According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[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. ;)

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wizard, both PVC and myself have repeatedly said heaven has nothing to do with morality (even if for different reasons), so why do you keep bringing it up?

[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.

[HoreTore]

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.

Whether he exists or not is irrelevant.

If his teachings are good, I'd follow him whether he existed or not. If his teachings are bad I tell him to stuff it. And if he won't give a free pass to a man with Gandhi's accomplishments, he's bad in my book and I'll tell him to stuff it if I ever run into him.

Oh, and Gandhi was a theologist, Husar, he studied all the major religions instensively.

[Husar]

Whether he exists or not is irrelevant.

If his teachings are good, I'd follow him whether he existed or not. If his teachings are bad I tell him to stuff it.

The point is, if he exists, you're the one who's inevitably going to stuff it in the end, not him.

[HoreTore]

The point is, if he exists, you're the one who's inevitably going to stuff it in the end, not him.

Why do you think I care?

I value my principles above my existance in an eventual afterlife, Husar

[Beskar]

Why do you think I care?

I value my principles above my existance in an eventual afterlife, Husar

The after-life is where we decay in a hole in a ground, I think the "here-and-now" is more important like HoreTore is saying.

[Husar]

The after-life is where we decay in a hole in a ground, I think the "here-and-now" is more important like HoreTore is saying.

That's your belief, other people believe something else.
HoreTore could have just labelled this thread "I am not a christian" because that's all he is saying here, that god should bend to his morals because he believes that god doesn't exist anyway. That kind of argument is like running against a wall when you talk to someone who actually believes in god.
So HoreTore thinks god is cruel and a christian will think HoreTore is self-centered and doesn't want to admit that he needs god, just like Gandhi. Except that the thread hardly has anything to do with gandhi except that HoreTore used him to "prove" to himself that god is cruel and he doesn't want him, something he had already concluded before...

[Beskar]

That's your belief, other people believe something else.

Though I do guess this is an attack on the Christian Sugar Mountain belief. Bad Horetore.

[HoreTore]

HoreTore could have just labelled this thread "I am not a christian" because that's all he is saying here, that god should bend to his morals because he believes that god doesn't exist anyway.

Wrong, Husar...

I don't say that god should bend his morals, I'm saying that I won't bend mine. So, in order for me to believe in a god, that god must have the same morals as I do.

And if he ships Gandhi off to hell, we don't have the same morals.

[Kralizec]

I'm just going to pop in and state that I take issue with a phrase some christians here have used, namely "[x] rejects god"

If I knew for a fact that God existed and still refused to worship him, then I'd be rejecting him. Ghandi did not "reject jesus" because (I assume) he didn't feel that the biblical narrative was convincing enough for him to abandon the religion he grew up with.
So Europe is about 82% christian, China is about 3%. The implication is that in Europe, up to 82% could be saved if they follow their religion with some effort. In China it's only 3 as the rest hasn't decided to convert yet despite centuries of contact with christianity. Now, is this:
A) due to coincidental geographic factors, or more fundamentally, where you are born and from what parents
B) some inherent trait Chinese people posses that makes them less likely to follow the true faith
C) the bible is simply not convincing enough?

Without delving into statistics about conversions, I think we can all agree that the faith of a person's parents is very likely to influence that person's religious views as well. Is it then not extremely unfair that European babies get a head start on the way to salvation compared to Chinese babies?

It's unfair that Ghandi should suffer the consequenses because he didn't take the bible's word for it that there's one god, wich is made up of three parts et cetera. If anything, it's christianity's own fault for not being convincing enough. The majority of the world population still "rejects" the message despite the fact that the religion has been around for 2000 years

[Ironside]

Wrong, Husar...

I don't say that god should bend his morals, I'm saying that I won't bend mine. So, in order for me to believe in worship a god, that god must have the same morals as I do.

And if he ships Gandhi off to hell, we don't have the same morals.

If you agree to the modification, we're in full agreement on the issue.

[Husar]

Wrong, Husar...

I don't say that god should bend his morals, I'm saying that I won't bend mine. So, in order for me to believe in a god, that god must have the same morals as I do.

So you don't believe he exists unless he agrees with you?

Wait, who am I talking to, I don't believe this "HoreTore" exists, because we have different morals...

[Idaho]

From all I have read of Christianity - it's doctrine, dogma, actions and pronouncements - it's a religion which claims high morality but is really just about justifying social control and political elitism.

It's stories are largely reworkings of older stories. It's festivals are stolen from other religions. It has been used to justify hundreds of years of murder, torture, prejudice and injustice. It's priests are among the most venal and corrupt of any religion. And it's followers claim high ideals and yet are often the most selfish and self-justifying people on the planet.

And doubtless I will get some kind of warning from the mods for expressing these deeply sinful views

[Viking]

So you don't believe he exists unless he agrees with you?

Wait, who am I talking to, I don't believe this "HoreTore" exists, because we have different morals...

I pointed this out this earlier, though it seems some people have a religious stance on this issue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From all I have read of Christianity - it's doctrine, dogma, actions and pronouncements - it's a religion which claims high morality but is really just about justifying social control and political elitism.

