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).

[Easyrider]

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.

Yes there is. If God is all loving and all forgiving, then why is there a final judgment where many people are sent to hell?

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.

He rejected Jesus as divine God and his personal Savior. See below.

Let's take a further look at Mr. Gandhi (vs. Jesus):

Gandhi’s Beliefs

Gandhi was "never interested in the historical Jesus", p 22; nor in the virgin birth, miracles, etc. p 24. He did not take as literally true that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, p 66; says the historic Jesus who only died once 2,000 years ago is no help, p 42; did not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, p 94. Gandhi said that Jesus was near perfect but not as perfect as God, p 26; that he had psychic powers and that his miracles were magic, p 27. Gandhi sees Jesus as an example, a rule of life, p 27. He says "Jesus represents not a person, but the principle of nonviolence", p 46. The central issue in Gandhi’s criticism of Christianity is Christology as dogma; the resolution of Gandhi’s criticism is through orthopraxis, or right action, p 98.

Christology can be seen from two points of view, descriptive and prescriptive. For Gandhi the descriptive aspect which takes the form of worship and dogma is subservient to the prescriptive aspect which consists of imitation of Christ, p 92.

The Christian Faith

The New Testament goes to great lengths to establish that Jesus Christ was an historical figure (Matt. 1:1-17), was the Son of God from eternity (John 17:5; John 1:18) and entered the world through Mary (John 1:14), a virgin (Luke 1:26-38); becoming also the Son of man (Heb. 2:14-17); he did miracles by the power of God (Matt. 12:22-28, John 5:36) the greatest of which was his physical resurrection from the dead (John 2:18-22; Rom. 1:4); he was perfect as his Father (Heb. 1:1-4 and 4:15), was not simply the principle of nonviolence (Mark 11:15-17). The final, and central, point is that Jesus was not primarily an example, a way-shower, but was our substitute, the way, our Savior, (John 1:29; 14:6; 2 Cor. 5:21). Gandhi’s rejection of Christology as dogma is answered by Jesus in sober words, "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." Right belief is critical. Gandhi’s beliefs represent a complete reinterpretation of the New Testament message and a redefinition of Christianity, and they mirror Gandhi’s own biases. (I have given just a sampling of the many possible Bible references to establish each point.)

Sin

Gandhi’s Beliefs

"Every one of us is a son of God and capable of doing what Jesus did, if we but endeavor to express the Divine in us." p 99; "I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless." (Gandhi’s response after a presentation of the Christian Gospel), p 7. "Jesus atoned for the sins of those who accepted his teaching by being an infallible example to them. But the example was worth nothing to those who never troubled to change their lives", p 24. Not much more is said about sin in the book, but the subject is very much related, of course, to the subject of salvation so my responses will overlap.

The Christian Faith

All persons, except Jesus Christ, are sinners from conception. (Psalm 51:5; Rom. 5:12); the penalty for sin is death, temporal and eternal. (Rom. 6:23); We are not made sinless in ourselves in this life; we are reckoned sinless on account of Jesus Christ (Rom. 4:1-8). One day, in heaven, we will be removed from the presence of sin in us and around us.

Salvation

Gandhi’s Beliefs

"Purity of character and salvation depend on purity of heart." p 87; "We should, by living the life according to our lights share the best with one another, thus adding to the sum total of human effort to reach God." p 14; "The purer I try to become the nearer I feel to be to God." p 70; Gandhi believes in the perfectibility of human nature. "I have a theory of my own... we can attain perfection only after dissolution of the body." p 94. "Gandhi saw Jesus’ atonement , which (in his mind) should have been an example for imitation, flouted by many Christians in their understanding of it as substitution and wasted on those who did not change their lives... He said ‘I rebel against orthodox Christianity’", p 95. As stated above, the central issue in Gandhi’s criticism of Christianity is Christology as dogma, the resolution of Gandhi’s criticism is through orthopraxis, or right action, p 98. In other words, Gandhi saw salvation in terms of meritorious works.

The Christian Faith

The human heart is wicked and rebellious (Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9-18) and cannot save itself (Rom. 8:3,4). The central element in the Christian faith is atonement; God sent his Son to save us by his substitutionary death (atonement) (John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:21). "Good" works add nothing to our salvation; we are saved through faith alone and even this faith is a gift from God. If we think our works contribute anything to our salvation we forfeit the gift, (Gal. 5:4). Works come as a fruit of salvation, not a cause of it. So many Scriptures could be cited here that it would require a whole Bible study, but I will cite just a few: Romans 3:21-4:8; Romans 10:1-4; 1 John 5:11-13 - note that the only condition is faith ("believe"); John 3:16; Eph. 2:1-10; Gal. 2:15,16,21.

