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).

[allansmith]

And that ends it. This lovely caring human being, is bruning in hell for not accepting Christian Theology

Jesus said "Knock and the door will be opened."

I think it can be safely said that Gandhi knocked on heaven's door. His whole life was a passionate seeking after the good God.

Yes, he rejected the British brand of Imperial Christianity. Jesus did too.

God wants substance, not words. In his love, he has revealed himself to all peoples, tho most clearly to the Jews and finally in Jesus himself. There are hints of the true God aplenty in Hinduism. Just read the Ramayana. Those Hindus who love the good serve the true God, whatever name they call him.

[myth-one.com]

Jesus said "Knock and the door will be opened."

I think it can be safely said that Gandhi knocked on heaven's door. His whole life was a passionate seeking after the good God.

Yes, he rejected the British brand of Imperial Christianity. Jesus did too.

God wants substance, not words. In his love, he has revealed himself to all peoples, tho most clearly to the Jews and finally in Jesus himself. There are hints of the true God aplenty in Hinduism. Just read the Ramayana. Those Hindus who love the good serve the true God, whatever name they call him.

Ah, but now you are off on a tangent talking about Jesus' teachings! What passes for Christianity and Jesus Christ's teachings are not the same. For example:

The Bible teaches that your soul will live forever in one of two places -- heaven or hell. If you are not a Christian and you have never been born again, then the Bible teaches that your soul goes immediately to a place Jesus called hades, where you will await the judgment of God.

The Bible actually teaches that the wages of sin is death, not an eternity of torture in hades! Most Christians thus find themselves in direction opposition to the teachings of the scriptures! Christians holding onto this false unsupported belief of eternal torture for nonbelievers, are forced to defend both of the following as true statements:

1 -- God created a system whereby the majority of humans will suffer in hellfire eternally.

and

2 -- God is love. (I John 4:8)

Both of the above statements cannot be true! Thus people ridicule and flee Christianity. When Jesus Christ sees His followers believing that He created a system to torture nonbelievers with the pain and terror of burning alive for eternity, what might His reaction be? My guess is that:

Jesus wept. (John 11:35)

And that ends it. This lovely caring human being, is bruning in hell for not accepting Christian Theology.

If, and only if, God is not love! If and when Christians desire to know the truth, they know where to look. And it isn't towards a pulpit.

[Easyrider]

Facts that ends this debate:

Mohandas Gandhi was a Hindu, he respected other religions as Hindus generally do.


He is now (if Christianity is correct) burning in Hell because he did not accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour. (Once again, he was Hindu).

Gandhi was born a Hindu and practised Hinduism all his life, deriving most of his principles from Hinduism.

And that ends it. This lovely caring human being, is bruning in hell for not accepting Christian Theology that demands you to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, and his helping and caring nature meant nothing in the eyes of Christianity.

Hail Fact and Reality, its hard to face, i know. (well, i dont, because i have no problem with it, haha).

Sorry, JamesEarl, but he taught against Christ by claiming Jesus was a mere man and that he (Gandhi) didn't need to repent and account for his own sins. Besides his own sins, that's arrogance and personal idolatry.

[Goat]

Facts that ends this debate:

Mohandas Gandhi was a Hindu, he respected other religions as Hindus generally do.


He is now (if Christianity is correct) burning in Hell because he did not accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour. (Once again, he was Hindu).

Gandhi was born a Hindu and practised Hinduism all his life, deriving most of his principles from Hinduism.

And that ends it. This lovely caring human being, is bruning in hell for not accepting Christian Theology that demands you to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, and his helping and caring nature meant nothing in the eyes of Christianity.

Hail Fact and Reality, its hard to face, i know. (well, i dont, because i have no problem with it, haha).

Sorry, JamesEarl, but he taught against Christ by claiming Jesus was a mere man and that he (Gandhi) didn't need to repent and account for his own sins. Besides his own sins, that's arrogance and personal idolatry.

And, IMO, Christianity teaches against God, since it claims a mere man is God.

