Is Gandhi going to hell?

[stormdancer0]

I believe if you'll look closer, it says that the earth is the center of God's creation.

No I am afraid not. It actually says that the earth is "fixed" and does not move. Thus does not rotate nor does it orbit the sun. Look at Psalm 104:5 "The LORD set the earth on its foundations: it can never be moved".

Here are some other Examples:

Ecclesiastes 1:5, "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place". Thus suggest that the sun (not the earth) moves. Any child with a basic science background today knows that the earth revolves around the sun. Clearly this is an error. Thus there are scientific errors in the bible.

This is kind of petty. We all say, sun rise and sun set.

1 Chronicles 16:30, :"Trimble before him , all earth, he has made the world firm, not to be moved." (note "he has made the world firm, not to be moved"...so no rotation? no solar obit?)

This passage, and the one in Psalms, are songs written and sung by King David. It's poetry. Do you claim that modern poets and songwriters are liars?

This was actually the basis for attacking Galileo. He was tried for Heresy and found guilty by the Inquisition ( church court). If we listened to the church and accepted blind "inerrant" interpretations of scripture we would still be believing that the earth was fixed and that sun actually moved not the earth. This is another excellent example why the bible cannot be read as literal.

Just because a church has used the Bible to abuse someone does not make the Bible in error. It only shows how easily man can warp things.

Again your view is based upon a "literal" reading of Genesis. Genesis or "Bereshith" in Hebrew, is a creation story that was a part of the oral tradition that somewhere along the way someone committed to paper. The author is likely not Moses but no author is given. We have no idea of who wrote it.

What makes you think that Moses didn't write Genesis? There's no way of knowing, of course, but there's no proof he didn't either, and Jewish tradition is the only source we have. I see no reason to dismiss it.

Actually this highly inaccurate. Carbon 14 dating is very accurate up to 60,000 years. It is not a fraud. We have good data to support his fact. That is not to say hat labs do not make errors (humans make mistakes). However a smart scientist always sends his findings to at least two if not three different labs for dating, thus this reduces the possibility of error greatly.

For dating of objects older than 60,000 years we test for different elements:

Carbon 14- Fossil wood, shell, bone fragments, fabrics..ect (accurate up to 60,000-70,000 years).

Uranium 235- Uranium and granite rocks older than 110,000 years.

Potassium 40- bearing minerals more than 100,000

Uranium 238 - Uranium and Granite rocks more than 10 Million years old.

Thorium 232- Uranium and Granite rocks more than 50 Million years old.

Rubidium 87 - Some granite rocks, sandstones an igeneus, sedimentary, and metaphorphic rocks older than 10 Million years.


For older fossil bones (such as dinosaurs and early human remains millions of years old), what we do is we date the rocks and minerals that are found at the same level as the fossil we have found. If something is covered in a layer of 100 million year old rock than that object is likely from that period. Obviously we do not use exact dates but rather we use ranges. For example if we find a Tyrannosaurs fossil we would date the rock formations in which it was found. If we date the rocks to be say 70 million years old we have a pretty good idea of the age of that Tyrannosaurs. We give it a range, like say 65 - 75 Million years. While this will not be "exact" it does rule out the world being created about 6,000 years ago as some who suggest that the bible is "literal" claim. The fact is we can and do accurately date fossils, the fossil record is reliable and we know for a fact the earth is billions of years old not thousands..lol

We know no such thing. All those tests assume that the level of C-14, uranium, etc. has remained constant over long periods of time. But it hasn't. C-14 in the atmosphere has changed significantly over the past 50 years. And the change is not constant. There's no way of knowing what the level of c-14 was even thousands of years ago, much less millions.

Than please show us the empirical evidence he presented to you. I would love to see it. For that matter why not show the world? How cruel it would be to intentionally keep it hidden so billions would not be saved. Again this is why I believe that a literal hell where people are burned and tortured without end is not true.

