Only through me and all that... If he isn't in heaven, then he must be in Hell, or I guess somewhere less pleasing than heaven for those who do not believe in hell. Can't claim the ignorance and limbo thing on him either, as he certainly knew about christianity and jesus, but decided not to convert.

But what god would punish Gandhi? Seriously? The man who organized a succesful independence movement not through war, but through total nonviolence, and also inspired a bunch of other nonviolence movements all over the world. To punish such a man would be rather.... evil, wouldn't it? On the other hand, if he isn't punished in any way, if he got into heaven ass a Hindu, then what's the point of accepting christ then? I could just go about being a good boy, and no harm will come to me in the afterlife...

It depends entirely upon what truly matters on this Earth. If it was to belong to a certain religion, you could say that the rest doesn't matter. It would be like a child molester risking his own life in order to rescue someone from certain death - there is going to be something ambiguous about his reputation no matter what he does.

If a deity defines the meaning of life to be something different than what you do, there's little do be done about that. ~D

[Beskar]

If I go to get some ice cream, what flavor I choose is entirely predictable based on past experiences with taste and genetic programming. I'm a slave to my own taste. I may think I have a choice, but the process is automatic.

But I still get to eat my favorite ice cream...which I bought because it's my favorite...and it's delicious. Deny that, nihilists.

That argument gets very interesting when it comes to homosexuality. But that is a different subject.

[Mooks]

According to what I learned when I was a christrian for many years(Baptist), he's burning in hell right now and will be for all eternity. Probaly by a demon with a british accent.

[HoreTore]

Right, ok. It is relevent, because Ghandi's actions are de-valued if motivated by a belief in Indian superiority, which undermines your argument somewhat. Christianity is about turning towards God, rather than away from him. Those who do turn to God go to be with him when they die, those that don't, don't.

Whether Hell is actually a litteral pit or not is not that important. Hell is to be without God, which is to be without anything. I tend to think of it like screaming alone in the darkness for all eternity, without the comfort of darkness or the relief of being able to scream. Christianity isn't actually about Heaven and Hell, they are tangentile. Christianity is about the relationship between the individual and God.

You are complaining that Christianity would condemn Ghandi to an eternity without God, but by your own admission he wasn't interested in being with God to begin with.

So..... Gandhi gets to burn in an eternity, or whatever other punishment your god decides to give him.

Thanks for the answer.

[ajaxfetish]

In heaven or hell?

Is there a christian here who can address this for me?
It depends greatly on the variety of Christianity in question. The Mormon view of the afterlife is significantly different from more common Christian interpretations. We don't believe in any hell of fire and torment and demons and whatnot. Complete banishment of the sort PVC seems to consider hell is reserved only for those with an intimate knowledge and understanding of God who still willfully choose to resist his will. For us, the vast majority of folks would end up in one of three kingdoms of glory, each more wonderful than the last. The factors affecting where you end up are complex and open to interpretation, so I couldn't give you too explicit an idea of what it takes to end up where, and ultimately it's a matter of God's divine love and justice that I doubt I would understand anyway.

Of course, we also believe it's possible to turn to God after death, so for us there's no way of saying for sure that Gandhi isn't a Christian by now. That brings up your other good point about why bother if it won't make any difference whether you become a Christian in this life or not. Presumably there are benefits to making the choice as early as possible, but their exact nature is hard to define. Perhaps something along the line of regrets, knowing how much more good one could have done had they surrendered to God's will earlier. Hard to say.

Ajax

[Cute Wolf]

Still in hell MUHAHAHAHAHAHA the fool


Hell


According to what I learned when I was a christrian for many years(Baptist), he's burning in hell right now and will be for all eternity. Probaly by a demon with a british accent.


So..... Gandhi gets to burn in an eternity, or whatever other punishment your god decides to give him.

Thanks for the answer.

Same thing here... Gandhi suffer all eternity in hell, because he did reject God. In Reformed theology, he wasn't among the chosen, so he deserve to suffer all eternity in hell because of his sins.

Yeah, Jesus said no one can go to heaven except through believe in Him... and Gandhi doesn't believe Jesus, he just think that Jesus is a good morality teacher, but Gandhi doesn't believe he was the Messiah, the only way of Salvation. So that leave only one probability, the Holy Spirit didn't reveal the way of Salvation to him... So he deserve to be in hell, all eternity....

[HoreTore]

The Mormon view of the afterlife is significantly different from more common Christian interpretations. We don't believe in any hell of fire and torment and demons and whatnot. Complete banishment of the sort PVC seems to consider hell is reserved only for those with an intimate knowledge and understanding of God who still willfully choose to resist his will.

Gandhi studied every major religion extensively, and definitely had an intimate understand and knowledge of christianity.

[Husar]

You haven't been going to bible classes.
I haven't? Now that's interesting, how do you know? :inquisitive:


He never gave us that, technically, satan embodied through a snake actually gave us freedom, by making Adam and Eve eat the apple through their choice, thus, create sin by disobeying god. By eating the apple, Adam and Eve came to know what good and evil are, that evil is going against god and being good is obeying him.

The other consequences from this is that man realised what it was to think for ourselves, opposed to having others think for us (ie: god).

Quite interesting, don't you think?
Indeed, it is, I find it very interesting that god's puppets were apparently ordered by god (since they had no free will as you say) to listen to the snake and eat the apple despite god's orders not to. Yeah, sure, no sign of free will or decision-making there...


Who said we think for ourselves? It may seem so, but appearances are deceptive. Who is to say we are not but automatons, believing we have free will, yet always choosing predictable choices based on personality, upbringing, other people, general environment, etc... Does God not know every step we will make in our lives before we are even born? He does not even need to control us. We are our own slaves.
So you're talking about a deterministic world where every atom and every photon will more or less spark a chain reaction or change that of another and these things chainreactions are basically hat makes the universe "move", that's a view I thought about before, kinda destroys the american dream, doesn't it? In fact i think it would make everything completely meaningless and that's exactly where i stop thinking about it because from there it's only going in circles and this automaton does not like circles.

Oh, and what Myrddraal said.

[Beskar]

Indeed, it is, I find it very interesting that god's puppets were apparently ordered by god (since they had no free will as you say) to listen to the snake and eat the apple despite god's orders not to. Yeah, sure, no sign of free will or decision-making there...

What decision making?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So..... Gandhi gets to burn in an eternity, or whatever other punishment your god decides to give him.

Thanks for the answer.

No, that isn't what I said at all. Take a look at some of the qualifiers in the post, and look at the rest of my posts in this thread.

[ajaxfetish]

Gandhi studied every major religion extensively, and definitely had an intimate understand and knowledge of christianity.

That's not the same as an intimate understanding and knowledge of God. I'd say most believers don't really have that. Ultimately, only God knows who's really had their shot and who hasn't.

Ajax

[Ironside]

Indeed, it is, I find it very interesting that god's puppets were apparently ordered by god (since they had no free will as you say) to listen to the snake and eat the apple despite god's orders not to. Yeah, sure, no sign of free will or decision-making there...



What decision making?

God's decision to let the snake in, that caused the original sin. That, or God is seriously lacking in his omipotence.

[Husar]

What decision making?

How about the decision to eat the apple despite god's order not to eat them?
There was temptation involved, why would the snake need to temptate them if they would either
a) only do what god told them, in this case any temptation would bear no fruit, or
b) do whatever anyone told them to, in this case temptation would be superfluous, an order would get there faster

The snake made a tempting offer and convinced Eve to the point where she decided to break the rules and eat the apple, then Eve convinced Adam to decide to break the rules, too and that's why they were thrown out of paradise, because they gave in to temptation and decided to break the rules (aka sinning).

[Xiahou]

It's worth pointing out that "limbo" is not official Catholic doctrine.

Just sayin....

[Myrddraal]

Yeah, Jesus said no one can go to heaven except through believe in Him...

See this is what gets me. The quote is:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

The leap from these words to:
"Nobody goes to heaven unless they are Christian"
is substantial.

[Aemilius Paulus]

See this is what gets me. The quote is:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

The leap from these words to:
"Nobody goes to heaven unless they are Christian"
is substantial.
I fail to see the difference. Please explain how so there is a difference.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How about the decision to eat the apple despite god's order not to eat them?
There was temptation involved, why would the snake need to temptate them if they would either
a) only do what god told them, in this case any temptation would bear no fruit, or
b) do whatever anyone told them to, in this case temptation would be superfluous, an order would get there faster

The snake made a tempting offer and convinced Eve to the point where she decided to break the rules and eat the apple, then Eve convinced Adam to decide to break the rules, too and that's why they were thrown out of paradise, because they gave in to temptation and decided to break the rules (aka sinning).

Even more interesting, Adam and Eve really get in trouble when they try to hide their Sin from God, despite knowing it was wrong. This is the real birth of "Original Sin" in my eyes, the Mens Rea, the guilty mind.


It's worth pointing out that "limbo" is not official Catholic doctrine.

Just sayin....

Quite, a cultured Italian poet mourning his lost love has had the last word on the Christian immagination.


I fail to see the difference. Please explain how so there is a difference.

Neither the words "belief" nor "salvation" are contained in that statement.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Neither the words "belief" nor "salvation" are contained in that statement.
Yeah, and if the Bible was that obvious as you expect it to be in this case, then it would be a technical manual or a SparkNotes/CliffsNotes (tm) book...



Y’know, I never doubted why all the greatest of the philosophers/prophets never wrote down their beliefs - Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu (according to the story, he never wanted to write anything and when leaving the Middle Kingdom for ever, before his death, border guard persuaded Lao Tzu, after a long argument, that he should leave behind a written work; so Lao Tzu did, writing a single page.)

It is because it is easier, more convenient, more popular, more efficient to leave the text as ambiguous as possible to allow multiple interpretations without watering and stripping down the message overmuch. Pick n’ choose as well as ‘my own interpretation’ is what creates and sustains the countless Christian denominations. It has let centuries of ‘believers’ to accommodate all sorts of rubbish with their ‘faith’.

This is one of the few areas where Islam is clearly superior. Islam is not ambiguous. It was also written by its founding prophet. Mohammed himself noted the same two propensities I observed, and he spoke against them, eventually writing down the Quaran, a book almost as good as the Hammurabi’s Code, in the sense that it was as lucid and coherent as it could possibly be.

He, Mohammed, also managed to write much more than a simple lawbook, and he himself insisted that the only miracle Allah has shown through him was the writing of Quaran - how could I, a poorly-literate Mohammed write such a spring of wisdom, stele of beauty and elegance - he said (I paraphrased - forgot his exact quote)??
(I will overlook the opinions of the great many landmark Western writers that Quaran is jumbled and incomprehensible, even in its original - and Quaran is rarely translated, as translations fail miserably with it)

[Tellos Athenaios]

For an analogy:

“I am France”.

But you don't have to come to me to visit France.

[Samurai Waki]

Ah, and wheel still turns. I'd say more, except Im convinced we're all wrong. So debate away.

[PanzerJaeger]

Still in hell MUHAHAHAHAHAHA the fool

:laugh4:

[Ironside]

It's worth pointing out that "limbo" is not official Catholic doctrine.

Just sayin....

Considering that it haven't been branded as a heretical belief, it has been a acceptable doctrine though. I'm guessing on it being a "having the cake and eat it" for the Catholic church.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, it was dismissed by the Roman Church a few years ago.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't Muslims admit that the Koran contradicts itself, but where it does, you just go with whatever either the first or last (can't remember which) verse on the matter says.

Then again, I heard that from a YEC, so don't flame me please!

[Aemilius Paulus]

Don't Muslims admit that the Koran contradicts itself, but where it does, you just go with whatever either the first or last (can't remember which) verse on the matter says.

Then again, I heard that from a YEC, so don't flame me please!
Hehe, how funny that you say so, because the local YEC nuts say the same. But if you compare the two holy books, the Bible is like a cubist work whereas Quaran is a German technical blueprint. Quaran was meant to be so. The Bible - who knows what its writers thought. They were many, so they all had different styles and ideas... All the more confusion.

