According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[Rhyfelwyr]

You became an Armenian when I wasn't looking?

Nah, Georgia is my favourite country in the Caucasus.

Seriously though, what is there in your post for me to disagree with?

[The Wizard]

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.

You misunderstand me completely. I'm not even discussing the afterlife; I have no interest in doing so because it probably doesn't exist. I'm merely taking offense to the idea that one can only be moral if one follows the teachings of a cosmic Jewish zombie (or pays penitence to him, or whatever). Morality can exist outside of a religious context, contrary to the (apparent) opinions of many in this thread, you know. And, contrary to PVC's claims, one can be moral, as in undertake morally righteous actions. Judging from his replies, being moral is only possible if you're penitent, which is preposterous. I can be just as moral as any Christian saint were I so inclined, regardless of paying penitence for any so-called sins any Christian says I have, and this holds true for Gandhi too.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm merely taking offense to the idea that one can only be moral if one follows the teachings of a cosmic Jewish zombie (or pays penitence to him, or whatever). And, contrary to PVC's claims, one can be moral, as in undertake morally righteous actions. Judging from his replies, being moral is only possible if you're penitent, which is preposterous. I can be just as moral as any Christian saint were I so inclined

Based on PVC's replies to you, I think you also misunderstand him completely. He's repeatedly said the opposite of what you are claiming he's said. Unless I've missed something, he has not claimed that you must follow the teachings of a cosmic Jewish zombie to be moral, nor has he suggested you could not be just as moral as any Christian saint. In fact, I've gotten the impression he would say you are in fact just as moral as any Christian saint. He just seems to think that that's irrelevant to whether you'll achieve salvation, which, since you're not concerned with the afterlife anyway, shouldn't matter to you.

Ajax

[The Wizard]

It's not about me, dude. This thread is about whether Christians would say Gandhi's in heaven. Since I don't really give a crap about heaven, I took offense to the suggestion that not following Christ was a bad thing and implied a lack of moral righteousness in Gandhi. As said here:

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.

Who cares if he didn't follow Christ, dude? Look at his works, he can be nothing other than good.

In addition, if I recall correctly, almost every single Christian in this thread has indeed confirmed that Gandhi would indeed not go to heaven. For something as banal as not accepting Jesus.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not about me, dude. This thread is about whether Christians would say Gandhi's in heaven. Since I don't really give a crap about heaven, I took offense to the suggestion that not following Christ was a bad thing and implied a lack of moral righteousness in Gandhi. As said here:

You are mis-representing what I said, that post was in response to HoreTore's complaint that rejection of Christ lands you in hell, to quote the passage completely:

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.

Funny how you just ignored that bit? Are you being malicious, or just obstinate?

Who cares if he didn't follow Christ, dude? Look at his works, he can be nothing other than good.

In addition, if I recall correctly, almost every single Christian in this thread has indeed confirmed that Gandhi would indeed not go to heaven. For something as banal as not accepting Jesus.

Works are not relevent in a Christian context, and virtue rests in intention carried through in action; not in action alone.

Ghandi's works in no way qualify him for a place in Christian Heaven, neither do those of Saint Francis of Assesi.

A definitive rejection of Christ is a rejection of Christ's teaching; that man is not by his actions moral, but by his intent; that God judges all men equally and finds all wanting.

God will have judged Ghandi just as he judges anyone else, he will have been found wanting, and the key question will be whether Ghandi himself considers himself to be wanting; and why.

[The Wizard]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I didn't include that paragraph 'cause it merely underwrites what is said above: that if Gandhi heard about Christ, yet didn't accept the supposed messiah, then hey, no heaven for him, too bad you were a good man, have fun burning!

I might also add I find the idea disgusting that rejection of Christ is necessarily a bad thing. Or that being a good person apparently isn't enough, to Christians, for a person to be, well, good. Or that you presume to know what God thinks. Or that you apply your own (Protestant, apparently) view of Christianity to the entire religion. Or that every single Christian in this thread has said Gandhi has no place in the good afterlife 'cause he didn't believe in cosmic Jewish zombies. I can keep going on like this for a while.