Sadly, the central message of the Bible, the Gospel (I Cor. 15:1-4), is lost on Gandhi. He proposes the oldest counterfeit of all, self-salvation. Self salvation results from two misconceptions: an underestimation of God’s absolute holiness, and an overestimation of mankind’s goodness. For those who trust in their own works, and reject God’s way of grace (unmerited favor), the substitutionary death of Jesus is abhorrent. This spurning of God’s only means of salvation, is very apparent in Gandhi.

Proselytizing

Gandhi’s Beliefs

Religion is a personal matter - no one else’s business, p 19. Western people should supply a "felt want"; if they have delivered only service they have delivered the message; they can evangelize but should not give vocal expression to it. p 52, 53. "In my opinion Christian missionaries have done good to us indirectly. Their direct contribution is probably more harmful than otherwise. I am against the modern method of proselytizing." p 40; I can "tell" American friends nothing about Hinduism .. I do not believe in people telling others of their faith, especially with a view to conversion. Faith does not admit of telling. It has to be lived and then it becomes self-propagating." p 43.

The Christian Faith

Again, there is no doubt that some missionary methods have been insensitive. But Gandhi is opposed, in principle, to proselytizing. Christianity is inherently a missionary faith. Jesus’ last commission to his followers was that they go and make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19,20; see also Rom. 10:14-18). Christianity originated in the East but it is a global message and Christians have been commanded to spread the Gospel (Good News). Here again, Gandhi has excised from Christianity what comes directly from its founder. Furthermore, Gandhi didn’t keep his own advice? On p 60,61 there is an account of a female missionary who became attracted to his ashram. He didn’t do as he said missionaries should do to prospective converts, encourage her to return to her fold and remain Christian? No. He encouraged her in Hindu thinking. "Come to the ashram not to lose your Christianity but to perfect it. If you do not feel the presence of God at the prayer meetings, then remember that the names Rama and Krishna signify the same as Jesus to you." This advice to the missionary was contradictory to all Biblical teaching and was a subtle, and dishonest, form of proselytizing.

Pluralism

Gandhi’s Beliefs

"God wills the salvation of all people in their respective faiths."; "There is only one God but many paths to him." p 12,116; "All the great religions are fundamentally equal." p 14; "All of us are sons of God." p 15; Oft repeated belief - "All religions are true." p 44,95; "I regard all the great religions of the world as true for the one professing them." p 48.

The Christian Faith

The Bible was written over a span of 1500 years by 40 different authors on 3 continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) in 3 different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) on hundreds of subjects. And yet there is one consistent, non-contradictory theme that runs through it all: God’s redemption of mankind. The book claims to be the infallible Word of God, the only God there is; it lays exclusive claims to universal truth. It presents Jesus Christ as mankind’s only way of salvation. (Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:5,6,21,22; 46:8,9; John 14:6; Acts 4:12). (this was apparently rejected by Gandhi)

Subjectivism

Gandhi’s Beliefs

Gandhi listened to the inner voice (p 8-12), "When I began as a prayerful student to study the Christian literature ... I asked myself ‘Is this Christianity?’ and have always got the Vedic answer, ‘Neti, Neti’ (not this, not this), and the deepest in me tells me that I am right." p 20. "I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful search and study and discussion... that all religions were true.." p 57; Gandhi says (all) Scriptures must be interpreted in light of our experiences. p 40.

The Christian Faith

The Bible teaches that God has spoken, once and for all, and that all counterclaims must be weighed against the Bible (Jude 3); that subjective feelings, emotions, inner voices, mystic experiences, intuition, etc. are not reliable as a test of truth, (Proverbs 14:12); and that "prophets" must be tested by objective, external standards (Deut. 18:20-22). The Bible interprets our experiences, not vice versa. The Bible is an historic book, externally verifiable, and internally consistent, when subjected to standard rules of hermeneutics (interpretation). It is the Holy Spirit’s work to reveal and apply the truth of the Bible to us as we read.