[KukriKhan]

It's worth pointing out that "limbo" is not official Catholic doctrine.

Just sayin....

Wow... I stand corrected. Thinking about it, my info IS over 40 years old; back then the Dominican Nuns & Jesuit Priests taught Limbo as the kind of suburb of Heaven, where unbaptised kids and pre-Jesus good people hung out.

I guess that's what I get for having 'fallen away', not being up on the latest changes in policy.

[The Wizard]

Why would it be? To be arrogant suggest viewing others as inferior to yourself... how is a Christian doing this if they believe they are just as sinful as any other person.

At a personal level, Christianity must surely be one of the least arrogant belief systems of all. It teaches that all people are born in the same state of sin, and that any good qualities are a gift of God and ought to be attributed only to him. Contrast this with the other belief systems out there, that often make people righteous of their own accord simply because they act more 'morally' than others. This reminds me of all those people who claim to be 'moral atheists'. Personally, I could not stomach the thought of claiming to be a good or moral person.

In fact, this idea is quite relevent to this thread. HoreTore and others clearly believe Ghandi was a great and moral individual, no doubt a better person than many others. And yet, if you look at Ghandi himself, one of the aspects of his personality was just how humble he was.

You're making no sense, dude. You say Christians think people are murderers because they're not Christians and then you say because of that they can't possibly be arrogant. Perhaps you mean they're crazy? Or maybe stupid? Or maybe just plain wrong? I can think of a plethora of negative adjectives for such a view, but no positive ones.

I don't care what your personal view on Christianity is and if it's arrogant or not. Nor is any view on Christian dogma relevant here, because the point revolves on Christian attitudes towards others. I flipped a lid over PVC apparently viewing non-Christians as inherently morally wrong for not being Christian. Such a view is sickening and so incredibly arrogant it can easily be classified as hubris.


Of course it isn't, that's what everyone does. In claiming many paths lead to God, you have already rejected outright the Christian worldview and assumed that your own belief system is correct. You then go on to make personal judgments on those who do not share your more broad outlook on morality.

I don't make personal judgments based on people believing in Jesus, dude. I make personal judgments on people claiming their religion holds the morality monopoly. That personal judgment is that they are arrogant :daisy:. I don't get what you don't get about this, it's simple.


You're missing the point. Christianity is not about "perfecting" the individual, but about repairing the individual's relationship with God. I would not phrase it in the same way Rhy does, because it produces this sort of reaction. However, I do agree with him in that the apparently guiltless man keeps dark secrets in his heart and the serial killer is capable of contrition and thence redemption.

No, you are. The point is not what Christianity wants to do (whatever that is), it's about you as a Christian claiming the sole ability to be moral. I don't care about whatever any religious person wants to do with God, if he's claiming he has the monopoly on being righteous he's a pretentious fool.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You're making no sense, dude. You say Christians think people are murderers because they're not Christians and then you say because of that they can't possibly be arrogant. Perhaps you mean they're crazy? Or maybe stupid? Or maybe just plain wrong? I can think of a plethora of negative adjectives for such a view, but no positive ones.

No, I said how can you believe Christians are arrogant when they say they are no better than anyone else? Christians are not more moral than anyone else for being Christian, they just thank God for forgiving them for their sins.


I don't make personal judgments based on people believing in Jesus, dude. I make personal judgments on people claiming their religion holds the morality monopoly. That personal judgment is that they are arrogant :daisy:. I don't get what you don't get about this, it's simple.

I don't see how you can conflate someone's choice of belief system with personal attributes such as arrogance. Christianity isn't about being inherently better than anyone else, it's about following Christ, presumably because when they believe his teacings to be correct. Do you think all Marxists are arrogant because they only believe one model of historical analysis to be correct? Are all market liberals arrogant because they believe that the free market is the only healthy economic system?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Y’know, I never doubted why all the greatest of the philosophers/prophets never wrote down their beliefs - Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu (according to the story, he never wanted to write anything and when leaving the Middle Kingdom for ever, before his death, border guard persuaded Lao Tzu, after a long argument, that he should leave behind a written work; so Lao Tzu did, writing a single page.)

It is because it is easier, more convenient, more popular, more efficient to leave the text as ambiguous as possible to allow multiple interpretations without watering and stripping down the message overmuch. Pick n’ choose as well as ‘my own interpretation’ is what creates and sustains the countless Christian denominations. It has let centuries of ‘believers’ to accommodate all sorts of rubbish with their ‘faith’.

Is any Christian going to answer this? *whistling nonchalantly*

[The Wizard]

AP, if I knew how to favorite your post in this new forum software, I would.


No, I said how can you believe Christians are arrogant when they say they are no better than anyone else? Christians are not more moral than anyone else for being Christian, they just thank God for forgiving them for their sins.

How don't you think you're better than anybody else when you say those who don't believe in your creed are murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc etc yada yada yada? Honestly. :dizzy2: Besides, it's a pretty horrible generalization, my friend. There are tons of Christians who think they're better than all other people, and you're sounding like one of them.


I don't see how you can conflate someone's choice of belief system with personal attributes such as arrogance. Christianity isn't about being inherently better than anyone else, it's about following Christ, presumably because when they believe his teacings to be correct. Do you think all Marxists are arrogant because they only believe one model of historical analysis to be correct? Are all market liberals arrogant because they believe that the free market is the only healthy economic system?

I am not conflating either. You are confusing my comments for commentary on the internal beliefs of Christians. In reality I am whaling on the opinions Christians like PVC hold about non-Christians, irregardless of what Christians believe or don't believe, which are outrageous. Gandhi went to Hell (or at least is not moral or righteous) because he didn't believe in a cosmic Jewish zombie. Yeah, and pigs fly.

EDIT: And yes, when it comes to the Marxists, I do. The historical community has rejected Marx's version of history as not even being history, just like they rejected Hegelian idealism. As for market liberals (whom I contrast with Keynesians): there is no conclusive reason to believe they are wrong. When it comes to Christianity, however, there isn't anything to believe they aren't...

[Rhyfelwyr]

How don't you think you're better than anybody else when you say those who don't believe in your creed are murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc etc yada yada yada? Honestly. :dizzy2: Besides, it's a pretty horrible generalization, my friend. There are tons of Christians who think they're better than all other people, and you're sounding like one of them.

Because I believe I am a murderer, thief, adulterer etc, as is every Christian.


I am not conflating either. You are confusing my comments for commentary on the internal beliefs of Christians. In reality I am whaling on the opinions Christians like PVC hold about non-Christians, irregardless of what Christians believe or don't believe, which are outrageous. Gandhi went to Hell (or at least is not moral or righteous) because he didn't believe in a cosmic Jewish zombie. Yeah, and pigs fly.

If Gandhi doesn't feel his sins need to be forgiven, then they won't be. Christianity isn't about following a moral code, it's about admitting that you can't follow it.

Since you're building Gandhi into some sort of beacon of righteousness, maybe you should think of how exactly he would describe himself. Remember, one of his most positive aspects was always his humility.


EDIT: And yes, when it comes to the Marxists, I do. The historical community has rejected Marx's version of history as not even being history, just like they rejected Hegelian idealism. As for market liberals (whom I contrast with Keynesians): there is no conclusive reason to believe they are wrong. When it comes to Christianity, however, there isn't anything to believe they aren't...

Wow, you really consider all Marxists to be arrogant just because they formed a different method of viewing history? :dizzy2:

Also, I'm not debating who's right or wrong, so whether or not there's any reason to believe that market liberals are wrong is irrelevant.

[The Wizard]

I am getting pretty tired of you confusing my attacks on asserting moral absolutes with attacks on specific beliefs or opinions. I'll repeat this one more time: what I am criticizing is the assertion that anybody who doesn't believe in the cosmic Jewish zombie is automatically morally wrong. FYI that is just as arrogant and sickening as asserting that anybody who believes in cosmic Jewish zombies is an unintelligent, uncritical and immature person without any intellectual worth whatsoever (i.e. Dawkins).

Believing that you are just as much a murderer and adulterer as me might not be arrogant, but it's still pretty offensive. I take exception to being called a murderer, pal. I don't hold your beliefs so please don't force them on me.

Back to Gandhi. Stop trying to drag Christian beliefs into this. My point is merely that Gandhi can be moral without being Christian. No more, no less. PVC claimed that this was not possible. Nowhere did I mention any need on Gandhi's side of having them forgiven. I doubt he felt any need for the Christian god to forgive any percieved sins of his.

The Marxist "theory of history" is not history in the first place, seeing as it's historicist speculation. And my point in general when discussing that as well as market liberalism is that claiming absolute truths requires bringing a lot of logical arguments with you to justify such a claim. There is little reason in any of the subjects we've discussed to believe there's an absolute truth in any of them, including Christianity, and so I say that it's sickeningly arrogant, in that light, to claim any.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am getting pretty tired of you confusing my attacks on asserting moral absolutes with attacks on specific beliefs or opinions. I'll repeat this one more time: what I am criticizing is the assertion that anybody who doesn't believe in the cosmic Jewish zombie is automatically morally wrong. FYI that is just as arrogant and sickening as asserting that anybody who believes in cosmic Jewish zombies is an unintelligent, uncritical and immature person without any intellectual worth whatsoever (i.e. Dawkins).

Well, Christianities view on human nature is part of the philosophy. Again, here you are still ignoring my point that Christians do not believe themselves to be any more moral than anyone else, although you seem to acknowledge it in the below paragraph.


Believing that you are just as much a murderer and adulterer as me might not be arrogant, but it's still pretty offensive. I take exception to being called a murderer, pal. I don't hold your beliefs so please don't force them on me.

Of course it should be offensive, it demands people repent for their sins. Although I don't where you make the leap from me believing something to forcing my beliefs on you.


Back to Gandhi. Stop trying to drag Christian beliefs into this. My point is merely that Gandhi can be moral without being Christian. No more, no less. PVC claimed that this was not possible. Nowhere did I mention any need on Gandhi's side of having them forgiven. I doubt he felt any need for the Christian god to forgive any percieved sins of his.

You want me to stop dragging Christian beliefs into a thread on Christianity? And hey, if you dont' believe anything Gandhi did was ever sinful, fine, but dont' be so arrogant as to say that your views on morality and sin must be right.


The Marxist "theory of history" is not history in the first place, seeing as it's historicist speculation. And my point in general when discussing that as well as market liberalism is that claiming absolute truths requires bringing a lot of logical arguments with you to justify such a claim. There is little reason in any of the subjects we've discussed to believe there's an absolute truth in any of them, including Christianity, and so I say that it's sickeningly arrogant, in that light, to claim any.

Nope, it's your opinion that there's no absolute truths in any of them. I find marxist historians often present their case in a well ordered, systematic, and thorough fashion, and I'm guessing your heavily biased against them from the way you dimiss them out of hand.

[The Wizard]

Well, Christianities view on human nature is part of the philosophy. Again, here you are still ignoring my point that Christians do not believe themselves to be any more moral than anyone else, although you seem to acknowledge it in the below paragraph.

How's that true? You might not (might) but who's to say Christians in general do? I only have cite every last preacher in my mother's family to disprove such a notion.


Of course it should be offensive, it demands people repent for their sins. Although I don't where you make the leap from me believing something to forcing my beliefs on you.

Because I haven't sinned, chum. I'm not a Christian, I have a different view of what a sin is and what isn't. Don't call me a sinner 'cause of that.


You want me to stop dragging Christian beliefs into a thread on Christianity? And hey, if you dont' believe anything Gandhi did was ever sinful, fine, but dont' be so arrogant as to say that your views on morality and sin must be right.

I want you to stop dragging Christian beliefs into an argument about how there isn't any absolute truth, yes. And when I say nobody has a monopoly on morality there isn't much you can say against it.