[Easyrider]

Facts that ends this debate:

Mohandas Gandhi was a Hindu, he respected other religions as Hindus generally do.


He is now (if Christianity is correct) burning in Hell because he did not accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour. (Once again, he was Hindu).

Gandhi was born a Hindu and practised Hinduism all his life, deriving most of his principles from Hinduism.

And that ends it. This lovely caring human being, is bruning in hell for not accepting Christian Theology that demands you to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, and his helping and caring nature meant nothing in the eyes of Christianity.

Hail Fact and Reality, its hard to face, i know. (well, i dont, because i have no problem with it, haha).

Sorry, JamesEarl, but he taught against Christ by claiming Jesus was a mere man and that he (Gandhi) didn't need to repent and account for his own sins. Besides his own sins, that's arrogance and personal idolatry.

And, IMO, Christianity teaches against God, since it claims a mere man is God.

Nope. It teaches God incarnated as a man, just like the OT foretells.

[Goat]

Facts that ends this debate:

Mohandas Gandhi was a Hindu, he respected other religions as Hindus generally do.


He is now (if Christianity is correct) burning in Hell because he did not accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour. (Once again, he was Hindu).

Gandhi was born a Hindu and practised Hinduism all his life, deriving most of his principles from Hinduism.

And that ends it. This lovely caring human being, is bruning in hell for not accepting Christian Theology that demands you to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, and his helping and caring nature meant nothing in the eyes of Christianity.

Hail Fact and Reality, its hard to face, i know. (well, i dont, because i have no problem with it, haha).

Sorry, JamesEarl, but he taught against Christ by claiming Jesus was a mere man and that he (Gandhi) didn't need to repent and account for his own sins. Besides his own sins, that's arrogance and personal idolatry.

And, IMO, Christianity teaches against God, since it claims a mere man is God.

Nope. It teaches God incarnated as a man, just like the OT foretells.

Point 1) Incarnted as a man is against the basic principles of what the Jewish faith belives in.

Point 2) there is no place in the "OT" that says God would be a man. It is taking a whole differnet concept of the messiah, and pushing it on a texts where it doesn't belong.

[Easyrider]

Point 1) Incarnted as a man is against the basic principles of what the Jewish faith belives in.

Tons of Messianic Jews disagree. Even a number of rabbis alluded to a divine Messiah (see below).

Point 2) there is no place in the "OT" that says God would be a man.

Wrong.

For instance,

Jeremiah 23:5-6 Shows That the Messiah Was to be God Himself

Let us look at the passage in question,


"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (Lord - "Jehovah") OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

From what is said in this passage, we see that this portion is specifically Messianic in content. This is seen both from the term "Branch" (tsemach..) and from the Davidic ancestry of the King who was to be raised up.

The name "Branch" is almost universally accepted as Messianic, both by Jews and Christians alike. This term is a metaphor, literally meaning "shoot" or "sprout", and signifies the new life that Messiah was to bring to the Davidic monarchy, which was presumed dead. Further, the implications of the name were that Messiah would bring new life to all mankind, not just to His people Israel. This description as "Branch" appears several times in the Hebrew scriptures. It appears in Isaiah 4:2, where the Messiah's presence in the coming Kingdom is described as "beautiful" and "glorious". In Isaiah 11:1, the Branch is said to come from the "stem of Jesse", and is filled with the Spirit of God. In Jeremiah 33:15, the Branch again is said to come from the royal line of David. Yet, this same Branch from the royal line is termed God's servant in Zechariah 3:8, and is described as a man who will carry out God's work in Zechariah 6:12.

The rabbis recognised that Branch was a name for the Messiah. R. Y'hoshu'a notes this as a name for Messiah from Zechariah 6:121. Rav Huna also refers to this as a Messianic name2, with Buber concurring in his commentary notes on that statement3.

