According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Amen to the above post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Amen to the above post.

---

You became an Armenian when I wasn't looking?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well I strongly disagree with that ~;)

---

Fair enough, hedge your bets however you'd like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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" ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

Well, no in this life for human beings.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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...

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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....

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.