Is Gandhi going to hell?

[stormdancer0]

Such a strange question you pose. Gentle man,good man. Heaven welcomed. Why do you need to ask? Are you going to heaven? Only God and you may know.

I don't know about that. Doesn't God's word say that none of us are good? That we can't possibly be good enough to earn our way into heaven?

 

[Jeffz]

How can we judge another when we first must remove the log in our own eye. I for one cannot judge Ghandi, I can however look at his fruit, and the fruit that I see is one of a righteous man. There are many so called 'christians' who treat others in ways that are obsene and hateful, are they really christians who call themselves christians, Just as Paul said of the Jews, that all who call themselves Jews are not really Jews. So I would say to you who are condemning this man Ghandi to first examine yourselves. We are called to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, also to examine ourselves daily. Are we doing this I ask? We must look in a mirror inorder to remove the log in our own eye.
Jeffrey

 

[andreha]

Well, here's my take...

It is written that that which we do unto the least of God, we do unto Him. Our God has a wonderful way of reciprocating love. I believe that it is possible that Ghandi could have seen an angel in his last moments and accepted Christ before passing on. Simple.

 

[capnator]

I agree with you Jeff that we are not the judge of whether someone is going to heaven.

However there is an undercurrent here. Evidence was put forward of Ghandi openly stating Christ is unecessary as a way of salvation, He considered Christ and rejected Him. His philosophy there are many ways as long as we are following goodness.

Do our works merit salvation?
Are there other ways to heaven other than that spoken of in the bible?

There are many great advocates of human rights in our day who would also reject Christ as the way of salvation, will these also go to heaven?

What if they are "good" people?

How do we know then that Buddhism is not the way, or Hinduism, Islam, Wicca or some of the other ism's out there that preach love and good works towards mankind?

I think this is what the op was trying to nut out.

 

[Catherineanne]

Ghandi's conclusion, christianity had nothing to offer which he didn't already have.

This is a misrepresentation of what he actually said. Look again:

eventually I came to the conclusion that there was nothing really in your scriptures that we had not got in ours, and that to be a good Hindu also meant I would be a good Christian.

Just as long as we have "love" we'll be right.

Given that God is himself Love, then this is indeed the case. There is plenty of Scripture to back up such a point of view, but most importantly there is Christ himself.

The only caveat is that it is the right kind of love. Wherever any man on earth demonstrates the same kind of self sacrificial love to his brothers and sisters that Christ demonstrated to us, there is a Christian, whether the person concerned knows it or not. The tree is known by its fruit.

Ergo, Gandhi was - and indeed is - a Christian.

 

[Catherineanne]

Evidence was put forward of Ghandi openly stating Christ is unecessary as a way of salvation, He considered Christ and rejected Him. His philosophy there are many ways as long as we are following goodness.

Again, all of this misrepresents what was quoted from Gandhi. Where do you see rejection in this:

The gentle figure of Christ, so full of forgiveness that he taught his followers not to retaliate when abused or struck, but to turn the other cheek - I thought it was a beautiful example of the perfect man.

It is very sad if our own mindset is so rigid that we cannot even paraphrase someone of another faith without this kind of distortion.

Gandhi did not say Christ was unnecessary. He also did not say he rejected him or his teaching. As for 'his philosophy', I think you will find that it is consistent with Hinduism to be able to regard oneself as a follower of several faiths at the same time.

In other words, Gandhi was being a good Hindu, in everything he said. And there is nothing in the Bible to say that a good Hindu will necessary be damned, no matter how good he may be.

The Lord said, greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends. Gandhi laid down his life for his country, and therefore, according to the Lord, his love cannot be outdone. We may equal it, but we may not outdo it, because it cannot be outdone.

Having such an endorsment from the Lord, who also said that we will be able to know his disciples by their love, is there anyone who is still reckless enough of their own salvation to dare to say that such a man is not in eternity?

 

[max1120]

First of all I doubt you have "rock solid" evidence of gods exsistence. No one has "rock solid" evidence or the existence or non-exsistence of any diety.