Nope, it's your opinion that there's no absolute truths in any of them. I find marxist historians often present their case in a well ordered, systematic, and thorough fashion, and I'm guessing your heavily biased against them from the way you dimiss them out of hand.

Not my opinion -- the consensus amongst historians, rather. I caution you against mixing up Marxian/materialist history (using Marx's idea of modes of production to analyze history) and Marxist history (as found in The Capital), which is historicism much like Hegelian idealism (it's where Marx got his dialectics, after all). It's pure speculation, and not history or historiography. Such systems of thought cannot be tested and are thusly not scientific in the first place.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That is like asking a teacher to not only teach but hand out written copies of his exact words as well. In an oral society; where memory lasts longer than written words?

It would have been considered rather rude to demand this of any of them, you know: living in a society where written words were so much the exception that military treaties often consisted of an oral agreement more than likely justified based on mutual oral history.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Y’know, I never doubted why all the greatest of the philosophers/prophets never wrote down their beliefs - Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu (according to the story, he never wanted to write anything and when leaving the Middle Kingdom for ever, before his death, border guard persuaded Lao Tzu, after a long argument, that he should leave behind a written work; so Lao Tzu did, writing a single page.)

It is because it is easier, more convenient, more popular, more efficient to leave the text as ambiguous as possible to allow multiple interpretations without watering and stripping down the message overmuch. Pick n’ choose as well as ‘my own interpretation’ is what creates and sustains the countless Christian denominations. It has let centuries of ‘believers’ to accommodate all sorts of rubbish with their ‘faith’.

I think the vast differences between various Christian denominations is not because of an inconsistant message in the Bible itself, but because of the various philosophies and mind-sets through which people have viewed the Bible throughout the past 2,000 years. Once Christianity became established in western society, it was never going to be possible to drop it once it played such an important social role, and so rather than abandoning the Christian religion with the different social demands of changing societies, they instead twisted it to suit their needs. Obviously I'm biased, but I think a lot of the liberal interpretations of the Bible are based more on what philosophers think God should be like, rather than the way he is portrayed in the Bible. In addition to this, due to the incredibly harsh message of the Bible when it comes to human nature (total depravity etc), people go to all sorts of lenghts attempting to derive their own doctrines to aviod these uncomfortable messages, while still keeping the nicer ones of a loving God etc.

Of course, this issue is a testable one. And I would recommend John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ* as an excellent work still unrefuted today, which comprehensively deals with a great number of the doctrines based on the ideas of various philosophers, and shows in each case their clear opposition to the message of the Bible.

Although I have of courses talked of the message throughout the Bible as a whole (as opposed to doctrines based on quoting a few verses), another of Owen's works, A Display of Arminianism*, provides neat little tables at the end of each chapter which blatantly shows how the teachings Rome, Arminians, and liberal Protestant churches are at total variance with that of the scripture.

* I tried to link you to each of these works, but I get a message saying the site is under maintanace due to large traffic growth. Still, you should be able to access them later through this site (http://www.puritanlibrary.com/). Just look for them under John Owen.




How's that true? You might not (might) but who's to say Christians in general do? I only have cite every last preacher in my mother's family to disprove such a notion.

Of course, there are denomination differences, but when you debate with me here, your're just debating with one guy, not some representative for all the denominations of Christianity.


Because I haven't sinned, chum. I'm not a Christian, I have a different view of what a sin is and what isn't. Don't call me a sinner 'cause of that.

I can call you a sinner just like you can call me arrogant, I hardly think that's forcing beliefs on others by anyone's understanding of what that involves. If you don't believe it's sin, then fine, that's your business.


I want you to stop dragging Christian beliefs into an argument about how there isn't any absolute truth, yes. And when I say nobody has a monopoly on morality there isn't much you can say against it.

And who are you to say that no particular faith is right when it comes to morality?


Not my opinion -- the consensus amongst historians, rather. I caution you against mixing up Marxian/materialist history (using Marx's idea of modes of production to analyze history) and Marxist history (as found in The Capital), which is historicism much like Hegelian idealism (it's where Marx got his dialectics, after all). It's pure speculation, and not history or historiography. Such systems of thought cannot be tested and are thusly not scientific in the first place.

I still don't understand about whether or not someone is right, or whether or not someone makes claims that can be scientifically tested, has to do with personal traits such as arrogance.

[The Wizard]

And who are you to say that no particular faith is right when it comes to morality?

Someone using plain and simple logic. Any person believing in anything can be moral.


I still don't understand about whether or not someone is right, or whether or not someone makes claims that can be scientifically tested, has to do with personal traits such as arrogance.

Something that can be tested, and passes the test, can be said to be truthful. But when that's not possible, it is arrogance to proceed to claim the truth anyways (the absolute one, even).

[Aemilius Paulus]

That is like asking a teacher to not only teach but hand out written copies of his exact words as well. In an oral society; where memory lasts longer than written words?

It would have been considered rather rude to demand this of any of them, you know: living in a society where written words were so much the exception that military treaties often consisted of an oral agreement more than likely justified based on mutual oral history.
Ha, reading Huston Smith can prepare anyone to answer that.

One of his central messages was the shift from a society where oral tradition is sacred and writing it down is the worst offence imaginable to a society where written tradition is revered instead. It is a momentous divide in the study of religions he writes. Your argument is very much valid, but it is only true for the more ‘primitive’ religions. It was all about sacred texts in the ancient civilisations.

A prophet would have to be stupid to not think that his views would be hotly debated and most of all, misrepresented if they were not written down. Oral tradition was the thing of the past even by those times. It was unreliable. The study of Aborigines is a very fascinating one, because they have a superhuman memory that was once common in similar societies. But those times went away with the onset of civilisation.

Jesus, at least, could have made the argument that he hated the Pharisees and he did not wish to write down his words, thus necessitating an educated priestly class to read his message. But no religion works without a class of individuals to interpret/apply the message - even if they are not a priestly class.

Quaran avoided the priestly class, and it was written down. But it was written down well, and once again, Islam is a special case here. Mohammed was a wise man, he learned from the thousands of years of shortcomings of other religions. Still, even Islam had (and still has, but now this is not as relevant) a theologian class, the learned men who ensure the religions coexists with the society, especially a changing one.

P.S. You can The World's Religions by Huston Smith if you had not done so before. Not only is it a brilliant book, but it also happens to be of moderate length for a religious studies text. For these reasons, I read, it is the most popular book in introductory courses on religions. Then, you can progress to Joseph Campbell who is the undisputed king of his field.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Someone using plain and simple logic. Any person believing in anything can be moral.

You'll probably struggle to define any non-relative morality using logic, tbh.


Something that can be tested, and passes the test, can be said to be truthful. But when that's not possible, it is arrogance to proceed to claim the truth anyways (the absolute one, even).

Let's just agree to disagree, and not go over this point any further.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not conflating either. You are confusing my comments for commentary on the internal beliefs of Christians. In reality I am whaling on the opinions Christians like PVC hold about non-Christians, irregardless of what Christians believe or don't believe, which are outrageous. Gandhi went to Hell (or at least is not moral or righteous) because he didn't believe in a cosmic Jewish zombie. Yeah, and pigs fly.

Either you can't read or you are deliberately trolling. Nowhere have I said, "Ghandi is in Hell" nor have I said, "you have to be a Christian to be moral".


IBack to Gandhi. Stop trying to drag Christian beliefs into this. My point is merely that Gandhi can be moral without being Christian. No more, no less. PVC claimed that this was not possible. Nowhere did I mention any need on Gandhi's side of having them forgiven. I doubt he felt any need for the Christian god to forgive any percieved sins of his.

Christian beliefs are all this thread is about, HoreTore asked whether, according to Christianity, Ghandi was in hell. I said I didn't know, and then provided a number of reason why he might be in heaven or hell.

I repeated several times that penitence was the key issue, not necessarily a belief in the Christian God, or the Christ.

However, I also gave a nmber of reasons why Ghandi might not be a paragon of light, and why just because he seemed holy to some people he was not automatically a baromater for goodness or worthiness.

Now, you can either listen to what the Christians in this thread are actually telling you about their beliefs, or you can stop harrassing us; but the way you are going is pointless.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yeah, it is true Ghandi was a racist in his early days as a lawyer in South Africa, but as someone else here remarked, who was not a racist in the old times? He was a racist in his personal letters, not a racist of action. And racism is as natural as any human feeling. People dislike anyone different from them, and any mainstream sociologist should be able to confirm this. It takes an advanced culture to rid oneself of racism.

[Myrddraal]

The problem with the new testament is that Jesus didn't write it. It's a collections of texts which report on the life of Christ and what he did and preached. So of course it will have inconsistencies.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The problem with the new testament is that Jesus didn't write it. It's a collections of texts which report on the life of Christ and what he did and preached. So of course it will have inconsistencies.
And...? Sorry, I did not grasp the point or the argument of the post :sweatdrop:. That is rather self-evident, n'est-ce pas?\


Either you can't read or you are deliberately trolling. Nowhere have I said, "Ghandi is in Hell" nor have I said, "you have to be a Christian to be moral".
All I can say is that you are one slick fella', PVC - wish I could be so :grin::tongue:

[Myrddraal]

:shrug:. It wasn't really an argument against what your saying, just a statement of the way things are. There doesn't seem to be much point arguing about why Jesus didn't write the Bible himself. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're saying. Are you saying that Jesus did not write down his message with the explicit intention of making it confusing for his followers?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Are you saying that Jesus did not write down his message with the explicit intention of making it confusing for his followers?
Eh? But I said this, which I judged to be the implicit intention:


It is because it is easier, more convenient, more popular, more efficient to leave the text as ambiguous as possible to allow multiple interpretations without watering and stripping down the message overmuch. Pick n’ choose as well as ‘my own interpretation’ is what creates and sustains the countless Christian denominations. It has let centuries of ‘believers’ to accommodate all sorts of rubbish with their ‘faith’.

[Ironside]

Actually, it was dismissed by the Roman Church a few years ago.

I originally refered to older times, but forgot to add it when I rewrote the post. That's true and a clear sign of that times have changed and the church grip has losened.

Because unless I'm mistaken, unbabtised children and rightious pagans still has the chance of going to heaven correct? Making Christianity (during your life time) a boon and not a must to enter heaven?

[Meneldil]

Gandhi had little to do with riots, pogroms or the splitting of British India. You'll have to look at British colonial policy (divide and conquer) for that, as well as the Muslim elite, bitter as they were that they wouldn't get back the power they held before the conquest of India (Mughal age). Everybody knows Gandhi fasted to oppose the pogroms and was adamantly opposed to Jinnah's plans to split British India in two. Moreover, his racist views date from his earlier years in South Africa, were AFAIK not an issue later in life (when he did most of his famous works) and are finally entirely expectable and excusable in that day and age.


Wasn't Gandhi firmly opposed to a republican democracy that would have offered the same rights to Muslims and Hindus? My impression was that he was no found of Muslims at all, and never planed to have them play any meaningful role in an independant India.

Edit: That is a genuine question, I'm not trying to make a point or something. I've always thought that Gandhi had a darkside to him, and that the whole Gandhi-fanboyism was stupid. I'm willing to be proved wrong.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Dunno, I am automatically opposed to such blind fanboy-ism, especially the sickeningly-sweet ultra-liberal/hippie Ghandi fanboyism, but if Ghandi was a true student of Tolstoy (as he was, for it was Tolstoy who taught Ghandi in their correspondences and Tolstoy's literature, from which Ghandi took upon himself the concept of nonviolent resistance), then Ghandi should have been opposed to racism and such petty human rivalries/vendettas.

And just what sort of connection did he have with Martin Luther King? I know little about that. Did they write letters to each other, as Ghandi and Tolstoy did? Ghandi should not have been racist, not in his middle-and late- years. When he came to South Africa, he could have still been young and foolish, as they say, but then he could have changed. And should have, logically, although who knows? All the history books I have read suggested he was very cordial towards Muslims, but I have doubts as to the writers' neutrality...

