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).

[Assent]

The conditions for acceptance here would be fearing(revering) the God Peter was refering to (God of the Bible) and doing what is right (in the eyes of the God of the Bible) doesn't it?

In what way is "fearing" God the same as "revering" God? How do you come to this conclusion? I see Christians refer to the terms like they're synonyms (when it relates to God of course) but I'm yet to hear a proper explanation on it, because they're never the same on any other context.

It may be because of the correlation between gods and kings.

As Machiavelli says, while it is best as a leader to be feared and loved, if one had to choose, fear is better. After all, if one is loved but not feared, certain transgressions will be made, justified by the idea that the transgressor will be forgiven. If one is feared but not loved, then such transgressions would not take place, though obedience would only take place with a certain amount of loathing. For one who is both feared and loved, obedience is guarenteed, the populace idolizing the one who punishes them for disobedience, hating all that their leader tells them to hate, and performing tasks that their leader tells them to without complaint.

This relates to the Lord God through those who think of Him as an authority figure. Being an idealized image of an authority figure, the ideal emotions are given to Him, namely love and fear.

[Fisherking]

Having reviewed Jesus words, I have decided that salvation is a matter of God's reading of our souls as only he can.

A set standard of rules and regs I believe has no impact on god's decision.

I agree to the extent that man's rules and regs have no impact on God's decision.
God's rules and regs do have an impact according to scripture.

"every knee shall bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord". ----willingly or unwillingly in my opinion.

Unwillingly? So God will eventually force his will on everyone? What was the point of free will then?

The willingness I refer to is the realization of who God is. They may or may not like the King or his kingdom, but every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that God is exactly what He claims to be.

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Isn't this interpreted better as being that some from every nation will be saved and will willingly bow, while anyone who has not bowed will not be at the assembly?

"Every knee shall bow and every togue shall swear" because---> "I am God".

Do you think that the actions, sacrifice, love and all around Christ like behavior of Ghandi would qualify as right in God's eyes?

Christ-like behavior does qualify as right in God's eyes imo. The problem is the rest of the time when we are not Christ-like.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

referring to:

For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one

God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one

Ghandi missed the mark like everyone else, but "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John).
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.... we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (1 John)
It seems to me scripture teaches that one "condition" may be to realize we have sinned againts God.

Who would be more likely to be justified before God. A man who says I am a sinner but saved because I believe the right things and adhere to the proper traditions, or someone who says "I don't think I am a sinner, but there is much suffering in the world and I must enter in and do what I can regardless of personal pain and sacrifice."

..so, two men enter an archery competition. In order to obtain a prize, the archer's arrows must land within say, a one inch bullseye. The president of the competition wants them both to win the prize---but in order to win the prize, every arrow must land within the specified mark--knowing no man has ever hit the mark with every arrow exept when he did it himself, he tells the two men that if they happen to miss the mark to come to him and request more arrows and he will freely give them more.... Not only will he give them more arrows, he will come shoot their arrows for them... all they have to do is ask.
The first man, a novice archer, starts shooting arrows and misses the mark alot, wasting most of his arrows. Realizing he was missing the mark, and remembering what the president had told them, the first man goes to the president and tells him he missed the mark alot and asks the president for more arrows. Not only does the president give him more arrows, he also gives him advice and tips on how better to hit the mark, so that he may win the competion and recieve his prize. This first archer, realizing he will never be able to land every arrow in the mark, asks the president if he would come shoot for him because he was getting tired.... The president cheerfully does and gives the man his prize.

The second man is an advanced archer and also wishes to obtain the prize. He has taught himself how to shoot at home with a 24 inch target he made himself. He is aware of the competition regulations but decides the target is too small --- so he brings the 24 inch target he made at home and sets it up at the competition. Alll of his arrows hit the mark but one. This archer doesn't really like the presidents arrows as good as the ones he can make himself, so he decides make his own from the trees surrounding the area. No matter how hard he tries, he always seems to miss his own mark. He could go ask the president to shoot for him in the regulation sized target, but this archer knows he's a better aim than the president... so he continues on himself. Eventually he tires and runs out of wood for arrows and decides he has done well enough to receive his prize. Coming to the president, he asks for his prize. The president says, "sorry my friend, every arrow must hit the mark according to the rules I have set forth. If you wish, I can help you complete this task". The second archer, knowing he is a better shot than the president, says "no thanks, I'll get it myself". The president says, "very well"........