Summary of Problems in Gandhi’s Belief System

Gandhi redefines Christianity

Gandhi only accepts Sermon on Mount (thinking it supports his principle of non-violence); denies rest of Jesus’ teachings and claims, p 32.

On the basis of his unique interpretation and application of the Sermon on the Mount, Gandhi claimed to be a Christian, p 96.

"His view of Christ does not reinforce Christian dogma ... Upon his first reading of Bible he was repelled by the literal meaning of many biblical texts and refused to take that as the word of God." p 93

Gandhi says, "God did not bear the cross only 1900 years ago but he bears it today. He dies and is resurrected from day to day." p 108. (The book of Hebrews emphasizes the fact that Jesus died "once for all.")

The Gospel of Christ needs no agent. p 54. (The Bible says otherwise; God himself used words; prophets and apostles, who wrote his messages down, used words; 2 Cor. 5:20 says Christians are ambassadors for Christ, who use words.)

Gandhi sets himself up as the standard for truth

"For myself Truth is God" p 71. (But it is Gandhi, apparently, who decides what constitutes truth. In fact, his statement makes God impersonal.)

Tolerance is subject: A lady wrote him that unless he embraced Christianity all his works would be worth nothing. Gandhi’s comment: "And of course that Christianity must mean what she understands as such! Well, all I can say is that it is a wrong attitude." p 42.... (The lady’s statement is supported biblically; Gandhi’s statement is supported by himself, "I can say.")

Truth is not a non-negotiable dogma with which one begins but a goal which he seeks experimentally p 82. (Truth is non-negotiable, given by God in the Bible. Since Gandhi speaks so authoritatively he clearly believes himself to be in possession of truth or, at the least, to be well along on that way, experimentally.)

P 94: Gandhi applied 3 criteria by which to discriminate among all Scripture: 1. the superiority of truth over everything that conflicted with it; 2. rejection of everything that conflicted with nonviolence, and 3. on things that could be reasoned out, rejection of everything that conflicted with reason. (Here again Gandhi decides what is the truth by which everything else must be measured. He is the one who decides that non-violence is the supreme principle. Also, to the question, whose reason is the standard,? the answer would likely be, Gandhi’s reason.

"The references here throughout is naturally to the principal faiths of the world," p 63. (Why is this "naturally" limited to the "principal" faiths? Because Gandhi says it is.)

"Similarly that which is in conflict with nonviolence should be rejected," p 66,94; "The plumbline for judgment of religions is non-violence," p 83. (The only absolute in Gandhi’s belief system is his principle of non-violence, because Gandhi says it is so.)

"All that I can, in true humility, present to you is that truth is not to be found by anybody who has not got an abundant sense of humility," p 73. (Gandhi seems to present himself as a humble truth seeker, yet he proceeds to make himself judge of truth, judging even the words of Jesus. Given his absolute statements throughout the book one has to conclude that Gandhi was not the humble man he held himself to be, and others held him to be.)

Gandhi’s beliefs are illogical

"I regard all the great religions of the world as true, at any rate for the people professing them, as mine is true for me," p 48 (This would mean that an outright lie would be true if I professed it as true. It is a meaningless proposition. The great religions stand in serious contradiction to each other on major points and each one claims to be true. Christianity claims to be true universally; and the Muslim faith does too; where does that leave us? The only way to test them is by the evidence. Christianity rests ultimately on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, historically verified.)

"’But,’ asked Dr. Crane, ‘when you say that all religions are true, what do you do when there are conflicting counsels?’ ‘I have no difficulty,’ said Gandhi, ‘in hitting upon the truth, because I go by certain fundamental maxims. Truth is superior to everything, and I reject what conflicts with it. Similarly that which is in conflict with non-violence should be rejected. And on matters which can be reasoned out that which conflicts with Reason must also be rejected.’" p 66. (This is circular reasoning. His premises, what he calls ‘fundamental maxims’, are unsupported and stand only on Gandhi’s opinions.)

"I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful search and study and discussion... that all religions were true... that I should hold others as dear as Hinduism; from which it logically follows...." p 57 (It may logically follow from his premise, but his premise is unsupported so it doesn’t follow; again, this is circular reasoning. Others have prayed and studied and discussed and come to different conclusions; what evidence do we have that Gandhi’s opinion is right?)