He gave me the proof I needed in order to believe in Him and His Word. He took a dead woman (my best friend), brain dead for over a week, and gave her back to me. He asked me to lay hands on and pray for a friend with aggressive stomach cancer, given 6 to 8 weeks to live. When she went back to the doctor, the cancer was gone. She had internal scar tissue, as if she'd had surgery, but her skin was unmarred. He has given me visions of Him, and assurances that His Word can be trusted. I've lost my hearing in one ear, nerve damage the doctor said. I opened the Bible, and He showed me verses that said "trust Me." That Sunday, my pastor laid hands on me and prayed, and my supposed irreversible hearing loss was gone the next morning. These are all the "proof" I need. Many times, through many different conduits, I've been told "Trust My Word. There's life in My Word."


Christ warned over and over again about the reality of hell. I trust His Word.

 

[max1120]

This is kind of petty. We all say, sun rise and sun set.


This passage, and the one in Psalms, are songs written and sung by King David. It's poetry. Do you claim that modern poets and songwriters are liars?

That is a nice thought but if that is true it means the bible is not "literal" as I have claimed it is not literal this would establish my point that not everything was written to be taken literally. You cannot have it both ways.

Also you have to see the weight of these statements taken as a group. It was not said in just one place but several places, thus this gives weight to the fact that they indeed were suggesting that the earth was "fixed" and that sun moved about the earth.


Just because a church has used the Bible to abuse someone does not make the Bible in error. It only shows how easily man can warp things.

This also proves why churches have no business in government affairs. Religion seems to always turn evil when it becomes wrapped up in politics. This is why I firmly believe in a secular state and that church and state must be kept separate.

[/color]
What makes you think that Moses didn't write Genesis? There's no way of knowing, of course, but there's no proof he didn't either, and Jewish tradition is the only source we have. I see no reason to dismiss it.

I agree there is no way to prove Moses did not write it. However a figure like Moses would have certainly added his identity to the work given his position among the Jews. Secondly simply accepting the "tradition" because nothing be done to disprove it is silly. It makes much more sense to simply accept that we have no idea who wrote it. This would be the only true and honest way to present it to others.

We know no such thing. All those tests assume that the level of C-14, uranium, etc. has remained constant over long periods of time. But it hasn't. C-14 in the atmosphere has changed significantly over the past 50 years. And the change is not constant. There's no way of knowing what the level of c-14 was even thousands of years ago, much less millions.

While you may be correct that it has varied over time, we know that it would not be possible for it to vary that much it would require wild swings in the amount of carbon present and we would have a geological record of such drastic swings, none exist. No matter how much it varied it could not possibly enough to have the earth only a few thousand years old. There is no data to support your claims. Where is the proof to refute what has been said? You can not simply turn around and say something is wrong with out data to back up your assumptions. These things I have pointed out are established facts which are well supported in the scientific literature for anyone who wishes to read it and see for themselves

He gave me the proof I needed in order to believe in Him and His Word. He took a dead woman (my best friend), brain dead for over a week, and gave her back to me. He asked me to lay hands on and pray for a friend with aggressive stomach cancer, given 6 to 8 weeks to live. When she went back to the doctor, the cancer was gone. She had internal scar tissue, as if she'd had surgery, but her skin was unmarred. He has given me visions of Him, and assurances that His Word can be trusted. I've lost my hearing in one ear, nerve damage the doctor said. I opened the Bible, and He showed me verses that said "trust Me." That Sunday, my pastor laid hands on me and prayed, and my supposed irreversible hearing loss was gone the next morning. These are all the "proof" I need. Many times, through many different conduits, I've been told "Trust My Word. There's life in My Word."

As to the healings you refer to, I hope they are true and I would love to believe them. I can only accept your belief that these things happen and happened as you say. If they are true (and I have no reason to doubt you believe them to be true) than they are what you say they are. I have never been so blessed to see such things and would love to have witness to it.

As for your vision, visions by a third party are not as easy to believe since many people claim all sorts of "visions". I am not saying your is not genuine, I am saying I simply have no way to verify such a claim. I would love to have such a vision it would make my life much simpler and yes if I believed I had such a vision and knew that I was sane I would trust that vision.

I am happy for you that these things have made you feel stronger in your beliefs. However they fall short of proof since I would have to have a lot more detail to know for a fact that they happen as you have said. I am not doubting your honesty just I am person who is not easy to convince. However when I am convinced I will fight for what I know the truth to be.


Christ warned over and over again about the reality of hell. I trust His Word.