Likewise, the instances in Jewish rabbinical literature in which the Messiah is explicitly understood to be descended from David are too numerous to list more than a sampling here. Moses Maimonides pointed to the statements of Numbers 24:17 when he wrote,

"And there he says: 'I see him but not now', this refers to David; 'I behold him but not nigh', this refers to King Messiah; 'A star shall step forth out of Jacob', this refers to David; 'and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel', this refers to King Messiah."4

Rav Y'huda taught that the Messiah would be "another David", and that the Messiah and the first David would rule as King and viceroy, respectively5. The Aramaic Targum of Jonathan b. Uzziel likewise interprets Jeremiah 23:5 specifically in the sense of the Messiah's descent from David, even translating "branch" as "Messiah"6. Levey notes that in his Targum, Jonathan expands the name "LORD our righteousness" to read "may vindication be accomplished for us by the Lord in His day", a paraphrasical explanation of "YHWH Tsidkenu" which the commentator felt impelled to explain because of the Messianic idea contained in the verse7. Thus, the interpretation of Jeremiah 23:5-6 as Messianic would seem to rest on a solid Biblical foundation, and is also supported by the understanding of Jewish traditional theology.

Most interesting to our point here is that many of the rabbis recognised that the Messiah would be God. R. Abba bar Kahana explicitly stated that the Messiah's name would be "LORD (Adonai)", and quotes Jeremiah 23:6 as evidence8. Smith remarks that the Jewish teachers frequently interpreted this name in Jeremiah 23:6 as a personal name of the Messiah (rather than as a title for Israel or Jerusalem) in the Targumim, Midrashim, and Talmud9. In the Peshikta Rabbah, we find the statement,

"You find that at the beginning of the creation of the world King Messiah was born [and] that he emerged in the thought [of God] even before the world was created..."10

The sentiment that the Messiah, or His name, was pre-existent as a thought or word of God is found widely across the rabbinical literature. In many cases, the statements imply a pre-existence of the Messiah, which, if one understands the Hebrew scriptures correctly, therefore implies the deity of the Messiah, as the Tanakh is quite explicit in stating that before God created the world, nothing else existed with Him. The Genesis Rabbah explains the Messiah as being one of six things preceding the creation of the world, with the Messiah being cast as one of these which arose in the thought of God11. In this same work, R. Shim'on ben Laqish explicitly states that the "spirit of God" mentioned in Genesis 1:2 as hovering over the face of the waters is the spirit of King Messiah, and appeals to Isaiah 11:2 ("And the spirit of the Lord will rest upon him") for support12. The Babylonian Talmud likewise records that it was taught that the name of the Messiah was one of seven things created before the world, and that his name would endure forever, relying upon Psalm 72:17 for support13. The First Book of Enoch reiterates that the Messiah (there called the "Son of Man") was hidden in God from the beginning, before the creation, and even that the kings and rulers of the earth worship the Son of Man, setting their hopes in him and petitioning for mercy at his hands14, something directed appropriately only to God. Perhaps most explicitly of all is the statement found in R. Simeon b. Yochai's comments on the Zohar,

"There is a perfect Man, who is an Angel. This Angel is Metatron, the Keeper of Israel; He is a man in the image of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is an Emanation from Him; yea, He is Jehovah; of Him cannot be said, He is created, formed or made; but He is the Emanation from God. This agrees exactly with what is written, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Of jmx dwd, David's Branch, that though He shall be a perfect man, yet He is ‘The Lord our Righteousness.’"15

Throughout the Targumim, we see the Lord and His name being referred to with the term "Memra" (Aramaic for "word"), which has been attributed to the discomfort of the Targumists with the many places where the Lord appears to be dealing with Himself in a uniplural sense (ex. Exodus 17:16) or where there seemed to be anthropomorphic references to God (ex. Deuteronomy 30:8, Jeremiah 30:11). In Ezekiel 34:24, as in other passages, where the prophet says, "...I the LORD have spoken it", Jonathan renders, "I, the Lord, have decreed this by my Memra". Elsewhere, the Memra which appears in the Targumic commentaries appears to take on distinct functions itself. For example, in Genesis 19:24, the Hebrew text says, "The LORD rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." Grammatically, the Hebrew here seems to indicate that two separate Jehovahs are fulfilling two distinct roles. The Targum of Jonathan at this verse substitutes "The Memra of the LORD" for the first of the two Jehovah's in the verse, indicating the Targumist's understanding that the two actors described with the name "YHWH" were distinct in person from each other, yet intimately connected in essence, hence his use of the Memra, or Word.