So God has already chosen those he wants and has allowed them to have access to traditional Christianity, but he doesn't want nor care about everyone else? Is God locked into a box of only offering salvation to those who have been lucky enough to receive a direct knock which told them about all the proper traditions of a good Christian?

No, he offers salvation to those that realize they need it.

What about the Incas between 1438 and 1500? Just SOL huh?

I guess it would depend on whether or not they accept Jesus Christ (God's salvation)...assuming they do not cease to exist after their earthly bodies die.

I can not believe that God would condemn millions of people simply based on the fact that they never heard of Jesus before they died.

Is there any scriptural evidence that they must hear about Jesus before they die in order to be saved?

[Fisherking]

The conditions for acceptance here would be fearing(revering) the God Peter was refering to (God of the Bible) and doing what is right (in the eyes of the God of the Bible) doesn't it?

In what way is "fearing" God the same as "revering" God? How do you come to this conclusion? I see Christians refer to the terms like they're synonyms (when it relates to God of course) but I'm yet to hear a proper explanation on it, because they're never the same on any other context.

fear
ירא yare' yaw-ray'

a primitive root; to fear; morally, to revere; caus. to frighten

[achilles12604]

achilles12604 wrote:

Having reviewed Jesus words, I have decided that salvation is a matter of God's reading of our souls as only he can.

A set standard of rules and regs I believe has no impact on god's decision.

I agree to the extent that man's rules and regs have no impact on God's decision.
God's rules and regs do have an impact according to scripture.

So the rules and regs of the bible do not affect God's decision. Only God's rules and regs matter. . .

Ok that being said, what are God's rules and regs regarding salvation? Does the traditional view of Christianity have a good bead on this?

I say it doesn't. I say that it has been interpreted incorrectly.

For clarification the view I am opposing is

1) Salvation is granted to those who pray the "prayer" and who then assume because they claim to be a follower of Jesus, they now have a get out of jail free card.

2) Anyone who has not prayed the prayer IS going to hell

3) Anyone who believes any other set of rules (ie Native American) is going to hell.

4) We must tell the whole world about Jesus so that everyone will know the correct rules sent by God.

The above set of rules is what i encounter regularly from other Christians. I find it to be very boxed and closed minded. I also find it to be inaccurate based on my own reading of scripture.

"every knee shall bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord". ----willingly or unwillingly in my opinion.

Unwillingly? So God will eventually force his will on everyone? What was the point of free will then?

The willingness I refer to is the realization of who God is. They may or may not like the King or his kingdom, but every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that God is exactly what He claims to be.

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you think that the actions, sacrifice, love and all around Christ like behavior of Ghandi would qualify as right in God's eyes?

Christ-like behavior does qualify as right in God's eyes imo. The problem is the rest of the time when we are not Christ-like. Angel
Romans 3:10 wrote:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

referring to:
Ecclesiastes 7:20 wrote:
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.


Psalm 14 wrote:
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one


Psalm 53 wrote:
God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one

Ghandi missed the mark like everyone else, but "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John).
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.... we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (1 John)
It seems to me scripture teaches that one "condition" may be to realize we have sinned againts God.

I would also agree with exactly how you put it here. If we think we are perfect and have never sinned, then certainly our hearts will reflect this arrogance and self-indulgence.

I doubt Ghandi fit into this criteria however.

Only when one sees one’s own mistakes with a convex lens and does just the reverse in the case of others, that one is able to arrive at a just relative estimate of the two. A Scrupulous and conscientious observance of this rule is necessary for one who wants to be a satyagrahi.

Service without humility is selfishness and egotism.

Perfection or freedom from error comes only from grace.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

These sound almost like the words of Jesus. Note that the last quote almost assures that he felt that NO ONE has been perfect. Only through grace is one made perfect.

So given that you wrote, and I agreed, that people need to realize that they have sinned in order to fit criteria set forth by God in the bible, so far Mohandas would be accepted into heaven.

Who would be more likely to be justified before God. A man who says I am a sinner but saved because I believe the right things and adhere to the proper traditions, or someone who says "I don't think I am a sinner, but there is much suffering in the world and I must enter in and do what I can regardless of personal pain and sacrifice."

