Is Gandhi burning in Hell?

[Beto]

The name Gandhi is usually followed by a quick strategic retreat on the lines of "I don't presume to know God's will", when the Christian God's Law seems to be pretty clear as to where Gandhi's soul is right now.

I invite Christians to argue on whether or not Gandhi is in Hell, and on whether or not they personally feel he deserves to be in Hell.

Of course I welcome arguments that show the Law doesn't say Gandhi will not enter Heaven (it's not just about going to Hell).

[Beto]

Apparently, my pastor feels that an honest interpretation is more valueble to him than his salary. Personally I will follow the pastor even if we end up renting a space in some elementary school gym. However, I seriously doubt I am alone and if he is "fired" most of the church body will follow right behind him. The EAC's followers would probably not be enough to fill the front two rows in the building if he left.

Sounds like a nice guy and a swell group of people. I wish you guys all the best in resolving that ordeal.

[achilles12604]

Ok I will let you continue trying to attack the literalistic views of fundamental (and in this case mainstream) Christianity.

[Zzyzx]

.
Achilles,

It is good to have you back to present well thought rational views.

I am totally open to the possibility that God is not confined by any one book or faith. Placing God into the "box" of a single faith would be totally silly since God is by definition outside of our ability to comprehend. It is perfectly possible that God chooses to approach each part of the world in a manner which is understood by the people of that area. IE - Just because Ghandi didn't adhere to the rules and regulations of the OT God of Israel, doesn't mean that God didn't reach out to Ghandi in his own way or understanding. So long as Ghandi loved God, as he understood GOD to be, he still followed this teaching of Jesus.

I respect this view of god (though I do not accept it personally).

Is there compelling reason to believe that there is only one god?

Apparently, my pastor feels that an honest interpretation is more valueble to him than his salary. Personally I will follow the pastor even if we end up renting a space in some elementary school gym. However, I seriously doubt I am alone and if he is "fired" most of the church body will follow right behind him. The EAC's followers would probably not be enough to fill the front two rows in the building if he left.

This fractioning process illustrates that Christianity has no cohesive belief, IMO. Everyone is free to “interpret” the bible and pre-existing church dogma however one wishes – and to splinter away from existing churches to start yet another version of Christianity to add to the thousnds in existence.

I, personally, conclude that the lack of a cohesive belief is an indication that worshiping of gods is a product of human imagination and frailties rather than presence of invisible super beings.

[achilles12604]

.

Apparently, my pastor feels that an honest interpretation is more valueble to him than his salary. Personally I will follow the pastor even if we end up renting a space in some elementary school gym. However, I seriously doubt I am alone and if he is "fired" most of the church body will follow right behind him. The EAC's followers would probably not be enough to fill the front two rows in the building if he left.

This fractioning process illustrates that Christianity has no cohesive belief, IMO. Everyone is free to “interpret” the bible and pre-existing church dogma however one wishes – and to splinter away from existing churches to start yet another version of Christianity to add to the thousnds in existence.

I, personally, conclude that the lack of a cohesive belief is an indication that worshiping of gods is a product of human imagination and frailties rather than presence of invisible super beings.

This is one valid conclusion. It is possible that the cause for division is that God is the byproduct of human imagination and nothing else.

I feel that it is just as likely, that the various beliefs of God are a genius design whereby God can communicate with each individual culture on their level. For example, would it make more sense for God to reach to an aborigine tribe in Australia through their native culture and history or through the culture of northern European Germanic tribes?

Yet both these places have their concept of "god". And interestingly many of the forms of "god" have very similar traits, IE a creation story, a method by which God reaches to man, how man is supposed to react, etc. Despite tens of thousands of miles of separation, across land and oceans, each "god" story bears a similar outline. Just the details are grossly different. I find this interesting.

Does it prove God? No. But it makes more sense to me that one particular religion having all of the correct answers and none of the others having anything right at all. If God is truly a loving God, then he should reach out to everyone equally in some fashion. I think that this is a possible source for the many faiths and how they all have at least something in common with one another. God doesn't fit into any human "box" and to say he must fit into your particular box, seems both silly and a tad arrogant to me.

[Goat]

What is it that children have that adults lack? What do we lose as we grow older? A sense of the magical? Innocence?

"Imagination" springs to my mind.


Now about those passages you quote:

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

You agree there is no circumventing this to enter Heaven? One must love the God of Israel, yes?

Doesn't Gandhi, by choosing not to convert to Christianity, deny loving the God of Israel?