Again I take issue with this statement because their are a number of places where this is not supported in the bible. Also there is reasonable debate about the interpretations of the passages where "hell" is mentioned. There is a lot of good evidence that it is not as you suggest it to be. God does not torture people endlessly in agony and pain. This would mean he was going to torture 99% of all the people he created. This would be insane at best. That is not the god of the bible but a god created by those who wanted to use fear to control other men. If he did he would be unworthy of worship by any sane person. God is the Prince of Peace and the Prince of Love he will in the end bring all to him and all shall be saved. There may be some exception such Lucifer the angles who rebelled since their rebellion was with the full knowledge of who god was on a first hand bases and thus they have far less excuse than mortals who do not have the benefit of such first hand knowledge. Therefore there penalty would likely be much greater for there sin would be much greater. The bible itself speaks of some sins being greater than others and this would be an example of this fact.

 

[stormdancer0]

This is so funny, in a sad sort of way. On another thread, I am discussing with someone who believes that there are only a few people - the ones who have not rejected Him - who He loves. Those who have rejected Him, God has hardened His heart, and no longer loves them.

You insist that God would be torturing those in hell. But He's given us a way out. He doesn't want us to go to hell. It is by our own decisions we go to hell.

My point with the proof is that He offered me the type of proof I needed, because I was, at that time, unsure of my faith. I would love to give you whatever info you want. I can even send you a copy of the "dream" (I think it was a vision) I had regarding the rapture. My friend was declared brain dead with EEGs and MRI scans. For almost a week, the tests detected no activity.

And I think we can agree that the Bible is a series of books, written by many different and varied writers and in different genres. Some books, the history books, are meant to be read literally. Poetry books are naturally meant to be symbolic.

 

[max1120]

This is so funny, in a sad sort of way. On another thread, I am discussing with someone who believes that there are only a few people - the ones who have not rejected Him - who He loves.

I have not heard of that one, its a new twist on this question to me at least. I don't rule out that is at least possible but I would need to see what he/she uses to back up their statements. I don't automatically assume something to be false or true until I investigate the statements made. But it is a unique twist I will admit.

Those who have rejected Him, God has hardened His heart, and no longer loves them.

I do not see that, I think he loves them all the more and will one day will bring them to him because he knows they disbelieve out of lack of factual knowledge and not intent to reject. Again there are I believe excepts such as Lucifer and the angles who joined him in the rebellion but mortal man would be held to a lesser penalty due to his less offense since he was not given the degree of knowledge that Lucifer and the angles were given. The bible speaks of lesser and greater sins and that all sins are not equal and this is a prime example of that difference.

You insist that God would be torturing those in hell. But He's given us a way out. He doesn't want us to go to hell. It is by our own decisions we go to hell.

Again those people are not capable of making a fully informed decision. Their knowledge of god is so limited and the facts that can be demonstrated to show his existence are very few (for most people except perhaps someone such as yourself who claims to have a had a "vision") that god would not submit them to torture without end for such merely not believing. He would never impose an infinite penalty for a finite (temporary) transgression, as such an act would be unjust and render him unworthy of being worshiped in the eyes of any sane person.

My point with the proof is that He offered me the type of proof I needed, because I was, at that time, unsure of my faith. I would love to give you whatever info you want. I can even send you a copy of the "dream" (I think it was a vision) I had regarding the rapture. My friend was declared brain dead with EEGs and MRI scans. For almost a week, the tests detected no activity.

I am glad for you that you have had this great experience. However the vast majority of us do not have such experiences and thus we are not in the position to say these things in a factual way. I wish I had such an experience and yes if I did and knew I was sane I would perhaps feel differently. However remember it is not that disbelieve the existence of god, what I would need proof of is the facts of what you are saying (hell being a place of infinite torture without end). So even if you convinced me that your friend was held it would only be addition proof of god for me..I already believe in him. It would not prove that he tortures people without end in hell for merely not believing he exist. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

And I think we can agree that the Bible is a series of books, written by many different and varied writers and in different genres. Some books, the history books, are meant to be read literally. Poetry books are naturally meant to be symbolic.