In many other places, the Memra of the LORD in the Targumim takes on personality and characteristics of God Himself, indicating the understanding of the Targumists that the Memra could be equated WITH God, while yet dealt with as a separate personality. At various points, the Memra is praised and prayed to as God16, it speaks to men17, it is to be trusted in with the same sense as trusting in God Himself18, it is an active agent in creation19, and is even said to be God20. This all would seem to indicate a view of the Memra of the Lord as an hypostatic agent of the Lord, whereby the Lord's word takes on separate and distinct function while yet retaining the essential charactre and being of the Lord Himself21.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/jahtsidqenu.html

Sorry you guys are still missing it.

[Goat]

Point 1) Incarnted as a man is against the basic principles of what the Jewish faith belives in.

Tons of Messianic Jews disagree. Even a number of rabbis alluded to a divine Messiah (see below).

Point 2) there is no place in the "OT" that says God would be a man.

Wrong.

For instance,

Jeremiah 23:5-6 Shows That the Messiah Was to be God Himself

Let us look at the passage in question,


"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (Lord - "Jehovah") OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

From what is said in this passage, we see that this portion is specifically Messianic in content. This is seen both from the term "Branch" (tsemach..) and from the Davidic ancestry of the King who was to be raised up.

The name "Branch" is almost universally accepted as Messianic, both by Jews and Christians alike. This term is a metaphor, literally meaning "shoot" or "sprout", and signifies the new life that Messiah was to bring to the Davidic monarchy, which was presumed dead. Further, the implications of the name were that Messiah would bring new life to all mankind, not just to His people Israel. This description as "Branch" appears several times in the Hebrew scriptures. It appears in Isaiah 4:2, where the Messiah's presence in the coming Kingdom is described as "beautiful" and "glorious". In Isaiah 11:1, the Branch is said to come from the "stem of Jesse", and is filled with the Spirit of God. In Jeremiah 33:15, the Branch again is said to come from the royal line of David. Yet, this same Branch from the royal line is termed God's servant in Zechariah 3:8, and is described as a man who will carry out God's work in Zechariah 6:12.

The rabbis recognised that Branch was a name for the Messiah. R. Y'hoshu'a notes this as a name for Messiah from Zechariah 6:121. Rav Huna also refers to this as a Messianic name2, with Buber concurring in his commentary notes on that statement3.

Likewise, the instances in Jewish rabbinical literature in which the Messiah is explicitly understood to be descended from David are too numerous to list more than a sampling here. Moses Maimonides pointed to the statements of Numbers 24:17 when he wrote,

"And there he says: 'I see him but not now', this refers to David; 'I behold him but not nigh', this refers to King Messiah; 'A star shall step forth out of Jacob', this refers to David; 'and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel', this refers to King Messiah."4

Rav Y'huda taught that the Messiah would be "another David", and that the Messiah and the first David would rule as King and viceroy, respectively5. The Aramaic Targum of Jonathan b. Uzziel likewise interprets Jeremiah 23:5 specifically in the sense of the Messiah's descent from David, even translating "branch" as "Messiah"6. Levey notes that in his Targum, Jonathan expands the name "LORD our righteousness" to read "may vindication be accomplished for us by the Lord in His day", a paraphrasical explanation of "YHWH Tsidkenu" which the commentator felt impelled to explain because of the Messianic idea contained in the verse7. Thus, the interpretation of Jeremiah 23:5-6 as Messianic would seem to rest on a solid Biblical foundation, and is also supported by the understanding of Jewish traditional theology.