[ajaxfetish]

I might also add I find the idea disgusting that rejection of Christ is necessarily a bad thing. Or that being a good person apparently isn't enough, to Christians, for a person to be, well, good.

Well, it does make sense that from a Christian viewpoint belief in Christ would be kind of important. If you're so easily disgusted, then I can't say anything much beyond okay then, be disgusted. I can live with Muslim beliefs including me not going to heaven. After all, I'm not a Muslim. For that matter, I can deal with many Christian denominations' beliefs including me not going to heaven. I don't see how others' beliefs about my eventual destination make much difference when I don't even share those beliefs. Heck, I can even deal with many atheists' belief that I won't be going anywhere at all, since I won't exist anymore. I've got better things to do than be outraged at someone else having beliefs I think are misguided or silly.

I also missed the part where Christians claimed that being a good person isn't enough to be good. I think I saw something about it being not enough to receive salvation, but overlooked the not being good part.

Ajax

[The Wizard]

Obviously not being worthy of salvation automatically implies not being good (enough).

Once again you relate to the debate on a personal level, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I could care less if Christians think I'm not a moral person for not believing in their prophet, though I find the judgment that they presume to make over me, which is implicit in such an idea, offensive. I just find it repulsive to see Christians reject the idea of a person as clearly good as Gandhi being righteous (which is clearly implied when Gandhi doesn't get to go to heaven). Being moral, being righteous, or being good has nothing inherent to do with Christianity, and it's this monopolization of what is good which made me react in the way I did.

I suppose you are right, though, when you point out this is hardly something only Christians do. Which is why I'm agnostic.

EDIT: Though afaik Islam clearly states that righteous non-believers will also go to the new paradise in the Last Judgment. So eh...

[HoreTore]

You are mis-representing what I said, that post was in response to HoreTore's complaint that rejection of Christ lands you in hell, to quote the passage completely:



Funny how you just ignored that bit? Are you being malicious, or just obstinate?



Works are not relevent in a Christian context, and virtue rests in intention carried through in action; not in action alone.

Ghandi's works in no way qualify him for a place in Christian Heaven, neither do those of Saint Francis of Assesi.

A definitive rejection of Christ is a rejection of Christ's teaching; that man is not by his actions moral, but by his intent; that God judges all men equally and finds all wanting.

God will have judged Ghandi just as he judges anyone else, he will have been found wanting, and the key question will be whether Ghandi himself considers himself to be wanting; and why.

I would consider everyone who "has found Gandhi wanting" to be a complete idiot. Gandhi has done more for humanity than Jesus or almost anyone else has done, if that's not enough to your god, then your god is an evil one to me.

[Strike For The South]

I would consider everyone who "has found Gandhi wanting" to be a complete idiot. Gandhi has done more for humanity than Jesus or almost anyone else has done, if that's not enough to your god, then your god is an evil one to me.

That would be an acknowledgement of exsistence.

We win

Party in the frontroom

[HoreTore]

That would be an acknowledgement of exsistence.

We win

Party in the frontroom

His theoretical existance, yes

Anyway SFTS, god's existance is not an issue to me when it comes to belief; the main obstacle to me becoming a believer is that I find the gods on the marketplace today rather evil. I wouldn't have a beer with any of them, why would I want them as my saviour?

[Strike For The South]

His theoretical existance, yes

Anyway SFTS, god's existance is not an issue to me when it comes to belief; the main obstacle to me becoming a believer is that I find the gods on the marketplace today rather evil. I wouldn't have a beer with any of them, why would I want them as my saviour [sp]?

You liking the man has nothing to do with you believing in him, You think the omnipotent creator of the universe cares what Norwegian socialist thinks about his early works?

You should want him as a savior because he loves you uncondtionally, despite your human flaws. It begins and ends there.

