According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[Hax]

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

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

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

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


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

[Kralizec]

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

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

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

[Myrddraal]

Gah!

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

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

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

[The Wizard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

Gah!

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

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

[The Wizard]

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

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

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

[Hax]

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

Call the Buddhism hotline now!

634-BODHI!



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

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

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



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




You'll reïncarnate, anyway. ;)

[Husar]

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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