Most interesting to our point here is that many of the rabbis recognised that the Messiah would be God. R. Abba bar Kahana explicitly stated that the Messiah's name would be "LORD (Adonai)", and quotes Jeremiah 23:6 as evidence8. Smith remarks that the Jewish teachers frequently interpreted this name in Jeremiah 23:6 as a personal name of the Messiah (rather than as a title for Israel or Jerusalem) in the Targumim, Midrashim, and Talmud9. In the Peshikta Rabbah, we find the statement,

"You find that at the beginning of the creation of the world King Messiah was born [and] that he emerged in the thought [of God] even before the world was created..."10

The sentiment that the Messiah, or His name, was pre-existent as a thought or word of God is found widely across the rabbinical literature. In many cases, the statements imply a pre-existence of the Messiah, which, if one understands the Hebrew scriptures correctly, therefore implies the deity of the Messiah, as the Tanakh is quite explicit in stating that before God created the world, nothing else existed with Him. The Genesis Rabbah explains the Messiah as being one of six things preceding the creation of the world, with the Messiah being cast as one of these which arose in the thought of God11. In this same work, R. Shim'on ben Laqish explicitly states that the "spirit of God" mentioned in Genesis 1:2 as hovering over the face of the waters is the spirit of King Messiah, and appeals to Isaiah 11:2 ("And the spirit of the Lord will rest upon him") for support12. The Babylonian Talmud likewise records that it was taught that the name of the Messiah was one of seven things created before the world, and that his name would endure forever, relying upon Psalm 72:17 for support13. The First Book of Enoch reiterates that the Messiah (there called the "Son of Man") was hidden in God from the beginning, before the creation, and even that the kings and rulers of the earth worship the Son of Man, setting their hopes in him and petitioning for mercy at his hands14, something directed appropriately only to God. Perhaps most explicitly of all is the statement found in R. Simeon b. Yochai's comments on the Zohar,

"There is a perfect Man, who is an Angel. This Angel is Metatron, the Keeper of Israel; He is a man in the image of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is an Emanation from Him; yea, He is Jehovah; of Him cannot be said, He is created, formed or made; but He is the Emanation from God. This agrees exactly with what is written, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Of jmx dwd, David's Branch, that though He shall be a perfect man, yet He is ‘The Lord our Righteousness.’"15

Throughout the Targumim, we see the Lord and His name being referred to with the term "Memra" (Aramaic for "word"), which has been attributed to the discomfort of the Targumists with the many places where the Lord appears to be dealing with Himself in a uniplural sense (ex. Exodus 17:16) or where there seemed to be anthropomorphic references to God (ex. Deuteronomy 30:8, Jeremiah 30:11). In Ezekiel 34:24, as in other passages, where the prophet says, "...I the LORD have spoken it", Jonathan renders, "I, the Lord, have decreed this by my Memra". Elsewhere, the Memra which appears in the Targumic commentaries appears to take on distinct functions itself. For example, in Genesis 19:24, the Hebrew text says, "The LORD rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." Grammatically, the Hebrew here seems to indicate that two separate Jehovahs are fulfilling two distinct roles. The Targum of Jonathan at this verse substitutes "The Memra of the LORD" for the first of the two Jehovah's in the verse, indicating the Targumist's understanding that the two actors described with the name "YHWH" were distinct in person from each other, yet intimately connected in essence, hence his use of the Memra, or Word.

In many other places, the Memra of the LORD in the Targumim takes on personality and characteristics of God Himself, indicating the understanding of the Targumists that the Memra could be equated WITH God, while yet dealt with as a separate personality. At various points, the Memra is praised and prayed to as God16, it speaks to men17, it is to be trusted in with the same sense as trusting in God Himself18, it is an active agent in creation19, and is even said to be God20. This all would seem to indicate a view of the Memra of the Lord as an hypostatic agent of the Lord, whereby the Lord's word takes on separate and distinct function while yet retaining the essential charactre and being of the Lord Himself21.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/jahtsidqenu.html

Sorry you guys are still missing it.