"What may be truth for one may not be truth for another." p 72. (This is Eastern relativism, which has made an inroad in the West, but which is illogical. While it is logical that what may seem to be true for one may not seem to be true for another, but to say that two opposites are both true is an illogical statement, an untrue statement.)

"The deepest spiritual truths are unutterable." p 44; (He just contradicted himself by uttering it.) p 53: "Language is always an obstacle to the full expression of thought... If you are humble enough, you will say you cannot adequately represent your religion by speech or pen." (So why did he write books and articles, why did he lecture and debate?! Gandhi’s idea is rooted in the Eastern, and New Age, denial of the mind.")

There is an interesting statement on p 44. In response to the Christian claim that God sometimes spoke through prophets using words, Gandhi admits that "I am up against a solid wall of Christian opinion". How true, how true. God spoke; he spoke in human terms which we can understand. And finally, he spoke through his Son, Jesus Christ, who took on human flesh and blood that he might live and die in our place. And that, is the essence of the Christian message, the Good News. Gandhi’s way of self-salvation is as old as mankind. But it is a way that leads to eternal death, Prov. 14:12.

http://www.soundwitness.org/pop_culture ... gandhi.htm

If all religions are of God, as Ghandi believed, then so also must be Satanism. Jesus would never have agreed with that.

Do you support the idea that all paths lead to God, like Gandhi did?

[MagusYanam]

The final, and central, point is that Jesus was not primarily an example, a way-shower, but was our substitute, the way

If Jesus is 'the way' as described here, how come your conceptualisation of Jesus (thus, Christianity) is so static? Christianity is not a bunch of words that you say - that's present-age religion, that's empty and puerile. Christianity is a way of living. It is not a representation of truth, it is a direction toward truth. It seems Gandhi understood this better than did the person from whom you took the above section.

Jesus atoned for the sins of those who accepted his teaching by being an infallible example to them. But the example was worth nothing to those who never troubled to change their lives.

This is as true when Gandhi said it as when a Christian says it, which they do all the time. Christianity is and has been a transformative experience - this view is indeed vital to Christianity if Jesus is to be a personal Saviour. It is still possible for someone to confess with the mouth and not be transformed - that's what present-age religion is. Christianity is a worthless redundancy if it doesn't bring about change in a person's life.

Purity of character and salvation depend on purity of heart.

...

We should, by living the life according to our lights share the best with one another, thus adding to the sum total of human effort to reach God.

This is also a Christian opinion. How that 'purity of heart' comes about is unclear from these quote-mines, as is whether or not the 'sum total of human effort' is sufficient to reach God. Gandhi certainly didn't seem to buy into the idea that human beings were born perfect and ready-made for salvation.

Besides, people striving for goodness should be something encouraged by Christian faith - it is otherwise entirely possible to sleep through one's entire life and wait on one's hams for Jesus to come pick you up. Sure you end up saved that way, and that's fine, but where's the existential value in such a life? Better to make what effort you can, even if that effort alone can't save you.

Religion is a personal matter - no one else's business

Ever heard of this guy, perhaps one of the greatest defenders of Christianity in modern times (certainly better than C. S. Lewis and way out of the league of these more recent apologists)?

Christianity is intensely individual, and even in fellowship, we're all alone together. Each person must rest transparent, the single individual as the single individual, in a creative power outside himself. Proselytisation is useful only insofar as it helps the proselytised orient himself, and I agree with Gandhi here as much as with Johannes de Silentio (and with Jesus) - no one can sew that shirt for you, no one can pick up your cross and follow for you, no one can live your faith for you, it's a trial you have to undertake on your own, in fear and trembling.

It presents Jesus Christ as mankind’s only way of salvation.

Not only is this unscriptural, this is arrogance, this is hubris. For those who don't start at the Western European point-of-reference, being told that there is an 'only way' must sound like complete lunacy. There are over six billion ways to salvation, between the absolute (God) and every individual person, as individual people, and no one fallible, frail person can live them all, just one being difficult enough.

Jesus taught himself to be the way, the truth and the life, and why? Because he was the Son of God, and because he made the impersonal and universal (the law of Moses) into something personal and particular (a personal relationship with God through him).

The Bible is an historic book, externally verifiable, and internally consistent, when subjected to standard rules of hermeneutics (interpretation). It is the Holy Spirit’s work to reveal and apply the truth of the Bible to us as we read.

