Is Gandhi burning in Hell?

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:07 am

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).

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:41 am

Lol.

I love this topic and how you put it because in essence you have rolled a powder keg into the middle of the christian camp and given everyone there a 4th of july sparkler to wave around. Talk about trying to divide and conquer. I love it. Well done.

Well I will be the first to drop my sparkler and take the stance that while I can not be 100% sure (of course) I do not think that Mahatma Ghandi is in hell, or as I view it his soul has not been extinguished.

My reasons for this I have outlined before in a few places. But I will do so again briefly and then include links to further discussions.

As many people here know, I hold first and foremost to the teachings of Matt, Mark and Luke. I feel that these three books trump all the others. Next I hold John, and then Paul's letters and then the rest of the NT. I usually refer to the OT only in reference to comparisons with the NT and for a cultural standard.

This being said, the teachings attributed to Jesus in Matt, Mark and Luke reference salvation, can easily be understood as allowing for almost ANYONE to achieve salvation. Look at my links for specific passages which lead me to think this. In essence I would not be totally surprised to find even a few former atheists in heaven given the right circumstances.

Read through these. It should sum up my position.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=5737
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=5570

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:07 am

achilles12604 wrote:What is it that children have that adults lack? What do we lose as we grow older? A sense of the magical? Innocence?

"Imagination" springs to my mind.

Now about those passages you quote:

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

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

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

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:26 am

Beto wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:What is it that children have that adults lack? What do we lose as we grow older? A sense of the magical? Innocence?

"Imagination" springs to my mind.

Now about those passages you quote:

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

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

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

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

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:41 am

achilles12604 wrote:You are assuming that the God of Israel is not simply God. I am totally open to the possibility that God is not confined by any one book or faith. Placing God into the "box" of a single faith would be totally silly since God is by definition outside of our ability to comprehend. It is perfectly possible that God chooses to approach each part of the world in a manner which is understood by the people of that area. IE - Just because Ghandi didn't adhere to the rules and regulations of the OT God of Israel, doesn't mean that God didn't reach out to Ghandi in his own way or understanding. So long as Ghandi loved God, as he understood GOD to be, he still followed this teaching of Jesus.

I totally understand your point of view, but that's not fair.

I'm trying to challenge Christians that hold God's Law to be taken literally. To some it's not a matter of perceiving God one way or the other, but loving the God of Israel like its presented in the Bible, period. I know there are some in this forum, but I don't really expect to hear from them here.

You can think of yourself as Christian for following the example of Christ, but that's not enough for the institution, is it? Are you distancing yourself from the Church, to a certain degree?

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:46 am

Beto wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:You are assuming that the God of Israel is not simply God. I am totally open to the possibility that God is not confined by any one book or faith. Placing God into the "box" of a single faith would be totally silly since God is by definition outside of our ability to comprehend. It is perfectly possible that God chooses to approach each part of the world in a manner which is understood by the people of that area. IE - Just because Ghandi didn't adhere to the rules and regulations of the OT God of Israel, doesn't mean that God didn't reach out to Ghandi in his own way or understanding. So long as Ghandi loved God, as he understood GOD to be, he still followed this teaching of Jesus.
I totally understand your point of view, but that's not fair. I'm trying to challenge Christians that hold God's Law to be taken literally. To some it's not a matter of perceiving God one way or the other, but loving the God of Israel like its presented in the Bible, period. I know there are some in this forum, but I don't really expect to hear from them here.

Of course. But isn't this what you were trying to do? Get varying opinions from different Christians so as to spark a civil war?

You can think of yourself as Christian for following the example of Christ, but that's not enough for the institution, is it? Are you distancing yourself from the Church, to a certain degree?

Yes thank God. Jesus was dead set against the established Church. A little distance on my part is quite welcome IMHO.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:58 am

achilles12604 wrote:
Beto wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:You are assuming that the God of Israel is not simply God. I am totally open to the possibility that God is not confined by any one book or faith. Placing God into the "box" of a single faith would be totally silly since God is by definition outside of our ability to comprehend. It is perfectly possible that God chooses to approach each part of the world in a manner which is understood by the people of that area. IE - Just because Ghandi didn't adhere to the rules and regulations of the OT God of Israel, doesn't mean that God didn't reach out to Ghandi in his own way or understanding. So long as Ghandi loved God, as he understood GOD to be, he still followed this teaching of Jesus.
I totally understand your point of view, but that's not fair. I'm trying to challenge Christians that hold God's Law to be taken literally. To some it's not a matter of perceiving God one way or the other, but loving the God of Israel like its presented in the Bible, period. I know there are some in this forum, but I don't really expect to hear from them here.

Of course. But isn't this what you were trying to do? Get varying opinions from different Christians so as to spark a civil war?

Oh, goodness gracious, no! It's an interesting side-effect though...

I wish I could be that machiavelic. But it was really just about challeging the more fundamentalist Christian way of thinking.

Yes thank God. Jesus was dead set against the established Church. A little distance on my part is quite welcome IMHO.

That makes me almost as Christian as you are... *choke*

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:01 am

Beto wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:
Beto wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:You are assuming that the God of Israel is not simply God. I am totally open to the possibility that God is not confined by any one book or faith. Placing God into the "box" of a single faith would be totally silly since God is by definition outside of our ability to comprehend. It is perfectly possible that God chooses to approach each part of the world in a manner which is understood by the people of that area. IE - Just because Ghandi didn't adhere to the rules and regulations of the OT God of Israel, doesn't mean that God didn't reach out to Ghandi in his own way or understanding. So long as Ghandi loved God, as he understood GOD to be, he still followed this teaching of Jesus.
I totally understand your point of view, but that's not fair. I'm trying to challenge Christians that hold God's Law to be taken literally. To some it's not a matter of perceiving God one way or the other, but loving the God of Israel like its presented in the Bible, period. I know there are some in this forum, but I don't really expect to hear from them here.

Of course. But isn't this what you were trying to do? Get varying opinions from different Christians so as to spark a civil war?
Oh, goodness gracious, no! It's an interesting side-effect though... I wish I could be that machiavelic. But it was really just about challeging the more fundamentalist Christian way of thinking.

Yes thank God. Jesus was dead set against the established Church. A little distance on my part is quite welcome IMHO.
That makes me almost as Christian as you are... *choke*

Want to come to church tomorrow? My pastor is currently in trouble with the Evangelical Overlords because his views are not 100% in line with their ancient and totally outdated creed. We as a church are awaiting the outcome.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:09 am

achilles12604 wrote:Want to come to church tomorrow? My pastor is currently in trouble with the Evangelical Overlords because his views are not 100% in line with their ancient and totally outdated creed. We as a church are awaiting the outcome.

Well, I suppose that if there is Church funding involved one should abide by their rules, right? Otherwise, why would it matter what they think?

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:13 am

Beto wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:Want to come to church tomorrow? My pastor is currently in trouble with the Evangelical Overlords because his views are not 100% in line with their ancient and totally outdated creed. We as a church are awaiting the outcome.
Well, I suppose that if there is Church funding involved one should abide by their rules, right? Otherwise, why would it matter what they think?

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