..so, two men enter an archery competition. In order to obtain a prize, the archer's arrows must land within say, a one inch bullseye. The president of the competition wants them both to win the prize---but in order to win the prize, every arrow must land within the specified mark--knowing no man has ever hit the mark with every arrow exept when he did it himself, he tells the two men that if they happen to miss the mark to come to him and request more arrows and he will freely give them more.... Not only will he give them more arrows, he will come shoot their arrows for them... all they have to do is ask.
The first man, a novice archer, starts shooting arrows and misses the mark alot, wasting most of his arrows. Realizing he was missing the mark, and remembering what the president had told them, the first man goes to the president and tells him he missed the mark alot and asks the president for more arrows. Not only does the president give him more arrows, he also gives him advice and tips on how better to hit the mark, so that he may win the competion and recieve his prize. This first archer, realizing he will never be able to land every arrow in the mark, asks the president if he would come shoot for him because he was getting tired.... The president cheerfully does and gives the man his prize.

The second man is an advanced archer and also wishes to obtain the prize. He has taught himself how to shoot at home with a 24 inch target he made himself. He is aware of the competition regulations but decides the target is too small --- so he brings the 24 inch target he made at home and sets it up at the competition. Alll of his arrows hit the mark but one. This archer doesn't really like the presidents arrows as good as the ones he can make himself, so he decides make his own from the trees surrounding the area. No matter how hard he tries, he always seems to miss his own mark. He could go ask the president to shoot for him in the regulation sized target, but this archer knows he's a better aim than the president... so he continues on himself. Eventually he tires and runs out of wood for arrows and decides he has done well enough to receive his prize. Coming to the president, he asks for his prize. The president says, "sorry my friend, every arrow must hit the mark according to the rules I have set forth. If you wish, I can help you complete this task". The second archer, knowing he is a better shot than the president, says "no thanks, I'll get it myself". The president says, "very well"........

Ok so the question is did Ghandi refuse to ask God for his daily decisions in life because he could handle it himself? Again, based on the quotes I have read, the answer must be no. He was on the contrary devoted to God and acknowledged the need for him in daily life.

Supplication, worship, prayer are no superstition; they are acts more real than acts of eating, drinking etc. It will be no exaggeration to say that they are alone real all else is unreal.

One who has faith reads in them the merciful providence of god.

Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:

"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."

When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Faith


These are not the words of someone trying to live life on their own, apart from the will of God. On the contrary they are the words of someone devoted to bringing God into not only their life, but the lives of everyone around them. Given that he was much more a political activist than a preacher, I find his level of mentioning God to be astounding and inspirational.

If your story was meant to indicate that without God, we can never come close to hitting the mark, I believe that the last passage here clearly shows that Ghandi would agree with you on this point as well.

So Ghandi admits his own mistakes and recognizes that the only true perfection comes through grace. Then he shows that God is needed in ones daily life and that without him at the helm, a man will never come close to hitting the mark. Is Ghandi now 2 for 2?

So God has already chosen those he wants and has allowed them to have access to traditional Christianity, but he doesn't want nor care about everyone else? Is God locked into a box of only offering salvation to those who have been lucky enough to receive a direct knock which told them about all the proper traditions of a good Christian?

No, he offers salvation to those that realize they need it.

Ok. So it doesn't matter if the individual has heard the actual words of Jesus before, what matters is if the person recognizes within themselves their inadequacies, and the need for a higher power to intervene in their daily lives.

This is how I am reading what you wrote. Am I accurate in my understanding of your position?

achilles12604 wrote:
What about the Incas between 1438 and 1500? Just SOL huh?

I guess it would depend on whether or not they accept Jesus Christ (God's salvation)...assuming they do not cease to exist after their earthly bodies die.

achilles12604 wrote:
I can not believe that God would condemn millions of people simply based on the fact that they never heard of Jesus before they died.

Is there any scriptural evidence that they must hear about Jesus before they die in order to be saved?

So it is possible to accept Jesus after ones death? I don't personally hold to this belief, but it too answers the questions that my hypothesis does. I have one question however, is salvation through Jesus offered to EVERYONE after death? Or are there rules governing this as well?

[myth-one.com]

So it is possible to accept Jesus after ones death? I don't personally hold to this belief, but it too answers the questions that my hypothesis does. I have one question however, is salvation through Jesus offered to EVERYONE after death? Or are there rules governing this as well?

There is only one exception. It is not offered to those who have committed the one unpardonable sin. That sin is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost:

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:31-32)

The Bible's definition of blasphemy is assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God:

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (John 10:31-33)

If blasphemy is the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God; and believing that one is born with an immortal soul assumes the eternal life quality of God; then are those who believe the immortal soul myth committing blasphemy? It would certainly seem so.