AH yes.. so many quotes from an evangalistic web site.. yet.. you are unable to provide the primary source. And, you are also distorting the term 'Memra'.. and lie about it.

So much for your honesty.

[Assent]

You do know that, at the time, God was considered specifically responsible for all cases of fertility, right? The fact that He would be responsible for bringing about a child on David's descendants that would become a Messiah is more of a preordination thing than giving the child itself thing.

Plus, wasn't Jesus' name "The Lord Saves" rather than "The Lord's Righteousness?"

[MagusYanam]

Then why does God have a Judgment?

Did you entirely miss those previous scriptures I presented?

No. You just didn't tie them logically into your argument (as usual), so there's nothing for me to answer there.

So you're saying Gandhi needs Christ for salvation?

Stop dodging my questions. Can you tell whether or not he accepted Christ as his Saviour? Yes or no. If you can't, then you don't stand as God to judge him to be in Hell or not.

One of the primary Christian virtues is humility. Learn it. I don't know who gets into heaven or not; that's not really my concern. I do, however, know a good teacher when I see one, even if Jesus is my Saviour and not Gandhi.

That's a cop out. There's tens of millions of believers in Christ who understand many of the things done "in the name of God or Christianity" aren't what Jesus taught, but they don't cast Christ aside in the process, because they read the Bible instead of leaning on current events to define the faith.

Um... did you even read what I wrote?

Gandhi was well-versed in Scripture. He saw a huge discrepancy between Christianity as the Gospel taught it and Christianity as the British practised it - Jesus Christ taught non-violence and passive resistance to evildoers. He was also raised in a Hindu background, in which the scriptures usually take a place beside custom in terms of importance, and also in which the scriptures can be interpreted in many different ways and often contradict each other.

Not too much difference there from Christianity, really. But at least Gandhi approached the Bible with a consistent perspective.

The great Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, wrote:

"I am here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people say about Him: 'I am ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God.' This is the one thing we must not say.

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

"He would be either a lunatic - on the level of a man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

"You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a mad man or something worse.

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.

"But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about His being a human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Careful where you quote Lewis. Lewis thought Hell was reserved particularly for self-righteous Christians who thought they had more of a 'right' to be in heaven than people of other religions.

Hint, hint.

Also, if Gandhi thought Jesus sane enough to base an entire philosophy of life on, I'd be more careful before pontificating on whether or not he 'accepted Christ as Saviour' (and thus on the state of his soul) if I were you.

Another said,

"The sad fact is that Gandhi approached Jesus and His Gospel 'cafetaria style' - take what you like, leave what you don't. He admired the Sermon on the Mount, but rejected Jesus' teaching on salvation by his atoning sacrifice and the whole of salvation theology as explained in the epistles of St. Paul. To Gandhi, Jesus was a great teacher and a good man, but not God's Son made flesh to die for the salvation of the world. And he never faced the real issue: how could a good man like Jesus claim to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the World, if He was not."
(geocities.com)

I'm not going to read some random blogger for my theology. I read Scripture and I read commentary on Scripture from real sources - people who take care what they say and don't simply foam at the mouth (or the keyboard).

You're trying to say Gandhi never sinned?

No. I'm not.

This is a straw-man argument. Gandhi was well aware that he wasn't perfect - he had his problems just like any other man.

And, he rejected Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior for the remission of his sins. To him, Christ was only a good man, not the Son of God, and not his Savior.

If you don't know this, you don't get to say it.

For Gandhi, it doesn't appear that he thought 'Christ was only a good man', it appears more that he thought Christ was a firm foundation for building a philosophy and a firm foundation for building a life. Judging from his actions, he was willing to stake a lot more than his soul on Jesus' teachings - he staked the fate of an entire nation on them.

And he inspired a number of Christians in turn in his interpretation of Christ's teachings - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. among them. Or are you going to pontificate on the state of King's soul as well now?