[The Wizard]

Either you can't read or you are deliberately trolling. Nowhere have I said, "Ghandi is in Hell" nor have I said, "you have to be a Christian to be moral".

The former was just me making a point. The latter, however, was implied in your earlier posts.


I repeated several times that penitence was the key issue, not necessarily a belief in the Christian God, or the Christ.

Penitence to whom? Jesus? And who says you need to do penitence to be moral?


However, I also gave a nmber of reasons why Ghandi might not be a paragon of light, and why just because he seemed holy to some people he was not automatically a baromater for goodness or worthiness.

And I gave you several reasons why none of those examples apply, to which you declined to reply.


Now, you can either listen to what the Christians in this thread are actually telling you about their beliefs, or you can stop harrassing us; but the way you are going is pointless.

I am. You're the first one to actually reply.


Wasn't Gandhi firmly opposed to a republican democracy that would have offered the same rights to Muslims and Hindus? My impression was that he was no found of Muslims at all, and never planed to have them play any meaningful role in an independant India.

Edit: That is a genuine question, I'm not trying to make a point or something. I've always thought that Gandhi had a darkside to him, and that the whole Gandhi-fanboyism was stupid. I'm willing to be proved wrong.

Not as far as I know. He was an anarchist much in the same mold as Tolstoy, really. I've never heard this charge, though, so I could be wrong.

[HoreTore]

And just what sort of connection did he have with Martin Luther King?

None. Ghandi was dead when the civil rights movement began.

[The Wizard]

MLK was directly inspired by Gandhi's feats, though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The former was just me making a point. The latter, however, was implied in your earlier posts.

I don't imply, I state. The fact that you say I "implied" it demostrates I never actually said it.


Penitence to whom? Jesus? And who says you need to do penitence to be moral?

For the last time, it's not about "being" moral. Penitence means the feeling of guilt for having committed a sin, not the performance of penance as a means of restitution.

The major error I think you're making is that you assume Christians think some people are of more value that others. Christianity doesn't work like that all people are of equal value in the eyes of God, without exception.


And I gave you several reasons why none of those examples apply, to which you declined to reply.

I think I made the point, repeatedly, that if Ghandi is less than perfect then he is not (in the Christian sense) moral, and therfore does not merit a place in heaven. This would, before you jump on it, make him exactly like everyone else.

Therefore, Ghandi can only enter heaven in the same way as anyone else, by the Grace of God.

The only question then (from a Christian persepctive) is how one comes to God's Grace, this brings us back to penitence.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Amen to the above post.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Amen to the above post.

You became an Armenian when I wasn't looking?

[Myrddraal]

I think the key misunderstanding here is that the Wizard is under the impression that morality is the key to heaven, and that what you're saying is that somehow if you're not Christian you're less moral. This is the argument (I think, I may be wrong) that he objects to, though I don't think it's an argument you're trying to make.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the key misunderstanding here is that the Wizard is under the impression that morality is the key to heaven, and that what you're saying is that somehow if you're not Christian you're less moral. This is the argument (I think, I may be wrong) that he objects to, though I don't think it's an argument you're trying to make.

I also see that as his gripe; and I'm not (nor would I ever) argue that.

What I object to is his insistence on seeing my beliefs on his terms.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You became an Armenian when I wasn't looking?

Nah, Georgia is my favourite country in the Caucasus. :tongue2:

Seriously though, what is there in your post for me to disagree with?

[The Wizard]

I think the key misunderstanding here is that the Wizard is under the impression that morality is the key to heaven, and that what you're saying is that somehow if you're not Christian you're less moral. This is the argument (I think, I may be wrong) that he objects to, though I don't think it's an argument you're trying to make.

You misunderstand me completely. I'm not even discussing the afterlife; I have no interest in doing so because it probably doesn't exist. I'm merely taking offense to the idea that one can only be moral if one follows the teachings of a cosmic Jewish zombie (or pays penitence to him, or whatever). Morality can exist outside of a religious context, contrary to the (apparent) opinions of many in this thread, you know. And, contrary to PVC's claims, one can be moral, as in undertake morally righteous actions. Judging from his replies, being moral is only possible if you're penitent, which is preposterous. I can be just as moral as any Christian saint were I so inclined, regardless of paying penitence for any so-called sins any Christian says I have, and this holds true for Gandhi too.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm merely taking offense to the idea that one can only be moral if one follows the teachings of a cosmic Jewish zombie (or pays penitence to him, or whatever). And, contrary to PVC's claims, one can be moral, as in undertake morally righteous actions. Judging from his replies, being moral is only possible if you're penitent, which is preposterous. I can be just as moral as any Christian saint were I so inclined
Based on PVC's replies to you, I think you also misunderstand him completely. He's repeatedly said the opposite of what you are claiming he's said. Unless I've missed something, he has not claimed that you must follow the teachings of a cosmic Jewish zombie to be moral, nor has he suggested you could not be just as moral as any Christian saint. In fact, I've gotten the impression he would say you are in fact just as moral as any Christian saint. He just seems to think that that's irrelevant to whether you'll achieve salvation, which, since you're not concerned with the afterlife anyway, shouldn't matter to you.

Ajax

[The Wizard]

It's not about me, dude. This thread is about whether Christians would say Gandhi's in heaven. Since I don't really give a crap about heaven, I took offense to the suggestion that not following Christ was a bad thing and implied a lack of moral righteousness in Gandhi. As said here:


Ok, well this is a fair gripe, but you need to take a nuanced view about this. Why didn't he follow Christ? Pride? Racism? Cultural prejudice? These are all attributes attached to Ghandi at one time or another, racism against non-Hindu's and Blacks in particular is the most infamous, I believe.

To simply assume that Ghandi should get into heaven is therefore unjustified, whatever he may have done he was also deeply flawed as an individual.

Who cares if he didn't follow Christ, dude? Look at his works, he can be nothing other than good.

In addition, if I recall correctly, almost every single Christian in this thread has indeed confirmed that Gandhi would indeed not go to heaven. For something as banal as not accepting Jesus.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not about me, dude. This thread is about whether Christians would say Gandhi's in heaven. Since I don't really give a crap about heaven, I took offense to the suggestion that not following Christ was a bad thing and implied a lack of moral righteousness in Gandhi. As said here:

You are mis-representing what I said, that post was in response to HoreTore's complaint that rejection of Christ lands you in hell, to quote the passage completely:


Ok, well this is a fair gripe, but you need to take a nuanced view about this. Why didn't he follow Christ? Pride? Racism? Cultural prejudice? These are all attributes attached to Ghandi at one time or another, racism against non-Hindu's and Blacks in particular is the most infamous, I believe.

To simply assume that Ghandi should get into heaven is therefore unjustified, whatever he may have done he was also deeply flawed as an individual.

On the other hand, rejection of Christ assumes not only exposure, but also effective preaching. If Ghandi was not actually exposed to both then he might be judged as not having actually "rejected" Christ. In which case, he would be judged as a Christian would, I believe, this means his penitence and his wish to know God would be the deciding factors.

Funny how you just ignored that bit? Are you being malicious, or just obstinate?


Who cares if he didn't follow Christ, dude? Look at his works, he can be nothing other than good.

In addition, if I recall correctly, almost every single Christian in this thread has indeed confirmed that Gandhi would indeed not go to heaven. For something as banal as not accepting Jesus.

Works are not relevent in a Christian context, and virtue rests in intention carried through in action; not in action alone.

Ghandi's works in no way qualify him for a place in Christian Heaven, neither do those of Saint Francis of Assesi.

A definitive rejection of Christ is a rejection of Christ's teaching; that man is not by his actions moral, but by his intent; that God judges all men equally and finds all wanting.

God will have judged Ghandi just as he judges anyone else, he will have been found wanting, and the key question will be whether Ghandi himself considers himself to be wanting; and why.

[The Wizard]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I didn't include that paragraph 'cause it merely underwrites what is said above: that if Gandhi heard about Christ, yet didn't accept the supposed messiah, then hey, no heaven for him, too bad you were a good man, have fun burning!

I might also add I find the idea disgusting that rejection of Christ is necessarily a bad thing. Or that being a good person apparently isn't enough, to Christians, for a person to be, well, good. Or that you presume to know what God thinks. Or that you apply your own (Protestant, apparently) view of Christianity to the entire religion. Or that every single Christian in this thread has said Gandhi has no place in the good afterlife 'cause he didn't believe in cosmic Jewish zombies. I can keep going on like this for a while.

[ajaxfetish]

I might also add I find the idea disgusting that rejection of Christ is necessarily a bad thing. Or that being a good person apparently isn't enough, to Christians, for a person to be, well, good.
Well, it does make sense that from a Christian viewpoint belief in Christ would be kind of important. If you're so easily disgusted, then I can't say anything much beyond okay then, be disgusted. I can live with Muslim beliefs including me not going to heaven. After all, I'm not a Muslim. For that matter, I can deal with many Christian denominations' beliefs including me not going to heaven. I don't see how others' beliefs about my eventual destination make much difference when I don't even share those beliefs. Heck, I can even deal with many atheists' belief that I won't be going anywhere at all, since I won't exist anymore. I've got better things to do than be outraged at someone else having beliefs I think are misguided or silly.

I also missed the part where Christians claimed that being a good person isn't enough to be good. I think I saw something about it being not enough to receive salvation, but overlooked the not being good part.

Ajax

[The Wizard]

Obviously not being worthy of salvation automatically implies not being good (enough).

Once again you relate to the debate on a personal level, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I could care less if Christians think I'm not a moral person for not believing in their prophet, though I find the judgment that they presume to make over me, which is implicit in such an idea, offensive. I just find it repulsive to see Christians reject the idea of a person as clearly good as Gandhi being righteous (which is clearly implied when Gandhi doesn't get to go to heaven). Being moral, being righteous, or being good has nothing inherent to do with Christianity, and it's this monopolization of what is good which made me react in the way I did.

I suppose you are right, though, when you point out this is hardly something only Christians do. Which is why I'm agnostic.

EDIT: Though afaik Islam clearly states that righteous non-believers will also go to the new paradise in the Last Judgment. So eh...

[HoreTore]

You are mis-representing what I said, that post was in response to HoreTore's complaint that rejection of Christ lands you in hell, to quote the passage completely:



Funny how you just ignored that bit? Are you being malicious, or just obstinate?



Works are not relevent in a Christian context, and virtue rests in intention carried through in action; not in action alone.

Ghandi's works in no way qualify him for a place in Christian Heaven, neither do those of Saint Francis of Assesi.

A definitive rejection of Christ is a rejection of Christ's teaching; that man is not by his actions moral, but by his intent; that God judges all men equally and finds all wanting.

God will have judged Ghandi just as he judges anyone else, he will have been found wanting, and the key question will be whether Ghandi himself considers himself to be wanting; and why.

I would consider everyone who "has found Gandhi wanting" to be a complete idiot. Gandhi has done more for humanity than Jesus or almost anyone else has done, if that's not enough to your god, then your god is an evil one to me.

[Strike For The South]

I would consider everyone who "has found Gandhi wanting" to be a complete idiot. Gandhi has done more for humanity than Jesus or almost anyone else has done, if that's not enough to your god, then your god is an evil one to me.

That would be an acknowledgement of exsistence.

We win

Party in the frontroom

[HoreTore]

That would be an acknowledgement of exsistence.

We win

Party in the frontroom

His theoretical existance, yes ~;)

Anyway SFTS, god's existance is not an issue to me when it comes to belief; the main obstacle to me becoming a believer is that I find the gods on the marketplace today rather evil. I wouldn't have a beer with any of them, why would I want them as my saviour?