It's stories are largely reworkings of older stories. It's festivals are stolen from other religions. It has been used to justify hundreds of years of murder, torture, prejudice and injustice. It's priests are among the most venal and corrupt of any religion. And it's followers claim high ideals and yet are often the most selfish and self-justifying people on the planet.

And doubtless I will get some kind of warning from the mods for expressing these deeply sinful views

This could be equally said of any religion or social system. However, to actually ascribe such a callous attitude to Christians or any other group is to take a deeply depressing view of hummanity.

[Idaho]

Not really. I have quite a positive view of humanity. However human behaviour tends to go downhill when certain people decide that they are more rightious or deserving. Or that believing something abstract means that they are automatically good and will go to heaven and can ignore fundamental issues with the world.

[Husar]

Not really. I have quite a positive view of humanity. However human behaviour tends to go downhill when certain people decide that they are more rightious or deserving. Or that believing something abstract means that they are automatically good and will go to heaven and can ignore fundamental issues with the world.

Christians actually believe everybody is deserving and can be righteous, if they want to, HoreTore for one doesn't want to, at least not according to christian values.
Christians don't want to be moral according to his values either and it's not like he as an atheist doesn't claim to be more righteous.

[HoreTore]

So you don't believe he exists unless he agrees with you?

Wait, who am I talking to, I don't believe this "HoreTore" exists, because we have different morals...

Sigh....

You confuse "believe in" with "follow". God's existance doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I will follow the christian god. God can be real, and I can still choose not to be a fan. And if he decides that accomplishments like Gandhi's are not enough, well then I won't be a fan.

EDIT: Oh, just caught my mistake; Ironside's modification of my post is what I was supposed to write....

[Fisherking]

One thing for sure, he ain’t in Valhalla sitting between Odin and Thor...he would be with Hel freezing his butt off...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really. I have quite a positive view of humanity. However human behaviour tends to go downhill when certain people decide that they are more rightious or deserving. Or that believing something abstract means that they are automatically good and will go to heaven and can ignore fundamental issues with the world.

These are beliefs that can only possibly be ascribed to Calvinistic Protestants, and only then in cases of ignorance. As a social control mechanism Christianity is a poor choice, Islam and Hinduism are both much more finely tuned to that purpose, for example. However, Christianity has a 1,700 year history of being the religion of the elite. That there have been cases of abuse is hardly surprising.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Stop bashing Calvinism PVC, you know those things aint true.

Anyway, Christianity really must be a terrible option for social control. The only possible bit in the NT I can think of that is an example of supporting oppression would be the bits that denouce any sort of revolt against tyrannical rulers, although even then that's part of the idea of keeping the faith pure from politics, which most people would hardly say is a bad thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Stop bashing Calvinism PVC, you know those things aint true.

Anyway, Christianity really must be a terrible option for social control. The only possible bit in the NT I can think of that is an example of supporting oppression would be the bits that denouce any sort of revolt against tyrannical rulers, although even then that's part of the idea of keeping the faith pure from politics, which most people would hardly say is a bad thing.

I know they aren't true of you; but you know that the place of the praedestini in Calvin's thought provides a platform to develop the idea that some people are better than others. It's the major weakness of Calvinism; and stems (admittedly) more from Calvin's rhetoric than his theology.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know they aren't true of you; but you know that the place of the praedestini in Calvin's thought provides a platform to develop the idea that some people are better than others. It's the major weakness of Calvinism; and stems (admittedly) more from Calvin's rhetoric than his theology.

I can see how it could be so, although I think the emphasis on total depravity has stopped any such ideas from ever seriously taking hold.

Remember, from the free will viewpoint, an argument could also be made that Christians are more deserving of salvation, since they choose it and live their life accordingly(although as you said was the case with Calvinism, this would be more due to rhetoric and misconceptions than the actualy theology of it). I know you don't do this, but I get a feeling it can be pretty common, especially from some of the comments I see on US evengelical-orientated forums.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can see how it could be so, although I think the emphasis on total depravity has stopped any such ideas from ever seriously taking hold.

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Calvin's original formulation is to be understood as marking man as totally depraved in all his facalties, in that no part of him is free from corruption; neither body, nor mind, nor soul. This formulation is entirely Augustinian. However, because of his rhetoric, Calvin has been taken to mean that each of man's faculties is totally depraved, so that man is utterly without any redeeming features.

So Calvin is misunderstood, and all goodness is transfered outside of the human being and becomes the sole privilage of the divine. In this sense Christians become better people because God imbues them, and only them, with the quality of goodness which only he possesses.

It is the this absense of natural goodness along with the legalistic language of "natural" justification that leads some Calvinistic sects to conclude that their followers are made better than other human beings by God. The issue is then further compounded by deterministic element to Calvinism.

Every commentary I have read agrees this is not what Calvin intended, as evidenced by his unpollemical writings where he praises the many virtues hummanity is naturally capable of.

Rather like Marx the problem is not so much the man as the philosophy he fathered. Though I personally believe that the seed of the error begins in the deficiencies of both men.

While I accept that the doctrine of free will can cast Christians as "better" people because they can be viewed as making better choices, I would argue that this is mitigated by the fact that Christians can still be held accountable for their bad choices and (crucially) are capable of falling away from God; and then coming back to Him.