This is a contradiction. We all come to the Bible with our own experience; Gandhi was stating no more than fact - the Holy Spirit can act on us only through those experiences; there's no way around it. Thus some absolute hermeneutic can do nothing but detract from what Scripture actually has to tell us. From what it seems like Gandhi was saying, the Holy Spirit was acting through him as he read the Scriptures with his own eyes.

And at least he didn't do it in an existential dry run! He prayed; he studied; he spoke with others; he approached the true.

Also, do please read over something first and try and figure out what it's saying before parroting it verbatim here - the website you cited has some major doctrinal and interpretive problems, both in reading Gandhi and in reading Scripture. (Obviously Gandhi didn't think Jesus was literally crucified every day; if he had he would be a lunatic. I'd need to read this in context before I knew what he was actually getting at, but apparently the best this person can do is quote-mine.) Seriously, if you can't argue for yourself, I can't see what value debating here has for you.

Truth in Christianity (as in everything else) is not representational and it is not dogmatic. Jesus is the way and the truth and the life, all of which are developmental. Moreover, truth in Christianity is radically personal - no one can take up that cross for you, no one can follow Jesus for you.

[Easyrider]

Unnamed Source wrote: It presents Jesus Christ as mankind’s only way of salvation.

MagusYanum wrote: Not only is this unscriptural, this is arrogance, this is hubris. For those who don't start at the Western European point-of-reference, being told that there is an 'only way' must sound like complete lunacy. There are over six billion ways to salvation, between the absolute (God) and every individual person, as individual people, and no one fallible, frail person can live them all, just one being difficult enough.

Not sure what you're saying, Magus. Jesus as the only way of salvation is taught in the scriptures - John 14:6, John 3:36, and this from Acts chapter 4:

8 - Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is

" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.'

12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

[MagusYanam]

Yes, Easyrider, Jesus is the way of salvation, but saying that he is the only way is not only arrogant in the extreme, it is insane. When Peter spoke this in Acts, he was not speaking of Jesus as some kind of generalised figure to whom everyone should look for salvation (thus making him impersonal and universal in the way the Law of Moses was), he said:

It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

He said that this man was transformed, that this man was undergoing a trial, that this man had been healed through a religious experience by virtue of the absurd.

And I believe that Jesus can have this kind of transforming power over every person, regardless of whether or not they confess with the mouth. If you make that transformation dependent upon some kind of verbal confession, that is to say some kind of act or works, you simply take the entirety of the Christian experience and relegate it back into some kind of pre-Christian legalism.

In Gandhi's case, I don't think that model works. Gandhi spoke honestly and prayerfully, and his fruits were good - this signals to me that the Holy Spirit may have been working through him. To place salvation as dependent on his verbal confession makes salvation a matter of trivia, of some kind of password to get into heaven, and Christianity has to be more, and deeper, than that.

[Easyrider]

Yes, Easyrider, Jesus is the way of salvation, but saying that he is the only way is not only arrogant in the extreme, it is insane.

I don't consider either Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, or Jesus (John 14:6, John 3:36, John 8:24, etc.) to be either. That is the truth they taught.

When Peter spoke this in Acts, he was not speaking of Jesus as some kind of generalised figure to whom everyone should look for salvation (thus making him impersonal and universal in the way the Law of Moses was), he said:

It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

He said that this man was transformed, that this man was undergoing a trial, that this man had been healed through a religious experience by virtue of the absurd.

He said salvation is found in no other name under heaven (not Allah, not Buddha, or anyone else).

In Gandhi's case, I don't think that model works. Gandhi spoke honestly and prayerfully, and his fruits were good - this signals to me that the Holy Spirit may have been working through him. To place salvation as dependent on his verbal confession makes salvation a matter of trivia, of some kind of password to get into heaven, and Christianity has to be more, and deeper, than that.

Salvation is a matter of sincerely receiving Christ as one's Lord God and Savior in one's heart, and, if able to speak, confessing him as such. There's no evidence Gandhi ever did that. As Jesus said, "If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be you will indeed die in your sins." Either Jesus is the only way to the Father as he claimed in John 14:6, or he isn't. He's either speaking the truth on that or he is a liar and you should have no part in him. You can't open that up into an "all paths lead to heaven" theology that Jesus never taught. That's what's insane.

[myth-one.com]

If God is all loving and all forgiving, then why is there a final judgment where many people are sent to hell?