[Kralizec]

EDIT: Though afaik Islam clearly states that righteous non-believers will also go to the new paradise in the Last Judgment. So eh...

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

[HoreTore]

You liking the man has nothing to do with you believing in him, You think the omnipotent creator of the universe cares what Norwegian socialist thinks about his early works?

You should want him as a savior because he loves you uncondtionally, despite your human flaws. It begins and ends there.

Well I strongly disagree with that

[Strike For The South]

Well I strongly disagree with that

Fair enough, hedge your bets however you'd like

[HoreTore]

Fair enough, hedge your bets however you'd like

Yes, I'll go with "my body will rot in the earth and nothing else will happen"

[Husar]

I would consider everyone who "has found Gandhi wanting" to be a complete idiot. Gandhi has done more for humanity than Jesus or almost anyone else has done, if that's not enough to your god, then your god is an evil one to me.

Now you're sounding like a silly fanboy...

[HoreTore]

Now you're sounding like a silly fanboy...

Add up the positive and negative sides of Gandhi. The result is overwhelmingly positive, and as such I can't see how anyone would consider him a bad man.

[Reenk Roink]

Obviously not being worthy of salvation automatically implies not being good (enough).

Once again you relate to the debate on a personal level, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I could care less if Christians think I'm not a moral person for not believing in their prophet, though I find the judgment that they presume to make over me, which is implicit in such an idea, offensive. I just find it repulsive to see Christians reject the idea of a person as clearly good as Gandhi being righteous (which is clearly implied when Gandhi doesn't get to go to heaven). Being moral, being righteous, or being good has nothing inherent to do with Christianity, and it's this monopolization of what is good which made me react in the way I did.

Well, it can be said to have to do with everything inherent to Christianity (or any other religion or ethical system), as opposed to your own "monopolization of what is good"...

It may disgust some for example, that you would omit the first of the 10 commandments in your judgments of morality (though I'm not theologically keen enough to know for sure exactly how much the ordering of those is related to importance, it's a good guess).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I didn't include that paragraph 'cause it merely underwrites what is said above: that if Gandhi heard about Christ, yet didn't accept the supposed messiah, then hey, no heaven for him, too bad you were a good man, have fun burning!

Christ embodies a message about hummanity's relationship with God and the way in which our universe works. You have completely failed to grasp this point thus far, it actually has nothing to do with saying "I am a Christian". However, rejection of Christ as Messiah implies a very likely rejection of his teaching.

I might also add I find the idea disgusting that rejection of Christ is necessarily a bad thing.

This is likely because you only concieve of Him as a person.

Or that being a good person apparently isn't enough, to Christians, for a person to be, well, good.

Why? You think a person should judged wholly on their actions?

Or that you presume to know what God thinks. Or that you apply your own (Protestant, apparently) view of Christianity to the entire religion.

I have found very few branches of Christianity (including Catholicism) that do not consider penitence and faith to be vital. The belief that Catholicism allows you to do good works in order to get into heaven is incorrect. Good works get you out of Purgatory, which just means you get to heaven quicker.

Also, I stated several times that I do not know what God thinks; including in my initial post. I said, however, that I would have a go at laying out the main issues concerning the question.

Or that every single Christian in this thread has said Gandhi has no place in the good afterlife 'cause he didn't believe in cosmic Jewish zombies. I can keep going on like this for a while.

Well, I haven't said that, so I'm obviously not a Christian.

I would consider everyone who "has found Gandhi wanting" to be a complete idiot.

So he was perfect? We've already acknowledged he wasn't; he was a racist.

Gandhi has done more for humanity than Jesus or almost anyone else has done, if that's not enough to your god, then your god is an evil one to me.

Nonsense, Ghandi engineered the (relatively) peaceful emancipation of India. What else did he do? How does that compare to preaching universal Peace and Love; or even to inventing Penecilin?