[Strike For The South]

His theoretical existance, yes ~;)

Anyway SFTS, god's existance is not an issue to me when it comes to belief; the main obstacle to me becoming a believer is that I find the gods on the marketplace today rather evil. I wouldn't have a beer with any of them, why would I want them as my saviour [sp]?

You liking the man has nothing to do with you believing in him, You think the omnipotent creator of the universe cares what Norwegian socialist thinks about his early works?

You should want him as a savior because he loves you uncondtionally, despite your human flaws. It begins and ends there.

[Kralizec]

EDIT: Though afaik Islam clearly states that righteous non-believers will also go to the new paradise in the Last Judgment. So eh...

Aren't you thinking of "people of the book", i.e. christians and jews?

[HoreTore]

You liking the man has nothing to do with you believing in him, You think the omnipotent creator of the universe cares what Norwegian socialist thinks about his early works?

You should want him as a savior because he loves you uncondtionally, despite your human flaws. It begins and ends there.

Well I strongly disagree with that ~;)

[Strike For The South]

Well I strongly disagree with that ~;)

Fair enough, hedge your bets however you'd like

[HoreTore]

Fair enough, hedge your bets however you'd like

Yes, I'll go with "my body will rot in the earth and nothing else will happen" ~:)

[Husar]

I would consider everyone who "has found Gandhi wanting" to be a complete idiot. Gandhi has done more for humanity than Jesus or almost anyone else has done, if that's not enough to your god, then your god is an evil one to me.

Now you're sounding like a silly fanboy...

[HoreTore]

Now you're sounding like a silly fanboy...

Add up the positive and negative sides of Gandhi. The result is overwhelmingly positive, and as such I can't see how anyone would consider him a bad man.

[Reenk Roink]

Obviously not being worthy of salvation automatically implies not being good (enough).

Once again you relate to the debate on a personal level, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I could care less if Christians think I'm not a moral person for not believing in their prophet, though I find the judgment that they presume to make over me, which is implicit in such an idea, offensive. I just find it repulsive to see Christians reject the idea of a person as clearly good as Gandhi being righteous (which is clearly implied when Gandhi doesn't get to go to heaven). Being moral, being righteous, or being good has nothing inherent to do with Christianity, and it's this monopolization of what is good which made me react in the way I did.

Well, it can be said to have to do with everything inherent to Christianity (or any other religion or ethical system), as opposed to your own "monopolization of what is good"... :juggle2:

It may disgust some for example, that you would omit the first of the 10 commandments in your judgments of morality (though I'm not theologically keen enough to know for sure exactly how much the ordering of those is related to importance, it's a good guess).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I didn't include that paragraph 'cause it merely underwrites what is said above: that if Gandhi heard about Christ, yet didn't accept the supposed messiah, then hey, no heaven for him, too bad you were a good man, have fun burning!

Christ embodies a message about hummanity's relationship with God and the way in which our universe works. You have completely failed to grasp this point thus far, it actually has nothing to do with saying "I am a Christian". However, rejection of Christ as Messiah implies a very likely rejection of his teaching.


I might also add I find the idea disgusting that rejection of Christ is necessarily a bad thing.

This is likely because you only concieve of Him as a person.


Or that being a good person apparently isn't enough, to Christians, for a person to be, well, good.

Why? You think a person should judged wholly on their actions?


Or that you presume to know what God thinks. Or that you apply your own (Protestant, apparently) view of Christianity to the entire religion.

I have found very few branches of Christianity (including Catholicism) that do not consider penitence and faith to be vital. The belief that Catholicism allows you to do good works in order to get into heaven is incorrect. Good works get you out of Purgatory, which just means you get to heaven quicker.

Also, I stated several times that I do not know what God thinks; including in my initial post. I said, however, that I would have a go at laying out the main issues concerning the question.


Or that every single Christian in this thread has said Gandhi has no place in the good afterlife 'cause he didn't believe in cosmic Jewish zombies. I can keep going on like this for a while.

Well, I haven't said that, so I'm obviously not a Christian.


I would consider everyone who "has found Gandhi wanting" to be a complete idiot.

So he was perfect? We've already acknowledged he wasn't; he was a racist.


Gandhi has done more for humanity than Jesus or almost anyone else has done, if that's not enough to your god, then your god is an evil one to me.

Nonsense, Ghandi engineered the (relatively) peaceful emancipation of India. What else did he do? How does that compare to preaching universal Peace and Love; or even to inventing Penecilin?

[The Wizard]

Christ embodies a message about hummanity's relationship with God and the way in which our universe works. You have completely failed to grasp this point thus far, it actually has nothing to do with saying "I am a Christian". However, rejection of Christ as Messiah implies a very likely rejection of his teaching.

Jesus is a religious prophet. No more, no less. Not accepting his message does not preclude the ability towards doing good.


This is likely because you only concieve of Him as a person.

In the interest of not dragging this thread into an argument without end (is there a god, yada yada etc), I won't react to this.


Why? You think a person should judged wholly on their actions?

Obviously. How else can you judge them? Or do you have some way to read people's minds? All we have to judge them buy are their actions and their words, and words are a form of action (expressing yourself).


Well, I haven't said that, so I'm obviously not a Christian.

You have intimated that if he rejected the "message of Christ" while knowing of its existence it automatically means he could not have gotten into heaven. Which is pretty nutty in my book.


So he was perfect? We've already acknowledged he wasn't; he was a racist.

Wait, perfection is real? That's news to me! :book:

Nobody is perfect. But you know damn well Gandhi was a whole lot better than the vast majority of his contemporaries. It's an almost universal consensus amongst almost everybody, save some fringe nutjobs, that he was a good and righteous person.

[Hax]

Aren't you thinking of "people of the book", i.e. christians and jews?

When it comes to Ahl al-Kitab (or Ahlul Kitab), opinions pretty mich differ as to what they are, exactly.

Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians are named in the Qu'ran, as well as the somewhat obscure "sabeans". Interestingly enough, there was an entirely different group called the "Sabians" who lived near Aleppo, and who were to be either relocated or converted to Islam, as they were not Ahl al-Kitab. However, several of their leaders read the Qu'ran and noticed the reference to the "Sabeans", who were actually living in southern Arabia, but they managed to convince Al-Mamun (who had given them an ultimatum) that the Qu'ran actually referenced to them. Al-Mamun accepted this and invited their scholars and astronomers to Baghdad to work in the House of Wisdom.

To what extent the Ahl al-Kitab goes isn't really clear though; there are a lot of different opinions on this, with the fundamentalist side going "well, Christians are idolators and as such will burn in the fiery pits of hell", while the more moderate and liberal clerics would say "well, anyone that follows a moral code is Ahl al-Kitab and should be respected."


On this subject, Gandhi, according to Islam, is probably in heaven.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The standard in Christianity tends to be:

righteousness = perfection
sin = anything less than perfection

People might think that's harsh, but how could you take the idea of an omnipotent God and an absolute set of moral beliefs seriously othewise?

If the morals are absolute, you have to follow them completely, otherwise you are only partly following them.

If you only partly follow them, and God is ominoptent and a perfect judge, then how could God still be these things if he just lets a bit of sin slide?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Jesus is a religious prophet. No more, no less. Not accepting his message does not preclude the ability towards doing good.

Never said it did; not a Calvinist. Stop putting words in my mouth; everyone else in this thread agrees this is not what I have said.

As far as Jesus goes, "just a religious prophet" is an oxymoron, particularly when the religion is a massive metaphysical statement about existence.


In the interest of not dragging this thread into an argument without end (is there a god, yada yada etc), I won't react to this.

Only Arrian theology considers Jesus to be less than an equal to the Father. If you want to discuss Christian theology you have to process the concept; you don't have to believe it.


Obviously. How else can you judge them? Or do you have some way to read people's minds? All we have to judge them buy are their actions and their words, and words are a form of action (expressing yourself).

I don't do the judging; an all-seeing God does.


You have intimated that if he rejected the "message of Christ" while knowing of its existence it automatically means he could not have gotten into heaven. Which is pretty nutty in my book.

Why?


Wait, perfection is real? That's news to me! :book:

Well, no in this life for human beings.


Nobody is perfect. But you know damn well Gandhi was a whole lot better than the vast majority of his contemporaries. It's an almost universal consensus amongst almost everybody, save some fringe nutjobs, that he was a good and righteous person.

Perfect is what you need to get into heaven off your own back.

[Kralizec]

When it comes to Ahl al-Kitab (or Ahlul Kitab), opinions pretty mich differ as to what they are, exactly.

Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians are named in the Qu'ran, as well as the somewhat obscure "sabeans".

Hmmm, that's not what I recall. Wich is that christians and jews are people of the book (obviously) and that the term was applied analogously to zoroastrians - partly because it was expedient but also because they worship a single god (difference being that the "devil" in zoroastranianism is considered a full blown god himself)
I know the term was also extended to hinduism when India was conquered by muslims...but that seems extremely dubious

:juggle2:

[Myrddraal]

Gah!

My point was not about heaven Wizard, it was this:

You object to the argument that you have to be Christian to be moral. Nobody here is making that argument. Some people are saying that you need to be Christian to go to heaven, but that is not the same as being moral, as you pointed out yourself.

And can we cut the :daisy: about cosmic Jewish zombies. This kind of petty ridicule casts you in a very bad light imo.

[HoreTore]

So he was perfect? We've already acknowledged he wasn't; he was a racist.



Nonsense, Ghandi engineered the (relatively) peaceful emancipation of India. What else did he do? How does that compare to preaching universal Peace and Love; or even to inventing Penecilin?

Gandhi more or less instituted total nonviolence as a tool to change regimes.

That tops what Jesus has done by miles. Universal peace and love? The inquisition just called, and they blamed jesus.

[Beskar]

Gandhi more or less instituted total nonviolence as a tool to change regimes.

That tops what Jesus has done by miles. Universal peace and love? The inquisition just called, and they blamed jesus.

It is because Catholic Stalins' took over jesus's church of socialist dreams.

[HoreTore]

It is because Catholic Stalins' took over jesus's church of socialist dreams.

Yes....

Jesus also said "Give unto Ceasar what Ceasar is owed".... Or in other words, total obedience to the regime in power, also known as totalitarianism.

[Beskar]

Yes....

Jesus also said "Give unto Ceasar what Ceasar is owed".... Or in other words, total obedience to the regime in power, also known as totalitarianism.

To be fair, there was more to it than that. Asking being asked the question about paying taxes to the Romans, he says "Who's heads are on those coins?" the reply comes "It is Caesar's!" then he says "Give Caesar what is Caesar's, give God what is God's".

He did say love your neighbour as you love yourself, and other principles, turn the other cheek (preaching pacifism and don't be selfish), etc.

My point was about the church, not the preachings themselves.

[The Wizard]

Obviously Christianity is a religion in many different shapes and sizes. I try to investigate any particular Christian's personal beliefs. And when these include saying "well, Gandhi, eh, so what if he was good? Not in our heaven!" like every Christian in this thread, it pretty much says it all for me.


Never said it did; not a Calvinist. Stop putting words in my mouth; everyone else in this thread agrees this is not what I have said.

I am not putting any words in your mouth. Your opinion is rejecting Jesus is a bad thing (probably because to you, he is the Messiah and in doing so you forsake redemption). I find such a position untenable because it means anybody who is not a Christian is doing something bad merely because of what they are.


As far as Jesus goes, "just a religious prophet" is an oxymoron, particularly when the religion is a massive metaphysical statement about existence.

How so? Not like he's the only religious prophet. On the contrary. Hence, just a religious prophet.


Only Arrian theology considers Jesus to be less than an equal to the Father. If you want to discuss Christian theology you have to process the concept; you don't have to believe it.

There is nontrinitarian Christianity. But we digress, this is hardly to the point. Yes, Jesus was just a man, in my view God doesn't have children, because he is God, not some pagan deity going on adulterous sprees. I am in this aspect fundamentally a Jew.


