According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[Fragony]

Still in hell MUHAHAHAHAHAHA the fool

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In heaven or hell?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Beskar]

Depends on your theory of heaven and hell.

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

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

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

[The Wizard]

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

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

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

[Centurion1]

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

Martin Luther King was not a saint either.


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

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

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

And Beskar are you talking about purgatory? Just wondering

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

[The Wizard]

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

[Centurion1]

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

[Centurion1]

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

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


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

Huh makes sense.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

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

[Beskar]

And Beskar are you talking about purgatory? Just wondering

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

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


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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

So.... Jesus was lying?

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?

[Husar]

So.... God hates freedom?

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?

[Husar]

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

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

[Kralizec]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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.

[Meneldil]

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

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

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

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

[The Wizard]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

Still in hell MUHAHAHAHAHAHA the fool