According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[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?

[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*

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Wizard]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[The Wizard]

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.

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).

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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".

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

[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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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 . That is rather self-evident, n'est-ce pas?\

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

[Myrddraal]

. 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?

[Aemilius Paulus]

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:

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’.

[Ironside]

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?

[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...

[The Wizard]

Either you can't read or you are deliberately trolling. Nowhere have I said, "Ghandi is in Hell" nor have I said, "you have to be a Christian to be moral".

The former was just me making a point. The latter, however, was implied in your earlier posts.

I repeated several times that penitence was the key issue, not necessarily a belief in the Christian God, or the Christ.

Penitence to whom? Jesus? And who says you need to do penitence to be moral?

However, I also gave a nmber of reasons why Ghandi might not be a paragon of light, and why just because he seemed holy to some people he was not automatically a baromater for goodness or worthiness.

And I gave you several reasons why none of those examples apply, to which you declined to reply.

Now, you can either listen to what the Christians in this thread are actually telling you about their beliefs, or you can stop harrassing us; but the way you are going is pointless.

I am. You're the first one to actually reply.

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

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

Not as far as I know. He was an anarchist much in the same mold as Tolstoy, really. I've never heard this charge, though, so I could be wrong.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The former was just me making a point. The latter, however, was implied in your earlier posts.

I don't imply, I state. The fact that you say I "implied" it demostrates I never actually said it.

Penitence to whom? Jesus? And who says you need to do penitence to be moral?

For the last time, it's not about "being" moral. Penitence means the feeling of guilt for having committed a sin, not the performance of penance as a means of restitution.

The major error I think you're making is that you assume Christians think some people are of more value that others. Christianity doesn't work like that all people are of equal value in the eyes of God, without exception.

And I gave you several reasons why none of those examples apply, to which you declined to reply.

I think I made the point, repeatedly, that if Ghandi is less than perfect then he is not (in the Christian sense) moral, and therfore does not merit a place in heaven. This would, before you jump on it, make him exactly like everyone else.

Therefore, Ghandi can only enter heaven in the same way as anyone else, by the Grace of God.

The only question then (from a Christian persepctive) is how one comes to God's Grace, this brings us back to penitence.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Amen to the above post.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Amen to the above post.

You became an Armenian when I wasn't looking?

[Myrddraal]

I think the key misunderstanding here is that the Wizard is under the impression that morality is the key to heaven, and that what you're saying is that somehow if you're not Christian you're less moral. This is the argument (I think, I may be wrong) that he objects to, though I don't think it's an argument you're trying to make.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the key misunderstanding here is that the Wizard is under the impression that morality is the key to heaven, and that what you're saying is that somehow if you're not Christian you're less moral. This is the argument (I think, I may be wrong) that he objects to, though I don't think it's an argument you're trying to make.

I also see that as his gripe; and I'm not (nor would I ever) argue that.

What I object to is his insistence on seeing my beliefs on his terms.