I don't do the judging; an all-seeing God does.

And this is where you and I cannot debate, because here our beliefs differ too radically.


Why?

I'll tell you why: it means only Christians can possibly be perfect, even moral. I would think nobody in the developed world still clung to such a concept.


Gah!

My point was not about heaven Wizard, it was this:

You object to the argument that you have to be Christian to be moral. Nobody here is making that argument. Some people are saying that you need to be Christian to go to heaven, but that is not the same as being moral, as you pointed out yourself.

And can we cut the :daisy: about cosmic Jewish zombies. This kind of petty ridicule casts you in a very bad light imo.

Not being allowed into heaven implies something about your morality: you don't cut it, sorry. Defending yourself with "oh well we demand absolute perfection, is why" is weak. That is my point. And I'll ridicule any religion which presumes to make such judgments over men merely for being different.

Of course, one could reply to this by saying it's every religion's right to decide who gets into their particular corner of heaven and who doesn't. Which is why I'm not religious.

[Husar]

Obviously Christianity is a religion in many different shapes and sizes. I try to investigate any particular Christian's personal beliefs. And when these include saying "well, Gandhi, eh, so what if he was good? Not in our heaven!" like every Christian in this thread, it pretty much says it all for me.

So basically god is supposed to let Gandhi into heaven or you're going to pout and be really angry at the almighty?
I'm sure he's already scared. I think what most here are saying is that good deeds alone won't let you get into heaven.
The bible says noone is without sin and only if you accept jesus as your personal saviour, he will wash away your sins so you can get into heaven.
It's not that hard to understand or do so Gandhi had a choice, if he ever heard of it.
But maybe he thought he didn't need god and turned away from him, in which case the bible is also pretty clear.
If you expect Christians not to believe this, then I can't help you because you're asking them to betray their core beliefs.

It doesn't mean christians hate Gandhi or think what he did was bad, in fact, god loves everybody and expects christians to do the same, but people who reject him can't get into heaven anyway.

Or that's what I've been taught anyway.

[The Wizard]

Oh, no, I'm not going to pout. Not at (what I view as) an imaginary man in the sky. I'm simply going to comment on how much :daisy: it is to claim that good people from other religions can't get into heaven according to the Christian world view. At least Islam is not so small-minded.

[HoreTore]

So basically god is supposed to let Gandhi into heaven or you're going to pout and be really angry at the almighty?.

I can't speak for TheWizard, but for me, if Gandhi is not let into the christian heaven, then there is no way I will ever be a member of the christian faith. I would consider that an evil act, and why would I want to follow an evil god? That just doesn't make any sense.

I won't follow Hitler, i won't follow Stalin, and I won't follow the christian god.

Give me an anti-authoritarian faith and I'll consider it.

[Hax]

Give me an anti-authoritarian faith and I'll consider it.

Call the Buddhism hotline now!

634-BODHI!



On a semi-related and serious note, when it comes to the authoritarianism in Buddhism, there's a lot of different views and opinions. Of course, in the hardcore Theravada lands, such as Thailand, the Philippines and most south-east Asian countries, the monks take on a very high position and have a lot of influence. In Tibet this was even "worse" before the Chinese Invasion, when the Dalai Lama practically ruled just about everything.

When we look at the more westernized schools of Buddhism, we will find that it is mostly adhered to by rich, well-off white liberal people, this in sharp contrast with most(!) Buddhist countries in Asia (two examples that ought to be mentioned are Japan (where society always was kind of secular) and Korea. What I seem think that attracts most people to Buddhism in the fact that, in my opinion, it's less believing and more acting. Also, the Buddhist cosmology is not ruled by absolutes. Hells and heavens exist, but are not eternal. Also, nobody can "force" you to become enlightened; this is something that you have to perform on your own. The sect I adhere to actually states that everyone can do this (non-Buddhists as well, after all, Siddharta Gautama was not a Buddhist, was he? ) and that everyone can do it in this lifetime, bringing me to my second point on the seeming "attractiveness" of Buddhism:

The fact that we're not rushing. It's not either hell or heaven, we might reïncarnate. We might reïncarnate as a tree or a bird or what have you (cockroach, centipede, spider, snake to name the elegant few) and we'll finally reïncarnate as human beings to reach enlightenment. I think this, for some people, attracts people to Buddhism, because it's less "stressful" than most other religions (Confucianism and Daoïsm being of a totally different order, naturally..but they're Chinese, not Dharmic or Abrahamic).



To wrap things up, if I have offended any Christians or Jews or whomever, I apologise in advance: I'm not saying Buddhism is better than any of those faiths. Christianity is better for Rhyfelwyr, atheïsm might be better for HoreTore or Fragony, but Shingon Buddhism is better for me, if you get my point. Therefor, it's useless to try and convince people or convert them, because we have different objectives in life and different perceptions of the world. My perception made me "choose" Shingon Buddhism, but your perception might convince you of a different thing. I don't mind.




You'll reïncarnate, anyway. ;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not putting any words in your mouth. Your opinion is rejecting Jesus is a bad thing (probably because to you, he is the Messiah and in doing so you forsake redemption). I find such a position untenable because it means anybody who is not a Christian is doing something bad merely because of what they are.

Nope, totally wrong about me, my motivations, my beliefs. It has nothing to do with getting into heaven; that is really a minor part of Christian theology in the grand scheme of things.


How so? Not like he's the only religious prophet. On the contrary. Hence, just a religious prophet.

Well, he spawned by far the most numerous and influencial world religion. And he said something pretty original about the human condition.


There is nontrinitarian Christianity. But we digress, this is hardly to the point. Yes, Jesus was just a man, in my view God doesn't have children, because he is God, not some pagan deity going on adulterous sprees. I am in this aspect fundamentally a Jew.

So you don't have any concept of the Nicene Trilogy, or care to know? This being central or all forms of orthodoxy you're basically saying you just want to antagonise me.


And this is where you and I cannot debate, because here our beliefs differ too radically.

Because you want to judge people, and I don't? Or because you want to dictate terms to God, and I don't?


I'll tell you why: it means only Christians can possibly be perfect, even moral. I would think nobody in the developed world still clung to such a concept.

Christians are not perfect. Nobody is. How is without exception so incredibly difficult for you to understand?


Not being allowed into heaven implies something about your morality: you don't cut it, sorry. Defending yourself with "oh well we demand absolute perfection, is why" is weak. That is my point. And I'll ridicule any religion which presumes to make such judgments over men merely for being different.

In a Christian sense this is untrue, not being allowed into heaven (at most) says something about your lack of self awareness.


Of course, one could reply to this by saying it's every religion's right to decide who gets into their particular corner of heaven and who doesn't. Which is why I'm not religious.

Well I believe in only one God, and yes, that means all your idols are false. Burn me for PC-heresy if you want.

I really don't care any more, you're thick headed and you don't care what I believe. You just want a punching bag. I am now done with being insulted.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wizard, both PVC and myself have repeatedly said heaven has nothing to do with morality (even if for different reasons), so why do you keep bringing it up?

[Husar]

Give me an anti-authoritarian faith and I'll consider it.

Well, whether god exists or not is not up to you or a choice you can make, whether you believe he does is a choice, but the actual truth is not.

Like I said, whether he went to heaven or hell according to christian belief might depend on whether he ever heard about jesus and his message, one could say god created us with a conscience and those who never heard of him might be judged by that, but I'm not such an expert myself.

[HoreTore]

Well, whether god exists or not is not up to you or a choice you can make, whether you believe he does is a choice, but the actual truth is not.

Like I said, whether he went to heaven or hell according to christian belief might depend on whether he ever heard about jesus and his message, one could say god created us with a conscience and those who never heard of him might be judged by that, but I'm not such an expert myself.

Whether he exists or not is irrelevant.

If his teachings are good, I'd follow him whether he existed or not. If his teachings are bad I tell him to stuff it. And if he won't give a free pass to a man with Gandhi's accomplishments, he's bad in my book and I'll tell him to stuff it if I ever run into him.

Oh, and Gandhi was a theologist, Husar, he studied all the major religions instensively.

[Husar]

Whether he exists or not is irrelevant.

If his teachings are good, I'd follow him whether he existed or not. If his teachings are bad I tell him to stuff it.

The point is, if he exists, you're the one who's inevitably going to stuff it in the end, not him.

[HoreTore]

The point is, if he exists, you're the one who's inevitably going to stuff it in the end, not him.

Why do you think I care?

I value my principles above my existance in an eventual afterlife, Husar ~;)

[Beskar]

Why do you think I care?

I value my principles above my existance in an eventual afterlife, Husar ~;)

The after-life is where we decay in a hole in a ground, I think the "here-and-now" is more important like HoreTore is saying.

[Husar]

The after-life is where we decay in a hole in a ground, I think the "here-and-now" is more important like HoreTore is saying.

That's your belief, other people believe something else.
HoreTore could have just labelled this thread "I am not a christian" because that's all he is saying here, that god should bend to his morals because he believes that god doesn't exist anyway. That kind of argument is like running against a wall when you talk to someone who actually believes in god.
So HoreTore thinks god is cruel and a christian will think HoreTore is self-centered and doesn't want to admit that he needs god, just like Gandhi. Except that the thread hardly has anything to do with gandhi except that HoreTore used him to "prove" to himself that god is cruel and he doesn't want him, something he had already concluded before... :dizzy2:

[Beskar]

That's your belief, other people believe something else.

Though I do guess this is an attack on the Christian Sugar Mountain belief. :yes: Bad Horetore.

[HoreTore]

HoreTore could have just labelled this thread "I am not a christian" because that's all he is saying here, that god should bend to his morals because he believes that god doesn't exist anyway.

Wrong, Husar...

I don't say that god should bend his morals, I'm saying that I won't bend mine. So, in order for me to believe in a god, that god must have the same morals as I do.

And if he ships Gandhi off to hell, we don't have the same morals.

[Kralizec]

I'm just going to pop in and state that I take issue with a phrase some christians here have used, namely "[x] rejects god"

If I knew for a fact that God existed and still refused to worship him, then I'd be rejecting him. Ghandi did not "reject jesus" because (I assume) he didn't feel that the biblical narrative was convincing enough for him to abandon the religion he grew up with.
So Europe is about 82% christian, China is about 3%. The implication is that in Europe, up to 82% could be saved if they follow their religion with some effort. In China it's only 3 as the rest hasn't decided to convert yet despite centuries of contact with christianity. Now, is this:
A) due to coincidental geographic factors, or more fundamentally, where you are born and from what parents
B) some inherent trait Chinese people posses that makes them less likely to follow the true faith
C) the bible is simply not convincing enough?

Without delving into statistics about conversions, I think we can all agree that the faith of a person's parents is very likely to influence that person's religious views as well. Is it then not extremely unfair that European babies get a head start on the way to salvation compared to Chinese babies?

It's unfair that Ghandi should suffer the consequenses because he didn't take the bible's word for it that there's one god, wich is made up of three parts et cetera. If anything, it's christianity's own fault for not being convincing enough. The majority of the world population still "rejects" the message despite the fact that the religion has been around for 2000 years :coffeenews:

[Ironside]

Wrong, Husar...

I don't say that god should bend his morals, I'm saying that I won't bend mine. So, in order for me to believe in worship a god, that god must have the same morals as I do.

And if he ships Gandhi off to hell, we don't have the same morals.

If you agree to the modification, we're in full agreement on the issue. :juggle2:

[Husar]

Wrong, Husar...

I don't say that god should bend his morals, I'm saying that I won't bend mine. So, in order for me to believe in a god, that god must have the same morals as I do.

So you don't believe he exists unless he agrees with you?

Wait, who am I talking to, I don't believe this "HoreTore" exists, because we have different morals...

[Idaho]

From all I have read of Christianity - it's doctrine, dogma, actions and pronouncements - it's a religion which claims high morality but is really just about justifying social control and political elitism.