I do have proof. Look around you. You can't honestly say that you believe that this entire world, the entire universe, just "happened." That requires much more faith than belief in any God. I also have proof in the changes He's made in me; the miracles I've personally seen. For someone who doesn't want to believe in God, there is no proof good enough. For someone who has experienced Him, they have the proof they need. These are rock solid evidence to me. If you choose not to believe them, that's on you.

You may refer to that as "rock solid" but it would be considered circumstantial and relitive proof by most scholars. The threshold for "rock solid" proof would something akin to god showing up in person on the white house lawn. I would settle for something far less like a complete copy of the origional manuscripts and seeing that they somehow miraclulaously match perfectly with the modern copies we have..not going to happen but would be nice. Whats more the bible is filled with scientific errors that directly contradict the known facts of physics. For example the bible says that the earth is the center of solar system and that the sun and everything in space revolves around the earth. We know for fact and have proof from satilites and astronauts who have visited space that the sun not the earth is the center of our solar syastem (Heliocentrisim) in fact the earth is rotating around the sun. No credible scientist would support the bibles assertion (in several places) that the earth is "fixed" and does not move.

Secondly, I am afraid its a little more serious than a few "minor mis-translations". what we today call the bible is filled with errors and has indeed been translated incorrectly but also men have added to it and subtracted from it over the centuries. One excellent example is the last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel. Those twelve (12) verses simply are not present in any of the 4 earliest copies of Mark we have today. They suddenly appear in latter copies. Since we are dealing with copies of copies of copies ( none of the the origional "autographs" currently are known to exist) it is entirely possible that even more was added earlier. There are a number of similar examples of where things in the bible have been added or changed but this is just one really glaring example.

So, name a few. Everyone knows that the 12 verses in Mark are not in the oldest copies that we have. What about the ones we don't have?

I will do even better I will give you yet another example of a very important passage that was simply added in later. 1John 5:7-8 also does not appear in any of the early greek copies of in fact it does not appear until the 9th century (almost 800 years after Christ death). This passage deals with an explict statement of the trinity (actually it is the most explicit statement of the trinity) and thus would be considered an important passage by most scholars.

This of course is in addition to the last 12 verses of Mark which are not present in any of our earliest copies of Mark's Gospel and suddenly pop up several hundered years later.

There are still others how many do you want?

Name some mistranslations or errors. I have heard this accusation many times, but few if any have ever even read the Bible, much less researched and supposed errors. My God is more than big enough and influential enough to be sure that what He wants to stay in that book does stay. What a weak, non-effective god you serve, if He cannot do something so simple!


As for "mistranslatios and errors" there are prob. thousands I have given you two examples of something much better, additions that were never in the origional text of Mark and 1 John. Again there are more but do you really want an exhaustive listing? I think even one or two on this scale (one dealing with the resurection of Christ and the other the trinity) should make my point clear and obvious. The point is that for whatever reason the bible or rather the individule works which later were collected together and called the "bible" were and are not somehow magically protected by god from man changing them or adding and subtracting from them over the centuries because he obviously has changed it.

If you need further proof that this is possible may I suggest reading Revelations 22:18-19. In that passage the author speeks of a warning given to him during his vision. The warning was against anyone "adding to or subtracting" what was written. So why a warning agianst something which is impossible to begin with? I mean god did not warn us against defeating him did he or against walking on water..or other such things did he? Of course not because that would be silly since our doing those things was not possible. Now before you go off and try to say that I am misunderstanding Revelations 22:18-19 let me point out two facts that people seem to try to arguee against this with..incorrectly:

1. The warning is not written as a hypothetical nor as in the form of a warning against "attempting" or "trying" to change what is written. The Greek (Konie) that was used in the book Revelations indeed uses language that indicates the actual doing of something not its meer "attempt" The Greeks had words for "attempting" or "trying" and those words were never used in the passage.

2. The warning does not only concern Revelations. If revelations could be tampered with there is no reasonable arguement for why the other books of the bible would somehow be more protected than Revelations. Especially considering the serious nature of what is discussed in Revelations. One would if anything think that work would be more protected than any of the other books. The fact is that there is no "devine" protection over the words of the bible. Therefore reading and interpretating the bible "literally" makes no sense.

