According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[The Wizard]

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

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

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

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So.... Jesus was lying?



So.... God hates freedom?

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

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

So....

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

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

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

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is this relevant to this thread?

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He doesn't. So your statement is irrelevant.

Faith nor reason are inherently good or bad.

Patently obvious, point made repeatedly in the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I point you to Socrates here.

[KukriKhan]

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

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

Where is his "soul" according to christian beliefs? Limbo, home of the innocent unbaptised and righteous. This place is similar in concept to svarga

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[HoreTore]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the answer.

[The Wizard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

I don't make personal judgments based on people believing in Jesus, dude. I make personal judgments on people claiming their religion holds the morality monopoly. That personal judgment is that they are arrogant . 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?

[The Wizard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Wizard]

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

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

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

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