It's stories are largely reworkings of older stories. It's festivals are stolen from other religions. It has been used to justify hundreds of years of murder, torture, prejudice and injustice. It's priests are among the most venal and corrupt of any religion. And it's followers claim high ideals and yet are often the most selfish and self-justifying people on the planet.

And doubtless I will get some kind of warning from the mods for expressing these deeply sinful views :rolleyes:

[Viking]

So you don't believe he exists unless he agrees with you?

Wait, who am I talking to, I don't believe this "HoreTore" exists, because we have different morals...

I pointed this out this earlier, though it seems some people have a religious stance on this issue. :smug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From all I have read of Christianity - it's doctrine, dogma, actions and pronouncements - it's a religion which claims high morality but is really just about justifying social control and political elitism.

It's stories are largely reworkings of older stories. It's festivals are stolen from other religions. It has been used to justify hundreds of years of murder, torture, prejudice and injustice. It's priests are among the most venal and corrupt of any religion. And it's followers claim high ideals and yet are often the most selfish and self-justifying people on the planet.

And doubtless I will get some kind of warning from the mods for expressing these deeply sinful views :rolleyes:

This could be equally said of any religion or social system. However, to actually ascribe such a callous attitude to Christians or any other group is to take a deeply depressing view of hummanity.

[Idaho]

Not really. I have quite a positive view of humanity. However human behaviour tends to go downhill when certain people decide that they are more rightious or deserving. Or that believing something abstract means that they are automatically good and will go to heaven and can ignore fundamental issues with the world.

[Husar]

Not really. I have quite a positive view of humanity. However human behaviour tends to go downhill when certain people decide that they are more rightious or deserving. Or that believing something abstract means that they are automatically good and will go to heaven and can ignore fundamental issues with the world.

Christians actually believe everybody is deserving and can be righteous, if they want to, HoreTore for one doesn't want to, at least not according to christian values.
Christians don't want to be moral according to his values either and it's not like he as an atheist doesn't claim to be more righteous.

[HoreTore]

So you don't believe he exists unless he agrees with you?

Wait, who am I talking to, I don't believe this "HoreTore" exists, because we have different morals...

Sigh....

You confuse "believe in" with "follow". God's existance doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I will follow the christian god. God can be real, and I can still choose not to be a fan. And if he decides that accomplishments like Gandhi's are not enough, well then I won't be a fan.

EDIT: Oh, just caught my mistake; Ironside's modification of my post is what I was supposed to write....

[Fisherking]

One thing for sure, he ain’t in Valhalla sitting between Odin and Thor...he would be with Hel freezing his butt off...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really. I have quite a positive view of humanity. However human behaviour tends to go downhill when certain people decide that they are more rightious or deserving. Or that believing something abstract means that they are automatically good and will go to heaven and can ignore fundamental issues with the world.

These are beliefs that can only possibly be ascribed to Calvinistic Protestants, and only then in cases of ignorance. As a social control mechanism Christianity is a poor choice, Islam and Hinduism are both much more finely tuned to that purpose, for example. However, Christianity has a 1,700 year history of being the religion of the elite. That there have been cases of abuse is hardly surprising.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Stop bashing Calvinism PVC, you know those things aint true. :stare:

Anyway, Christianity really must be a terrible option for social control. The only possible bit in the NT I can think of that is an example of supporting oppression would be the bits that denouce any sort of revolt against tyrannical rulers, although even then that's part of the idea of keeping the faith pure from politics, which most people would hardly say is a bad thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Stop bashing Calvinism PVC, you know those things aint true. :stare:

Anyway, Christianity really must be a terrible option for social control. The only possible bit in the NT I can think of that is an example of supporting oppression would be the bits that denouce any sort of revolt against tyrannical rulers, although even then that's part of the idea of keeping the faith pure from politics, which most people would hardly say is a bad thing.

I know they aren't true of you; but you know that the place of the praedestini in Calvin's thought provides a platform to develop the idea that some people are better than others. It's the major weakness of Calvinism; and stems (admittedly) more from Calvin's rhetoric than his theology.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know they aren't true of you; but you know that the place of the praedestini in Calvin's thought provides a platform to develop the idea that some people are better than others. It's the major weakness of Calvinism; and stems (admittedly) more from Calvin's rhetoric than his theology.

I can see how it could be so, although I think the emphasis on total depravity has stopped any such ideas from ever seriously taking hold.

Remember, from the free will viewpoint, an argument could also be made that Christians are more deserving of salvation, since they choose it and live their life accordingly(although as you said was the case with Calvinism, this would be more due to rhetoric and misconceptions than the actualy theology of it). I know you don't do this, but I get a feeling it can be pretty common, especially from some of the comments I see on US evengelical-orientated forums.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can see how it could be so, although I think the emphasis on total depravity has stopped any such ideas from ever seriously taking hold.

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Calvin's original formulation is to be understood as marking man as totally depraved in all his facalties, in that no part of him is free from corruption; neither body, nor mind, nor soul. This formulation is entirely Augustinian. However, because of his rhetoric, Calvin has been taken to mean that each of man's faculties is totally depraved, so that man is utterly without any redeeming features.

So Calvin is misunderstood, and all goodness is transfered outside of the human being and becomes the sole privilage of the divine. In this sense Christians become better people because God imbues them, and only them, with the quality of goodness which only he possesses.

It is the this absense of natural goodness along with the legalistic language of "natural" justification that leads some Calvinistic sects to conclude that their followers are made better than other human beings by God. The issue is then further compounded by deterministic element to Calvinism.

Every commentary I have read agrees this is not what Calvin intended, as evidenced by his unpollemical writings where he praises the many virtues hummanity is naturally capable of.

Rather like Marx the problem is not so much the man as the philosophy he fathered. Though I personally believe that the seed of the error begins in the deficiencies of both men.

While I accept that the doctrine of free will can cast Christians as "better" people because they can be viewed as making better choices, I would argue that this is mitigated by the fact that Christians can still be held accountable for their bad choices and (crucially) are capable of falling away from God; and then coming back to Him.

[The Wizard]

You speak as if the Bible exists in some kind of vacuum. God (heh), how naive. Tell that "boy, Christianity sure is a bad choice for social control!" fairy tale to the millions of people who live and lived under the thumb of the church, the local priest or pastor, or simply the enmity and gossiping of their fellow Christians.

[HoreTore]

These are beliefs that can only possibly be ascribed to Calvinistic Protestants, and only then in cases of ignorance. As a social control mechanism Christianity is a poor choice, Islam and Hinduism are both much more finely tuned to that purpose, for example. However, Christianity has a 1,700 year history of being the religion of the elite. That there have been cases of abuse is hardly surprising.

Franco's powerbase was the church.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Franco's powerbase was the church.

Stalin's powerbase was "Communism", The Taliban's is "Islam"; what's your point?

Give me a belief system and I'll show you an example of it being abused.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Calvin's original formulation is to be understood as marking man as totally depraved in all his facalties, in that no part of him is free from corruption; neither body, nor mind, nor soul. This formulation is entirely Augustinian. However, because of his rhetoric, Calvin has been taken to mean that each of man's faculties is totally depraved, so that man is utterly without any redeeming features.

So Calvin is misunderstood, and all goodness is transfered outside of the human being and becomes the sole privilage of the divine. In this sense Christians become better people because God imbues them, and only them, with the quality of goodness which only he possesses.

I would say that these people are showing a misunderstanding of what Calvin means when he talks about depravity, sin etc. Remember my earlier post where I said that righteousness = perfection, whereas sin = anything less than perfection. I think the problem is other people tend to use the definitions where righteousness = something generally good, and sin = something generally bad. Of course, Calvin did not argue that every human was pure evil through and through. The problem is that wherever there is anything that might have been good, the 'bad bits' (which he does say go through every aspect of a person) corrupt these. And as soon as they are in some way corrupt, they are sinful, going by the more absolute definitions of righteousness/sin. And so, every aspect of a person is sinful, and hence total depravity.

I think this is one fundemantal issue in this thread causing the dispute over Gandhi. To HoreTore or Wizard, Gandhi was righteous because his deeds, and perhaps even his character, were on the whole good. But going by the stricter standard I would use, he is not perfect, hence he is sinful.

Such absolutes may seem harsh, but Christianity wouldn't make much sense without them. What if God was just generally a nice guy, and not perfect? Or if he just has a lot of power, without being omnipotent?


It is the this absense of natural goodness along with the legalistic language of "natural" justification that leads some Calvinistic sects to conclude that their followers are made better than other human beings by God. The issue is then further compounded by deterministic element to Calvinism.

Regardless of whether it is God or ourselves that prompts regeneration, the same argument could be used that having been given a heart of flesh over one of stone, we become better than the rest of humanity. In this life at least though, it should be remembered that we do still walk in sin, and depend on the external influence of Jesus to be both made acceptable before God, and to continue to grow in the faith.


Every commentary I have read agrees this is not what Calvin intended, as evidenced by his unpollemical writings where he praises the many virtues hummanity is naturally capable of.

Indeed, I recall a few occasions where he does praise the merits of even 'the heathen'. But at the same time, IIRC he does tend to attribute these as being gifts of God, and very much a different matter from the wider issue of depravity/righteousness.

[The Wizard]

Stalin's powerbase was "Communism", The Taliban's is "Islam"; what's your point?

Give me a belief system and I'll show you an example of it being abused.

Your argument was Christianity was badly suited to it, which as illustrated by HoreTore is not true. Here, you more or less admit that and put Christianity on par with other belief systems. Good.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your argument was Christianity was badly suited to it, which as illustrated by HoreTore is not true. Here, you more or less admit that and put Christianity on par with other belief systems. Good.

No, I put all humans on the same level. Christianity is much less suited to authoritarian social control; that doesn't mean it can't be twisted in that direction. People like you are always gleeful in pointing up cases of Christians falling short of their high ideals. You are so much more gleeful, I think, because the gulf between the ideal and relaity are that much greater.

That indicates Christian ideals are less suitable for subjugating people.

The problem is not the belief system, but the practical application.

So this is just another instance of me not thinking Christians are better than other people.

[The Wizard]

I'm not very gleeful when what can in essence be a good influence on someone's life is turned to evil, I'll have you know. I just took exception to you claiming that Christianity is a "bad choice" for social control or oppression, using the argument that Jesus's message is peaceful and anti-authoritarian. Sure that may be true if all you're looking at is the text, but the examples in history of Christians willfully ignoring all of that and using the same book to oppress people with are simply too numerous to even begin to count. In this it is no different from any other ideology or belief system, and no less suitable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not very gleeful when what can in essence be a good influence on someone's life is turned to evil, I'll have you know. I just took exception to you claiming that Christianity is a "bad choice" for social control or oppression, using the argument that Jesus's message is peaceful and anti-authoritarian. Sure that may be true if all you're looking at is the text, but the examples in history of Christians willfully ignoring all of that and using the same book to oppress people with are simply too numerous to even begin to count. In this it is no different from any other ideology or belief system, and no less suitable.

Nonsense, the more theological hoops you have to jump through the more vulnerable the possition is. Further, there are at least as many examples of Christianity being used to figh oppression. The best example being Slavery, where blacks had to be re-classified as sub-human in order for it to acceptable to enslave them in Christian states. The Moors just enslaved whoever they wanted.

[The Wizard]

What do (theo-)logical acrobatics have to do with anything at the business end of a gun barrel? And again, the same can be said of any ideology, with the possible exception of Nazism.

EDIT: As for slavery, hoho. Bad choice: it wasn't very long before it was sanctioned and theologically defended by churches all over.

[HoreTore]

Stalin's powerbase was "Communism", The Taliban's is "Islam"; what's your point?

You stated that christianity was a "poor choice" for social control. Franco proves that wrong.

