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).

[Zzyzx]

.
MagusYanam,

It would be a great advantage to this forum if you could post more frequently (or if there were many who shared your views). I look forward to the reason and intelligence that you bring to the Christian perspective. If the views you express were predominant in Christianity, I would be respectful and silent.

Each of your posts, IMO, undoes a lot of the damage done by rabidly fundamental posts. Perhaps other Christians can learn from you how to conduct themselves and how to present their ideas without elitism and condemnation.

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?'.

Thank you.

Zzyzx

[Beto]

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.

But there's either a Law or there isn't. There's either a Judgement or there isn't. Free interpretation of the Bible as the Word of God, or God's Law, makes as much sense as free interpretation of a country's legislation in what regards judgement for our actions.

[Goat]

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".

It means different things to different people

There was a big discussion among a bunch of rabbi's about that. They were trying to decide if that meant Christians were violating it, because they worshiped Jesus.

They decided that because Christians were worshipping the 'one true god' in their own mind, that was good enough.

Me, I figure I will let that up to God.

[MagusYanam]

But there's either a Law or there isn't. There's either a Judgement or there isn't. Free interpretation of the Bible as the Word of God, or God's Law, makes as much sense as free interpretation of a country's legislation in what regards judgement for our actions.

If you're arguing that there is continuity in Scripture, I'd agree with you.

But Scripture is not solely Law, though it does contain legal passages (notably in the Pentateuch) - even these are to be interpreted in the context of their covenant, the Mosaic Covenant. And the very idea of 'covenants' underscores the point I've been trying to make: God's relationship to man is not fixed or set in stone (the Ten Commandments notwithstanding), it is an evolutionary process that is markedly Hegelian. There are points in the Bible when we see humanity (or humans) figuratively getting taken down to zero (the expulsion from Eden, the great flood, the near-sacrifice of Isaac, the Babylonian exile, the fall of the Temple), but it always re-emerges with a new and better concept of the world that tore its previous concepts down.

Is there a Law? Yes, there are always laws that govern successful human behaviour, and the way we interact in society. These are nothing new. But if we have Jesus (the Absolute) as our goal, a representationalist, static view of what Law is, or what Truth is, will not get us there. We're human beings involved in a mutual lurching, stumbling struggle forward, and if we take the representationalist, static view, we cease to function as human beings.

Sorry if this sounds too idealistic, but Hegel's approach to truth-as-a-verb makes the most sense to me.

[MagusYanam]

It would be a great advantage to this forum if you could post more frequently (or if there were many who shared your views). I look forward to the reason and intelligence that you bring to the Christian perspective. If the views you express were predominant in Christianity, I would be respectful and silent.

Each of your posts, IMO, undoes a lot of the damage done by rabidly fundamental posts. Perhaps other Christians can learn from you how to conduct themselves and how to present their ideas without elitism and condemnation.

Thank you.

You're welcome, Zzyzx. Though I've found that there are a number of intelligent, reasonable and respectful Christian posters on this forum: micatala, Jester, achilles, whose views often coincide with mine.

I also look forward to participating on the forum more frequently, though I'm currently in senior year and, unfortunately, my seminar and senior project are likely to burden me down such that I don't have a lot of time to spend debating. I've gone through these cycles before, though. I sometimes expect to start posting when new people are debating and someone will either welcome me to the forum or ask, 'who's this noob and why does he have so many tokens?'

[Zzyzx]

.

I've found that there are a number of intelligent, reasonable and respectful Christian posters on this forum: micatala, Jester, achilles, whose views often coincide with mine.

I agree completely – and would identify a couple more theists whose posts are strong and respectful – Tselem and Greatest I Am come to mind. Unfortunately you people are usually in the background while Fundamentalists present the “face” of Christianity to the forum with an intolerant, angry, elitist brand of the religion.

It is a welcome change when one of you “Rational Christians” presents views other than hellfire and damnation of the literalist – fundamentalist views.

It is good to see Achilles back after his maternity leave. It is always a pleasure to read his points of view.

I also look forward to participating on the forum more frequently, though I'm currently in senior year and, unfortunately, my seminar and senior project are likely to burden me down such that I don't have a lot of time to spend debating.

Time and priorities . . . . We must do what we deem most important – and in the big picture of life, debating on Internet forums should probably not be regarded as the highest priority. Just know that you are missed during your absences.

I am at a more leisurely place in life (retired for 28 years now). Though days are very physical and busy, I have no obligations to anyone and can do whatever I choose – no boss, no bills, no money, no unmet needs – wonderful wife -- life is great.

[Flail]

So what is the topic...the mutuall admiration society or the OP??

I am quite confident that Ghandi is in good hands and doing good works...and that the Christian myth is something of amusement to both Ghandi and God....

Jesus is not a Christian

Jesus was about works and action and good conduct and tolerance and love.

Paul was about Religion and prayer and worship and ritual and dogma and 'grace'....and he led Christianity(with the best of intentions) down the path of evil and judgement....Jesus warned us about Paul...we must heed the warning and help our Christian friends understand the evil they promote in sheep's clothing.

[Easyrider]

I am quite confident that Ghandi is in good hands and doing good works...and that the Christian myth is something of amusement to both Ghandi and God....

Ghandi sinned just like any other man. One of his main sins was rejecting Christ as his Savior.

"He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son does not have everlasting life but the wrath of God is upon him." - John 3:36

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." - John 3:18

Obviously, Ghandi is in deep sneakers even as we debate.

Jesus is not a Christian

This wasn't worth a kettle of spit the first five-hundred times you wrote it.

Jesus was about works and action and good conduct and tolerance and love.

Make sure you do this "work" that he commanded, then:

"This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent." - John 6:29

Of course once you do that (believe in Christ), you're justified by faith!

Are you going to do that work of Jesus, Flail?

Paul was about Religion and prayer and worship and ritual and dogma and 'grace'....and he led Christianity(with the best of intentions) down the path of evil and judgement....Jesus warned us about Paul...we must heed the warning and help our Christian friends understand the evil they promote in sheep's clothing.

This is an old wives tale. You need to review the following:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... anity.html

[Beto]

A while back I told Easyrider I would begin ignoring his posts. Despite that, and having started this thread myself, I feel obligated to comment.

"Obviously, Ghandi is in deep sneakers even as we debate."

I was beginning to wonder when someone would have the temerity of standing up to their convictions in what relates the fate of Gandhi's soul, and for what it's worth, thanks for rising up to the challenge, Easyrider.

Now, we all know what Gandhi stood for, and unless you question his motivation for being an advocate of non-violence and truth (doing the work of the devil, perhaps), you must concede that your god, in his obvious self-absorbance (notice the lower case in "his", for this sort of being is undeserving of capital letters), chose to disregard Gandhi's doings and sentenced him to an eternity parted from the Word (never mind the sulphur and brimstone).

With this in view, how can one not support "the bringer of light" as he decided to rebel against this sort of tyranny?

If Gandhi is where he deserves to be, I'm sure Hell is a nice place to spend eternity, and if not believing in your god is enough to go there... well, I guess my work is pretty much cut out for me.

[Cmass]

Easyrider wrote:

Obviously, Ghandi is in deep sneakers even as we debate.

Leave it to good 'ole Easy to have the nards to actually say Gandhi is in Hell! I honestly don't think I have ever heard that before, anywhere.
Good job Easy! At the very least, you are consistent.

BTW: Beto (and several others) may ignore your posts, but I don't! In fact, I seek them out to either: A) Have a good laugh or; B) Better understand the pathology of the fundamentalist mindset.
Thus far, "A" has far outweighed "B".

- Cmass