As to Gandhi: He was probably one of the meekest and most humble humans to ever live. I doubt that he ever committed blasphemy by assigning to himself godly characteristics.

[Beto]

The conditions for acceptance here would be fearing(revering) the God Peter was refering to (God of the Bible) and doing what is right (in the eyes of the God of the Bible) doesn't it?

In what way is "fearing" God the same as "revering" God? How do you come to this conclusion? I see Christians refer to the terms like they're synonyms (when it relates to God of course) but I'm yet to hear a proper explanation on it, because they're never the same on any other context.

fear
ירא yare' yaw-ray'

a primitive root; to fear; morally, to revere; caus. to frighten

Would you please provide a source so I have something other than your opinion in the form of an encyclopedic entry?

[Beto]

The conditions for acceptance here would be fearing(revering) the God Peter was refering to (God of the Bible) and doing what is right (in the eyes of the God of the Bible) doesn't it?

In what way is "fearing" God the same as "revering" God? How do you come to this conclusion? I see Christians refer to the terms like they're synonyms (when it relates to God of course) but I'm yet to hear a proper explanation on it, because they're never the same on any other context.

fear
ירא yare' yaw-ray'

a primitive root; to fear; morally, to revere; caus. to frighten

Would you please provide a source so I have something other than your opinion in the form of an encyclopedic entry?

Never mind, I looked it up myself.

Christians can try to sugar-coat their scriptures all they want, but in the end, "revere" in this context (relevant to the time period) will have exactly the same meaning as "fear" to any honest interpreter.

Greek word phobos (root word of phobia):

1) fear, dread, terror a) that which strikes terror 2) reverence for one's husband (this is from an evangelist pastor's explanation of the word, please tell me if it's wrong)

I know this "reverence". Many women today still "revere" their husbands this way, but they call it "falling down the stairs".

This is NOT what modern people associate with "reverence", but it does sound better than "fear" doesn't it?

[Fisherking]

So the rules and regs of the bible do not affect God's decision. Only God's rules and regs matter. . .

Tim: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Is there some other standard besides the bible you would like me to consider?

1) Salvation is granted to those who pray the "prayer" and who then assume because they claim to be a follower of Jesus, they now have a get out of jail free card.

2) Anyone who has not prayed the prayer IS going to hell

To clarify, what prayer is it that we are referring to?

3) Anyone who believes any other set of rules (ie Native American) is going to hell.

It would be presumptuous on our part to say they went to heaven or to hell. Were they able to hit the mark of their own making with every shot? I doubt it. Did they admit that it was impossible for them or any other man to hit the mark every time and that their Creator is the only one with skill enough to accomplish the task?
Rom: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)". If they had heard the gospel, would they have accepted it? Did they see the need for God's salvation through Jesus Christ, as the old testament saints and prophets, and that they could not live up to their own standards? I don't know. It's possible some did and some did not.

4) We must tell the whole world about Jesus so that everyone will know the correct rules sent by God.

Why wouldn't we want to tell the whole world about to good news in the gospel of Jesus Christ? Why would we want to withhold this imformation from someone who had never heard of it before?

Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:

"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."

I'm afraid Ghandi (and anyone who holds this view) will find it difficult to support this view and be logically consistent. This is probably the crux of the matter.

So it is possible to accept Jesus after ones death?

I don't know, I was wondering if anyone knew of anything scriptural that would support such an idea. I do not hold the position myself but am open to the possibility.

[Fisherking]

Christians can try to sugar-coat their scriptures all they want, but in the end, "revere" in this context (relevant to the time period) will have exactly the same meaning as "fear" to any honest interpreter.

Some try to sugar-coat and some do not. I don't really care if it is translated as fear or respect.

This is NOT what modern people associate with "reverence", but it does sound better than "fear" doesn't it?

I see nothing inherently wrong with fear itself. The object of our fear tells us whether our fear is warranted or not doesn't it?

[Flail]

I am continually astonished at the abject self-righteousness that abounds on this site by the religionists...if it weren't so dangerous, it would be funny.

If we could all suddenly give up on being 'chosen people' and the attendant judgments and just opt for kindness, we could leave all the superstition and conjecture to God......

"all this fighting over who will be anointed, oh how can people be so blind"