Perhaps, but having things said in several different places all of them cannot simply be explained away by your explanation. It would also not do much to shore up your arguments in favor of a literal reading of the bible. I mean to say some inerrant and are inerrant and others are not is kind of like having it both ways and this cannot be. It is either all inerrant or all of it is open to error. As I pointed out earlier the bible itself says it is open to being added to and subtracted from in Revelations 22:18-19. This warning would not be needed if man was unable to alter the words by adding to to them or taking away form them. It is a absolute warning and not a what if statement. Thus we have proof within the bible itself that its words can be altered by men and we have proof today that it has been altered as such over the centuries.

 

[Christfan]

Just wanted to point out how every false religion requires works for salvation where only in Christianity it is a gift from god (out of his inseparable love for us! We deserved complete extinction if God decided it!) not to mention the "founder" being God.

So is evident when those who despise God will bring up someone who is "righteous" and call God evil for sending him to hell because he didn't accept Jesus. I dont understand how God can be a tyrant if he gave up his son for all of us in the most heinous way being tortured, mocked, and hated by his own creations! Why is every great thing God has ever done for us magically ignored or forgotten? Not to mention we don't deserve anything from God and if he didnt do anything for us and left us alone humans would be extinct!

I pray you don't fall into one of Satan's biggest lies this one being works justify you. Human morals are RELATIVE while God's morals are ABSOLUTE. Human morals are based on society, situation, and emotions to name a few.

If you read the Bible you would Understand how being self-righteous or believing human works justify you were strongly condemned more then anything. It lead to Jesus being nailed to a cross!

 

[Catherineanne]

You insist that God would be torturing those in hell. But He's given us a way out. He doesn't want us to go to hell. It is by our own decisions we go to hell.

I am a Christian. I have served my Lord all my life, and with his Grace hope to always do so.

If I reach eternity and find that a literal lake of hellfire exists, I will happily bow to my Lord, thank him for everything, and then jump into it.

A God who can create an eternal punishment for finite sin is not worth worshipping, and an eternity spent worshipping him is far worse than any lake of hellfire. I will not worship an immoral God.

Fortunately for me, God is not immoral.

 

[Catherineanne]

I pray you don't fall into one of Satan's biggest lies this one being works justify you. Human morals are RELATIVE while God's morals are ABSOLUTE. Human morals are based on society, situation, and emotions to name a few.

You are correct, but not in the way you think.

If even one single person on God's earth can see that eternal damnation and hellfire for unbelievers is immoral, then it is totally impossible for God to believe it to be acceptable or just. And the Anglican Church has judged that there is not a literal hellfire, so that is more than one person. (Some Anglicans may still believe it, of course; that is their choice.)

Man cannot outdo God in love, mercy and compassion. Descriptions of hell are allegorical, representing the pain of being separated from God either in this life or eternity. It cannot be literal, because a literal hell denotes a psychopathic and sadistic God, and God is neither of these.

 

[stormdancer0]

You are still equating God with perfectly moral man - if a man can see it's immoral, God must see it, too. But God isn't human. He is not limited by what you think is moral or immoral, what your church thinks is fair or just. Do you recognize that He made you? He is well within His rights, no matter what He does.

Personally, any time a church "judges" the Word of God, I'd run the other way. No man-made organization has the authority to decide what part of God's word is valid and what isn't. If the Bible can't be trusted, then we have no access to any reliable information on God. Everyone's version of God would be equally valid. That can't be true. Not when the Moslems believe they have to kill Christians, as do the more radical Hindus, in order to please God. There are 22 families - parents and children - in prison in Afganistan right now, scheduled for execution, simply because they are Christian. Are you telling me that the men who ordered the execution of toddlers are going to heaven? Simply because their parents believe in Christ?

 

[Catherineanne]

You are still equating God with perfectly moral man - if a man can see it's immoral, God must see it, too. But God isn't human. He is not limited by what you think is moral or immoral, what your church thinks is fair or just. Do you recognize that He made you? He is well within His rights, no matter what He does.

You are forgetting that although we are human, we are made in the image of God. Our morality is made in the image of his, our love in the image of his, our truth in the image of his.

You are also forgetting Christ, whose morality we follow, in seeking love, mercy and compassion.

Therefore, it is not possible for God to regard as moral, something I personally regard as immoral. It can certainly be the other way around, because he is God, and I am not. But if it were actually possible for me to outdo him in any divine quality that would make me God. And I am not God.