The thing about Judaism is that they acknowledge there are other paths to God. As long as someone follows the Noahide laws, they are following God. Gandhi would qualify under that.

[Beto]

What is it that children have that adults lack? What do we lose as we grow older? A sense of the magical? Innocence?

"Imagination" springs to my mind.


Now about those passages you quote:

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

You agree there is no circumventing this to enter Heaven? One must love the God of Israel, yes?

Doesn't Gandhi, by choosing not to convert to Christianity, deny loving the God of Israel?

The thing about Judaism is that they acknowledge there are other paths to God. As long as someone follows the Noahide laws, they are following God. Gandhi would qualify under that.

After reading your post I looked up the "righteous gentile" concept. However, this doesn't seem to me as a view compatible with the literal interpretation of the Bible, and I'm still waiting to hear from the gentlemen that subscribe to it.

[Goat]

What is it that children have that adults lack? What do we lose as we grow older? A sense of the magical? Innocence?

"Imagination" springs to my mind.


Now about those passages you quote:

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

You agree there is no circumventing this to enter Heaven? One must love the God of Israel, yes?

Doesn't Gandhi, by choosing not to convert to Christianity, deny loving the God of Israel?

The thing about Judaism is that they acknowledge there are other paths to God. As long as someone follows the Noahide laws, they are following God. Gandhi would qualify under that.

After reading your post I looked up the "righteous gentile" concept. However, this doesn't seem to me as a view compatible with the literal interpretation of the Bible, and I'm still waiting to hear from the gentlemen that subscribe to it.

The Jewish faith is not 'scripture only'. .. that is very protestant.. not Jewish.there is a strong oral tradition in Judaism

Here, however, is some education about it http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-ele ... venant.htm

[MagusYanam]

This fractioning process illustrates that Christianity has no cohesive belief, IMO. Everyone is free to “interpret” the bible and pre-existing church dogma however one wishes – and to splinter away from existing churches to start yet another version of Christianity to add to the thousnds in existence.

I, personally, conclude that the lack of a cohesive belief is an indication that worshiping of gods is a product of human imagination and frailties rather than presence of invisible super beings.

Meh... yes and no. I prefer to see it as a more Hegelian process: Christians (and Christianity as a whole) must interpret the Scriptures according to their own lights, since we have no other choice as human beings. We're going to bring our social upbringings and backgrounds to the table whether one likes it or not. And through this interpretation, they form a concept - a grasp on the world and on the Absolute that often takes on the word 'faith'. And this concept can be broken by encountering new ideas and perspectives, but the strength of faith (and indeed, of human concept-making, whether or not it is religious) is its ability to re-form itself so as to encompass and address these new ideas and perspectives. Christian teleology lends itself rather easily to this kind of linear, progressive and developmental approach to history and theology, IMHO. Gandhi stood on the shoulders of giants - Christian, Jewish and Hindu - in order to shape concepts of Hinduism and Christianity that are still influential today in both religions. I cannot see God rejecting someone who so skilfully showed the world a preferable alternative to colonialism and parochialism, and did so through non-violence.

I see fundamentalism (and all variants thereof) as a failed concept of Christianity, held by people whose faith is shaped by fear of the other (or, more appropriately, fear of encountering and dealing with the other). Thus, fundamentalism finds itself ill-equipped to handle (for example) empirical data re: evolution, as well as questions about morality and the nature of God such as 'is Gandhi burning in Hell?'.

[micatala]

The name Gandhi is usually followed by a quick strategic retreat on the lines of "I don't presume to know God's will", when the Christian God's Law seems to be pretty clear as to where Gandhi's soul is right now.

I invite Christians to argue on whether or not Gandhi is in Hell, and on whether or not they personally feel he deserves to be in Hell.

Of course I welcome arguments that show the Law doesn't say Gandhi will not enter Heaven (it's not just about going to Hell).

I don't believe Gandhi is in hell, and I certainly don't believe he deserves to be there.

Achilles has presented an interesting and thoughtful case that I largely agree with. I will also mention Cornelius, who appears in Acts. God looked favorably upon him, even though he was not from the 'right' religious group.

[Beto]

The Jewish faith is not 'scripture only'. .. that is very protestant.. not Jewish.there is a strong oral tradition in Judaism

Here, however, is some education about it http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-ele ... venant.htm

"the prohibition of blasphemy, i.e. intolerance of worshipping the one God of the universe"

What does this mean to you?

Do you think there's a difference between "relating" to the Noahide covenant, and "believing" the commandments were passed down by God? Please show me how an atheist can be a "righteous gentile".