[The Wizard]

Christ embodies a message about hummanity's relationship with God and the way in which our universe works. You have completely failed to grasp this point thus far, it actually has nothing to do with saying "I am a Christian". However, rejection of Christ as Messiah implies a very likely rejection of his teaching.

Jesus is a religious prophet. No more, no less. Not accepting his message does not preclude the ability towards doing good.

This is likely because you only concieve of Him as a person.

In the interest of not dragging this thread into an argument without end (is there a god, yada yada etc), I won't react to this.

Why? You think a person should judged wholly on their actions?

Obviously. How else can you judge them? Or do you have some way to read people's minds? All we have to judge them buy are their actions and their words, and words are a form of action (expressing yourself).

Well, I haven't said that, so I'm obviously not a Christian.

You have intimated that if he rejected the "message of Christ" while knowing of its existence it automatically means he could not have gotten into heaven. Which is pretty nutty in my book.

So he was perfect? We've already acknowledged he wasn't; he was a racist.

Wait, perfection is real? That's news to me!

Nobody is perfect. But you know damn well Gandhi was a whole lot better than the vast majority of his contemporaries. It's an almost universal consensus amongst almost everybody, save some fringe nutjobs, that he was a good and righteous person.

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The standard in Christianity tends to be:

righteousness = perfection
sin = anything less than perfection

People might think that's harsh, but how could you take the idea of an omnipotent God and an absolute set of moral beliefs seriously othewise?

If the morals are absolute, you have to follow them completely, otherwise you are only partly following them.

If you only partly follow them, and God is ominoptent and a perfect judge, then how could God still be these things if he just lets a bit of sin slide?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Jesus is a religious prophet. No more, no less. Not accepting his message does not preclude the ability towards doing good.

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.

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

In the interest of not dragging this thread into an argument without end (is there a god, yada yada etc), I won't react to this.

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.

Obviously. How else can you judge them? Or do you have some way to read people's minds? All we have to judge them buy are their actions and their words, and words are a form of action (expressing yourself).

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

You have intimated that if he rejected the "message of Christ" while knowing of its existence it automatically means he could not have gotten into heaven. Which is pretty nutty in my book.

Why?

Wait, perfection is real? That's news to me!

Well, no in this life for human beings.

Nobody is perfect. But you know damn well Gandhi was a whole lot better than the vast majority of his contemporaries. It's an almost universal consensus amongst almost everybody, save some fringe nutjobs, that he was a good and righteous person.

Perfect is what you need to get into heaven off your own back.

[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.

[HoreTore]

So he was perfect? We've already acknowledged he wasn't; he was a racist.



Nonsense, Ghandi engineered the (relatively) peaceful emancipation of India. What else did he do? How does that compare to preaching universal Peace and Love; or even to inventing Penecilin?

Gandhi more or less instituted total nonviolence as a tool to change regimes.

That tops what Jesus has done by miles. Universal peace and love? The inquisition just called, and they blamed jesus.

[Beskar]

Gandhi more or less instituted total nonviolence as a tool to change regimes.

That tops what Jesus has done by miles. Universal peace and love? The inquisition just called, and they blamed jesus.

It is because Catholic Stalins' took over jesus's church of socialist dreams.

[HoreTore]

It is because Catholic Stalins' took over jesus's church of socialist dreams.

Yes....

Jesus also said "Give unto Ceasar what Ceasar is owed".... Or in other words, total obedience to the regime in power, also known as totalitarianism.

[Beskar]

Yes....

Jesus also said "Give unto Ceasar what Ceasar is owed".... Or in other words, total obedience to the regime in power, also known as totalitarianism.

To be fair, there was more to it than that. Asking being asked the question about paying taxes to the Romans, he says "Who's heads are on those coins?" the reply comes "It is Caesar's!" then he says "Give Caesar what is Caesar's, give God what is God's".

He did say love your neighbour as you love yourself, and other principles, turn the other cheek (preaching pacifism and don't be selfish), etc.

My point was about the church, not the preachings themselves.