God is that, greater than which we cannot conceive; therefore he most certainly has to be morally greater than I am. A morally inferior God is no God at all.

 

[stormdancer0]

You are forgetting that although we are human, we are made in the image of God. Our morality is made in the image of his, our love in the image of his, our truth in the image of his.

You are also forgetting Christ, whose morality we follow, in seeking love, mercy and compassion.

Therefore, it is not possible for God to regard as moral, something I personally regard as immoral. It can certainly be the other way around, because he is God, and I am not. But if it were actually possible for me to outdo him in any divine quality that would make me God. And I am not God.

God is that, greater than which we cannot conceive; therefore he most certainly has to be morally greater than I am. A morally inferior God is no God at all.

What makes you think that your moral view is the right one? Hitler was sure that his view was morally correct. Why does God have to be in line with what you think is moral? You say that it is not possible for God to regard as moral something you personally regard as moral. But what about me? My moral view? Or Charles Manson's? Why do you get to be the one whose morals God MUST be in line with? If this applies to everyone, how do you reconcile that?

We are made in God's image. We are mirrors, reflecting God. But our mirror has been affected by sin, and it's like looking into a funhouse mirror. What looks moral to us is not necessarily moral to God. Since this is the only view we have had, it looks perfectly normal. But compared to reality - the reality of God - we are warped and don't even know it.

I know I'll not convince you, and you'll not convince me. I guess when we meet in heaven (assuming we do) whoever was wrong can apologize to the other!!

 

[stormdancer0]

And in answer to the Gandhi question, if he accepted Christ as his personal Savior, he is in heaven. If not, he isn't.

 

[makeupgirl]

It seems to me that some are going to see and believe what they want to no matter what. I believe this is the work of Satan at hand because he knows who is truly his children and who is truly born again Christians belonging to Christ. So, it's no surprise that he's working hard to try to confuse and to destroy on here. We the children of the most high God know the truth because Jesus said in John 14:6, that he is the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by him. So like Stormdancer said, if Gandi accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, then he's in Heaven, if not then he's not there. The bible doesn't sugar coat stuff. If you reject Christ, you choose Satan. Maybe not directly but you're saying he Jesus I don't need you, I don't believe in you, so my heart, mind and soul is with Satan. That's why we who have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior was left here to spread his gospel to lead even more souls to Christ. It's not his will that no one perish, but if you reject him, then you've chosen where you want to spend eternal life.

 

[Catherineanne]

What makes you think that your moral view is the right one?

Because 'mine' are not mine at all. They are those of My Lord.

Isaiah says that righteousness is the plumbline, and that Christ is the Cornerstone.

So we use the plumbline, and line up with the Cornerstone, and we build on the Rock and what we build will be straight. If we deviate from righteousness, or move away from Christ, we are into questionable morality, as you rightly say. But if we stay true, we do not.

However, it is not true to say that because man is fallible, therefore our sense of morality may result in what seems evil to us actually being good in God's sight.

That which is evil in God's sight may look good to us, but NEVER the other way round; not in a million years.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The plumbline is from Amos and represents the setting up of high towers, that the Northern tribe was guilty of, and for which they fell, when they refused to tear them down.

Amos 7

8And the LORD said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then said the LORD, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more: 9And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.


The high places of Isaac are seen as human sacrifices.


The high places were places of religious worship. Six religious activities occurred here: animal sacrifices (1 Kings 3:2), prostitution (Jeremiah 3:2), the burning of incense (1 Kings 3:3), daughters walking through fire (Jer 32:35), and human sacrifices (2 Kings 23:20, Jer. 7:31). It appears that there were sacred pillars at the high places (2 Kings 17:8-12). These appear to be carved pillars depicting the female goddess of fertility and male deities. It appears that each high place had priests (Num. 22:41). The "gods" that were worshipped at the "high places" included Baal (Num. 22:41), Asherah (2 Kings 21:3), Asherim (2 Chron. 17:6), Topheth (Jer. 7:31), and the gods of the sun, the moon, the constellations, and all the host of heaven (2 Kings 23:5, 2 Chr. 33:3). The gods at the "high places" were depicted as carved and molten images (2 Chr. 34:3).

 

[stormdancer0]

Because 'mine' are not mine at all. They are those of My Lord.