The judgment is not used to decide which humans are cast into hell. Names in the Book of Life are heirs to eternal life based on believing in Jesus as their Savior. Everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life are cast into hell regardless of how they exit the judgment. Gandhi, for example, may fair very well in the judgment based on his human life. But if his name is not in the Book of Life he will perish in the lake of fire.

Once it becomes clear that the reward of the saved is everlasting life on the earth with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, some may prefer an instant death in the lake of fire. Having lived for a short time on the earth and finding it unsatisfactory, some may favor no existence over eternal life. Consequently, they do not accept Jesus as their Lord. God is loving and forgiving. But to force eternal life on these people desiring to fade away would not be loving and all forgiving. It would be eternal torture, and thus not worthy of God.

[Easyrider]

If God is all loving and all forgiving, then why is there a final judgment where many people are sent to hell?

The judgment is not used to decide which humans are cast into hell. Names in the Book of Life are heirs to eternal life based on believing in Jesus as their Savior. Everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life are cast into hell regardless of how they exit the judgment. Gandhi, for example, may fair very well in the judgment based on his human life. But if his name is not in the Book of Life he will perish in the lake of fire.

Works do not earn salvation. However wonderful people may perceive Gandhi to be, he was still a sinner like everyone else and he rejected Christ for who he was (divine Lord and Savior), thinking he was instead just a mere mortal teacher of pacifism. He taught a different salvation, a different Savior ("all paths lead to God"), and he embraced the idea that people are good enough, of their own perceived sense of righteousness, to enter into heaven without an atoning sacrifice for their sins. He might have seemed like a "good" man in the eyes of the world, but he did not possess, IMO, the perfect righteousness of Christ to enter into heaven (Romans chapter 3 and 4).

Once it becomes clear that the reward of the saved is everlasting life on the earth with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, some may prefer an instant death in the lake of fire. Having lived for a short time on the earth and finding it unsatisfactory, some may favor no existence over eternal life. Consequently, they do not accept Jesus as their Lord. God is loving and forgiving. But to force eternal life on these people desiring to fade away would not be loving and all forgiving. It would be eternal torture, and thus not worthy of God.

According to the scriptures everyone already has eternal life. It's just a question of where they will spend eternity - in heaven or hell.

http://www.whenistherapture.com/unending_torment.html

To say eternal punishment is unworthy of God is just one's opinion and rewrites the scriptures (see examples in the link).

[Zzyzx]

.

Works do not earn salvation.

Easyrider,

Complements on your new style. It is much more pleasant and more effective. I still disagree with your opinions and conclusions, but have (at the request of someone I respect) removed you from my ignore list.

The above quote is a personal opinion that does not represent all of Christianity. Those who are interested in opposing theist opinions are invited to visit:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/salvation_works.htm
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html

[MagusYanam]

Salvation is a matter of sincerely receiving Christ as one's Lord God and Savior in one's heart, and, if able to speak, confessing him as such.

Either Jesus is the only way to the Father as he claimed in John 14:6, or he isn't.

Do you realise how absolutely empty this sounds? It's as though someone can follow Jesus through utter somnambulism: you make a rule, a law that everyone has to follow, and you can just follow it walking in your sleep, and talking in your sleep. That's not what Christianity should be. Ultimately, that's not what any valid religion should be. The relationship must be a waking relationship between the single individual - as the single individual! - and the creative power outside oneself (God). It is not the case that 'all paths lead to God' - the path that leads to God is steep, narrow and solitary, possible only by virtue of the absurd (the death of Jesus on the cross, and the coming of the Holy Spirit). I have come to lose much of my respect both for the shallow, dormant dogmatism of Christian conservatives and the shallow, dormant complacency of many Christian liberals - you don't measure the success of a Church by how many 'souls they save', or by how big they are; you measure their success by how well they can awaken people to the greater realities.

But Gandhi, at least, I can respect. From what I have read of him, he came to Scripture somnambulant. He awakened, however: he studied it, he prayed over it, he struggled with it, and he eventually came away with something that transformed him from a man struggling in his career and in his personal life to someone with a religious sense of self(lessness). Eventually he embraced a cause, and he could face his weaknesses and his trials in that cause transparently and openly.

[Assent]

Thank you, Easy Rider; you have encouraged me to seek out the writings of Mohandis Mahatma Gandhi, as I find myself agreeing with him on nearly every point. I guess that means we're going to share the same corner of hell. Cool.