I am not saying this because I like being argumentive but rather so others who read my words might consider this when they hear others such as yourself trying to convince them to accept everything as literal. I want them to realize that your approach is not supported by the facts.

I am going to respond to the rest of your post but had to break up my response into parts due to its length.

 

[max1120]

Again, all of this misrepresents what was quoted from Gandhi. Where do you see rejection in this:



It is very sad if our own mindset is so rigid that we cannot even paraphrase someone of another faith without this kind of distortion.

Gandhi did not say Christ was unnecessary. He also did not say he rejected him or his teaching. As for 'his philosophy', I think you will find that it is consistent with Hinduism to be able to regard oneself as a follower of several faiths at the same time.

In other words, Gandhi was being a good Hindu, in everything he said. And there is nothing in the Bible to say that a good Hindu will necessary be damned, no matter how good he may be.

The Lord said, greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends. Gandhi laid down his life for his country, and therefore, according to the Lord, his love cannot be outdone. We may equal it, but we may not outdo it, because it cannot be outdone.

Having such an endorsment from the Lord, who also said that we will be able to know his disciples by their love, is there anyone who is still reckless enough of their own salvation to dare to say that such a man is not in eternity?

Bravo!!! Excellent post...I agree with what you have said here

I believe some in this forum will be quite unhappy because I believe Gandhi to be in heaven or at least not in hell by any means.

But unfortunately some are so rigid in there thinking that they are unable to comprehend any possiblity of being...dare I say wrong. The feel safer with a rigid god for some reason. It is indeed sad.

 

[GrannyHope]

Gandhi was a Hindui pagan so therefor hes going to hell probably. im sorry but thats the way the cookie crumbles

 

[makeupgirl]

So your god throws people into everlasting torment simply because the do not believe in him? Even though he provides no solid evidence of his existence much less "proof". The bible itself is riddled with mistranslations and things which have been added and subtracted over the centuries. Given all of this, god still throws you off into the abyis for not believing in him? I doubt that but of course I am sure you will disagree. I find it frighning to think that one would choose to worship a god who would torture people for ever and ever with fire simply because they did not believe in him given the scant evidence of his existence which he allowed them to view. Such a god would not be worthy of worship, fear yes, worship never. He would be a very cruel and abusive god. He would likely be what we would classify as narcissitic and meglamanial. Those are not good qualities for a leader, let alone a god.

What you call cruel about God, I call just. None of us deserve to go to heaven because of the sinful nature we were born with by Adams sin. However, this is the reason that Jesus came to earth, took on flesh and died on the cross for the sins of the whole world to buy us back. The ransom is paid in full. We owe all to Jesus because of the debt he paid on calvary's cross. He conquered death, hell, and the grave when he was ressurected. He also said I'm going to prepare a place for you and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself that where I am, there ye may be also. He also said I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comethi unto the Father but by me. Jesus paved the way for everyone to go to heaven but there are conditions to go there. There are some conditions to leave the US and to enter into another country. So what makes you think, this is not the same. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven. That's scripture that's the word of the Almighty God, it's doesn't make mistakes, it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

If someone didn't receive Christ as their Lord and Savior and they was given the gospel of Christ but they rejected it, you're going to hell, you're not going to heaven. That's what his word says, and his word shall always stand. So, if Ghandi didn't accept Christ, then yes he is in Hell.

I believe in the God I serve on faith and I don't know any other so-called gods that have given evidence the way that Jesus has. Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). Now Faith is substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). It's by the grace of God that we're able to go to heaven and spend eternal life there through redemption, the redeeming blood of Christ. Accept him as your Lord and Savior today. He is faithful and Just to forgive you of your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9)

 

[capnator]

Again, all of this misrepresents what was quoted from Gandhi. Where do you see rejection in this:



It is very sad if our own mindset is so rigid that we cannot even paraphrase someone of another faith without this kind of distortion.

Gandhi did not say Christ was unnecessary. He also did not say he rejected him or his teaching. As for 'his philosophy', I think you will find that it is consistent with Hinduism to be able to regard oneself as a follower of several faiths at the same time.