Isaiah says that righteousness is the plumbline, and that Christ is the Cornerstone.

So we use the plumbline, and line up with the Cornerstone, and we build on the Rock and what we build will be straight. If we deviate from righteousness, or move away from Christ, we are into questionable morality, as you rightly say. But if we stay true, we do not.

However, it is not true to say that because man is fallible, therefore our sense of morality may result in what seems evil to us actually being good in God's sight.

That which is evil in God's sight may look good to us, but NEVER the other way round; not in a million years.

And if you do not trust the Bible, where do you get your knowledge of God and His will?

 

[Catherineanne]

And if you do not trust the Bible, where do you get your knowledge of God and His will?

I trust the Bible as far as it authorises me to trust it, but no further. I do not trust the Bible above God himself, because it does not share his authority.

Giving the Bible equal status and authority with God is unBiblical, and verges on blasphemy. The Holy Trinity does not comprise God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Scriptures. A lot of Christians act as if it does, but it doesn't.

Consider the difference between an A-Z of London, and London itself. The two are not the same. The A-Z points to London, and tells us something of London, but if I actually want to know what London is like, I have to go there, and experience it for myself. Just reading the book is not enough. It is enough to help me find my way to London, and to find my way from one place to another, but simply reading it is not the same as going there. In other words, it is a means to an end, but it is not the end itself.

At any given point if I find myself lost, the A - Z will help me to reorientate myself to London itself, but it is in relation to London that I live and move, not in relation to the book. If I am ok with London, and know where I am, the book can stay in my bag, because all is well. I can choose to look at it, and I can choose not to. As long as I am on familiar ground, I am fine.

But what is the relation of the book to the actuality? If I read the A-Z and see that in it Oxford Street is 2mm wide, do I then conclude that the actual Oxford Street is 2mm wide? Or do I extrapolate from it, and conclude that the reality is much greater than the book can convey? The book represents something of London, but that does not mean that it actually is London, nor that it contains, defines or circumscribes London in any way.

Similarly, the Bible represents something of God, and is the best means by which we may find our way to him, but it does not contain, define or circumscribe God in any way. God does not answer to Scripture, but rather Scripture answers to God.

If I get to London and find that a street marked as one way on the map is actually two way, do I conclude that London is wrong? Or do I conclude that the map is slightly out of date, and that it must be redefined in the light of my actual experience of the actual reality that I have found?

Far too many Christians do the first of these; they use the Bible as a straightjacket, in which to contain God and his mercy. That is not what it is intended for, and is an abuse of Scripture.

The Bible points the way. If we stop at the Bible, using it as a container in which to confine God, or a dictionary by which to define him, then we miss just as much as the tourist who decides to stay at home and read the A-Z, instead of actually visiting the City. And far worse are two tourists sitting at home, comparing the Baedecker guide with the A-Z, and arguing about which is correct, without taking the trouble to get on a train and go to the City itself, and see for themselves what the actuality is.

 

[stormdancer0]

On that we can agree. The Bible points the way to God. For that reason alone, I love it. Just as I love the mountains, because they point to God.

 

[Catherineanne]

On that we can agree. The Bible points the way to God. For that reason alone, I love it. Just as I love the mountains, because they point to God.

There is nothing in all creation that does not point to the Creator.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think it's important to realise tho, that if it's not on the map it's a ficticious place (or not necessary for salvation) . God was perfectly able to keep the ark Himself, while smashing not just Dagon but also Isreali pride at the end time of the judges, so He's perfectly capable of keeping the ark of His Word safe. What's to be remembered is that it contains God's, mankind's and satan's words and actions, so that with the knowledge that we chose we can decern good from evil.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I believe if someone rejects Christ, they won't be saved. But if they neither accept nor reject Him because they didn't know enough to make a choice, then God will judge them according to what they did know...according to the graces they did receive. For example, if a person lives on some remote island and never ever heard of God, but tries to obey his conscience, I believe God will be merciful. This is called "invinsible ignorance" by theologians. I'm not saying that these people will definitely be saved..but that they also have that hope, like we do, although it's more difficult for them with less graces.. (this also makes us responsible to how we use the graces we've been given, cause to whom much is given, much is expected)

So I can't say if Gandhi is in heave or hell. Only God knows our hearts and will judge accordingly.