Along with a ton of other murdering dictators, most of them royals.... And djeezez, the catholic Church has maintained strong social control ever since it was founded.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, Christianity as an organised religion (as opposed to the faith and true church of all believers, which I see seperately) has had good and bad political associations. In Europe, it was often used to uphold far-right regimes. Yet in the USA, Protestant principles were at the root of the revolution its whole concept of political rights etc.

It's certainly better than communism, which has a 100% success rate for supporting oppressive regimes so far.

[The Wizard]

You tell that to Rosa Luxemburg.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What do (theo-)logical acrobatics have to do with anything at the business end of a gun barrel? And again, the same can be said of any ideology, with the possible exception of Nazism.

EDIT: As for slavery, hoho. Bad choice: it wasn't very long before it was sanctioned and theologically defended by churches all over.

Slavery is not a bad example. It had to be "sanctioned" with reference to Blacks because it was considered offensive to God in general. That is why Blacks were defined as sub-hman, so that they could be possessed along with any other beast. On the other hand, slavery was absoultely fine by anyone else's God at the time.

Ultimately, however, Blacks were domonstrated not to be significantly different and the theological acrobatics fell mid-backflip; with orthodox, not heretical, Christians often being the ones to prove the point.


You stated that christianity was a "poor choice" for social control. Franco proves that wrong.

Along with a ton of other murdering dictators, most of them royals.... And djeezez, the catholic Church has maintained strong social control ever since it was founded.

France used France to control people. Anyway, it was the Catholic King that restored democracy. So, obviously monarchies and religion are a good thing, right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You speak as if the Bible exists in some kind of vacuum. God (heh), how naive. Tell that "boy, Christianity sure is a bad choice for social control!" fairy tale to the millions of people who live and lived under the thumb of the church, the local priest or pastor, or simply the enmity and gossiping of their fellow Christians.

Oh, just thought I'd pick up on this; I'm neither stupid nor naive. Had you bothered to read my posts on Biblicalism in the past you would know I have a (probably better than you) nuanced understanding of the context of the construction of the Bible. For starters; most of the constituant books, and all of the NT, were written by authors under subjugation to non-Christian powers.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bah! I die on the inside with these arguments where people shout "religion causes wars and oppression", and Christians return with "religion gives us morality and stops bad things like slavery".

Altough I've often heard slavery is only an OT thing and that it is no longer acceptable in Christianity, I don't know how they came to this conclusion. Jesus never actually condemns the institution of slavery, in fact IIRC he tells slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. Of course, slavery in ancient Palestine was very different to the Atlantic slave trade, and I don't see how an Atlantic slave trader could be comfortable with how their slaves were treated if he was a Christian. But there doesn't seem any ground for condemning it outright.

Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, since normally it's seen as a good thing if a religion isn't political and instead sticks to the spiritual side, which exactly what Jesus does here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bah! I die on the inside with these arguments where people shout "religion causes wars and oppression", and Christians return with "religion gives us morality and stops bad things like slavery".

Altough I've often heard slavery is only an OT thing and that it is no longer acceptable in Christianity, I don't know how they came to this conclusion. Jesus never actually condemns the institution of slavery, in fact IIRC he tells slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. Of course, slavery in ancient Palestine was very different to the Atlantic slave trade, and I don't see how an Atlantic slave trader could be comfortable with how their slaves were treated if he was a Christian. But there doesn't seem any ground for condemning it outright.

Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, since normally it's seen as a good thing if a religion isn't political and instead sticks to the spiritual side, which exactly what Jesus does here.

well, Christianity should be a wholly positive thing, shouldn't it. Lets not excuse Christians their failings.

[The Wizard]

Just to be clear: I am not saying religion only brings death and destruction and all that :daisy:. I'm merely saying that it can be used just as easily for those purposes as any ideology can.


Oh, just thought I'd pick up on this; I'm neither stupid nor naive. Had you bothered to read my posts on Biblicalism in the past you would know I have a (probably better than you) nuanced understanding of the context of the construction of the Bible. For starters; most of the constituant books, and all of the NT, were written by authors under subjugation to non-Christian powers.

What does that have to do with anything I said? I'm commenting on how many Christians ignored their own teachings and then you say something about who wrote them and under what regime? If they were written on the moon, it wouldn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. It's about following them or not, and abusing them. Not writing them.


Slavery is not a bad example. It had to be "sanctioned" with reference to Blacks because it was considered offensive to God in general. That is why Blacks were defined as sub-hman, so that they could be possessed along with any other beast. On the other hand, slavery was absoultely fine by anyone else's God at the time.

Ultimately, however, Blacks were domonstrated not to be significantly different and the theological acrobatics fell mid-backflip; with orthodox, not heretical, Christians often being the ones to prove the point.

Many Christians, the most learned at the forefront, apparently had no problems whatsoever with the idea, LOL. They didn't have any trouble blissfully ignoring half of what Jesus had said, and happily jumped a few rings to give their conscience a bit of a break. Which underwrites my point: when push comes to shove, Christianity is no less suitable than any other ideology to justify wrongs with.

Oh, and I'm sure the Christian master's slave'll appreciate the fact that his master had to do some mental gymnastics to justify his owning a slave. That'll make him feel much better, I'm sure.

[Beskar]

Many Christians, the most learned at the forefront, apparently had no problems whatsoever with the idea, LOL. They didn't have any trouble blissfully ignoring half of what Jesus had said, and happily jumped a few rings to give their conscience a bit of a break. Which underwrites my point: when push comes to shove, Christianity is no less suitable than any other ideology to justify wrongs with.

Oh, and I'm sure the Christian master's slave'll appreciate the fact that his master had to do some mental gymnastics to justify his owning a slave. That'll make him feel much better, I'm sure.

Hebrew's used to have slaves in the Old Testament, look at Abraham, for incidence. Also, the Christian Roman Empire also instituted Serfdom and had no qualms with slavery either.

In short: Slavery isn't against the bible.

it is really a oppressive piece of work, in many respects.

[HoreTore]

Slavery is not a bad example. It had to be "sanctioned" with reference to Blacks because it was considered offensive to God in general. That is why Blacks were defined as sub-hman, so that they could be possessed along with any other beast. On the other hand, slavery was absoultely fine by anyone else's God at the time.

Ultimately, however, Blacks were domonstrated not to be significantly different and the theological acrobatics fell mid-backflip; with orthodox, not heretical, Christians often being the ones to prove the point.



France used France to control people. Anyway, it was the Catholic King that restored democracy. So, obviously monarchies and religion are a good thing, right?

The Catholic King also established the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, and the only reason why the Spanish King didn't take power after that was because he was a complete idiot and had no hope of retaining power.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Catholic King also established the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, and the only reason why the Spanish King didn't take power after that was because he was a complete idiot and had no hope of retaining power.

The Spanish King Juan Carlos I is famous for not only restoring, but maintaining, democracy.

Get a grip.

Wiki is quite comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_of_Spain. Just because you hate your King doesn't mean the Spaniads hate theirs.

[Rhyfelwyr]

it is really a oppressive piece of work, in many respects.

Not really, it's not oppressive or progressive, simply because it doesn't deal with wordly things such as political rights etc.

As I said earlier, Jesus didn't cry out against slavery, he simply tried to comfort the victims of it.

[HoreTore]

The Spanish King Juan Carlos I is famous for not only restoring, but maintaining, democracy.

Get a grip.

Wiki is quite comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_of_Spain. Just because you hate your King doesn't mean the Spaniads hate theirs.

Irrelevant. One semi-good king does not excuse the idiots before, Alfonso XIII who like I said before, instituted the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and was unable to take power himself because he was an incompetent inbred.

And it should be noted that the Carlist Requetés were Franco's 3rd best troops, after the Condor Legion and Yaque's Moroccans, and certainly a key factor in his victory and subsequent dictatorship.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Irrelevant. One semi-good king does not excuse the idiots before, Alfonso XIII who like I said before, instituted the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and was unable to take power himself because he was an incompetent inbred.

And it should be noted that the Carlist Requetés were Franco's 3rd best troops, after the Condor Legion and Yaque's Moroccans, and certainly a key factor in his victory and subsequent dictatorship.

"Semi-good"? Spain is a Constitutional democracy because of King Juan, not because of Liberals or Socialists, but because of the King!

[HoreTore]

"Semi-good"? Spain is a Constitutional democracy because of King Juan, not because of Liberals or Socialists, but because of the King!

Right.

And his grandfather instituted a dictatorship. What was your point again?

[The Wizard]

"Semi-good"? Spain is a Constitutional democracy because of King Juan, not because of Liberals or Socialists, but because of the King!

I'm sure the Spanish people had no role in this ~:rolleyes:

[HoreTore]

I'm sure the Spanish people had no role in this ~:rolleyes:

Of course not. You see, The Wizard, those of lower birth, the commoners, are irrelevant in the world, their only role is to obey their betters and God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right.

And his grandfather instituted a dictatorship. What was your point again?

Show me a bad King; I'll show you a good one. Show me a monster; I'll show you a hero.

[HoreTore]

Show me a bad King; I'll show you a good one. Show me a monster; I'll show you a hero.

Yes, and again, your point was?

The good ones can get elected in a democracy anyway, but the bad ones won't. And even if they do get elected somehow, they won't rule for more than a few years, compared to the decades a bad king can rule.

This is why sensible people prefer a republic. That, and of course the idea that we are all equal at birth, that it is our merits, abilities and achievements that should decide our place in life, not who our mother was pounded by.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is why sensible people prefer a republic. That, and of course the idea that we are all equal at birth, that it is our merits, abilities and achievements that should decide our place in life, not who our mother was pounded by.

Well, they are pretty much determined by whoever your mother got pounded by. You can get political equality, but nature doesn't care about our egalitarian views.

In any case, monarchy had its role in the development of society, and was probably the best form of government once upon a time. Although, I agree it has few merits nowadays.

[HoreTore]

Well, they are pretty much determined by whoever your mother got pounded by.

That's very deterministic of you....

Anyway, while nature does not care about our egalitarian views, it doesn't care about our titles either. If an Einstein is born in a democracy he can become the leader even if his parents are working class, in a monarchy, the village idiot will become the leader if his father is the king.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's very deterministic of you....

Anyway, while nature does not care about our egalitarian views, it doesn't care about our titles either. If an Einstein is born in a democracy he can become the leader even if his parents are working class, in a monarchy, the village idiot will become the leader if his father is the king.

I used to be a Marxist and now a Calvinist, determinism is just how I roll.

But as for the monarchy/democracy thing, I'm not going to argue with you. The primary advantage of monarchies were not to ensure maximum efficiency through a meritocratic system, they simply offered a more stable form of government, at a time when the central power didn't really have any important roles beyond keeping order in his lands.

Of course, that is no longer a relevant issue nowadays, hence why democracy is better (although a constitutional monarch along with a parliamentary sovereignty does have a few plus points).

[The Stranger]

the argument has totally derailed. all the posters are banned for 10 years and receive 52 million warning points and this thread is locked into oblivion.

[HoreTore]

the argument has totally derailed. all the posters are banned for 10 years and receive 52 million warning points and this thread is locked into oblivion.

The threadstarter doesn't mind....


I used to be a Marxist and now a Calvinist, determinism is just how I roll.

But as for the monarchy/democracy thing, I'm not going to argue with you. The primary advantage of monarchies were not to ensure maximum efficiency through a meritocratic system, they simply offered a more stable form of government, at a time when the central power didn't really have any important roles beyond keeping order in his lands.

Meh. Monarchy is just an institutionalized form of the rule of the playground bully. It never served any higher purpose than to make the life of the king as comfortable as possible.


Of course, that is no longer a relevant issue nowadays, hence why democracy is better (although a constitutional monarch along with a parliamentary sovereignty does have a few plus points).

Really now? If it has "a few plus points", then constitutional monarchies must be doing better than republics like France, Germany, USA, Canada or Italy, right?

I honestly can't say that we do.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let's call this a good effort and end the meanderings. New discussion topic in mind, start a thread!