According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

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?

Still in hell MUHAHAHAHAHAHA the fool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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....

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John 14:6

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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...

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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').

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Faith nor reason are inherently good or bad.

---

Patently obvious, point made repeatedly in the Bible.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki article

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Hell

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.

Quote:

---

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

Quote:

---

Yeah, been there, done that, still there.

---

That's deep, coming from a nihilist :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Still in hell MUHAHAHAHAHAHA the fool

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Hell

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You haven't been going to bible classes.

---

I haven't? Now that's interesting, how do you know? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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).

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

Just sayin....

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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)

For an analogy:

“I am France”.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Still in hell MUHAHAHAHAHAHA the fool

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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*

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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’.

---

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. Just look for them under John Owen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

And...? Sorry, I did not grasp the point or the argument of the post :sweatdrop:. That is rather self-evident, n'est-ce pas?\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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:

: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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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:

Quote:

---

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’.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?