In other words, Gandhi was being a good Hindu, in everything he said. And there is nothing in the Bible to say that a good Hindu will necessary be damned, no matter how good he may be.

The Lord said, greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends. Gandhi laid down his life for his country, and therefore, according to the Lord, his love cannot be outdone. We may equal it, but we may not outdo it, because it cannot be outdone.

Having such an endorsment from the Lord, who also said that we will be able to know his disciples by their love, is there anyone who is still reckless enough of their own salvation to dare to say that such a man is not in eternity?

Can we conclude then that since God is love, anyone displaying love towards mankind must therefore be imbued with the spirit of God.

The atheistic humanist, the hindu, the buddhist, the wiccan, the christian and whoever else may come is entitled to life eternal because they have lived a life of good works and love.

 

[stormdancer0]

You may refer to that as "rock solid" but it would be considered circumstantial and relitive proof by most scholars. The threshold for "rock solid" proof would something akin to god showing up in person on the white house lawn. I would settle for something far less like a complete copy of the origional manuscripts and seeing that they somehow miraclulaously match perfectly with the modern copies we have..not going to happen but would be nice. Whats more the bible is filled with scientific errors that directly contradict the known facts of physics. For example the bible says that the earth is the center of solar system and that the sun and everything in space revolves around the earth. We know for fact and have proof from satilites and astronauts who have visited space that the sun not the earth is the center of our solar syastem (Heliocentrisim) in fact the earth is rotating around the sun. No credible scientist would support the bibles assertion (in several places) that the earth is "fixed" and does not move.

I believe if you'll look closer, it says that the earth is the center of God's creation. My kids are at the center of my life; that doesn't mean they are in my abdomen all the time. It means that they are what I concentrate on. And the Bible, at least that portion, is written from God's point of view. Maybe from His perspective, everything does revolve around the earth. In relation to other astrological bodies, the earth does move. In relation to God, it does not. It's a matter of perspective.

I take all "Science" with a grain of salt. It is full of misstatements, and intentional misdirection. For instance, I don't believe in evolution. I believe God created the heavens and the earth in six days. I have seen proof that carbon dating past 2000 years or so is a fraud. So what you call rock solid and what I do are two different things.

I will do even better I will give you yet another example of a very important passage that was simply added in later. 1John 5:7-8 also does not appear in any of the early greek copies of in fact it does not appear until the 9th century (almost 800 years after Christ death). This passage deals with an explict statement of the trinity (actually it is the most explicit statement of the trinity) and thus would be considered an important passage by most scholars.

Again, what makes you think that the oldest copies we happen to still have are more correct? People are much more likely to leave things out when copying than adding to something. Perhaps the older copies we have were rejects because of words taken out. Anyway, I have faith that my God can do as He wishes with that book or any other.

And that's the basic difference between us. I don't have to have empirical evidence, admissible in court, in order to believe in the God of the Bible. I believed; I asked Him to show me, and He did. It isn't my job to convince you or anyone else. I am 100% sure, without a doubt. Because I sincerely believed first, without any outside proof, God gave me proof anyway.

As for "mistranslatios and errors" there are prob. thousands I have given you two examples of something much better, additions that were never in the origional text of Mark and 1 John. Again there are more but do you really want an exhaustive listing? I think even one or two on this scale (one dealing with the resurection of Christ and the other the trinity) should make my point clear and obvious. The point is that for whatever reason the bible or rather the individule works which later were collected together and called the "bible" were and are not somehow magically protected by god from man changing them or adding and subtracting from them over the centuries because he obviously has changed it.

Did you read the original text? I didn't think we had a copy of it.

If you need further proof that this is possible may I suggest reading Revelations 22:18-19. In that passage the author speeks of a warning given to him during his vision. The warning was against anyone "adding to or subtracting" what was written. So why a warning agianst something which is impossible to begin with? I mean god did not warn us against defeating him did he or against walking on water..or other such things did he? Of course not because that would be silly since our doing those things was not possible. Now before you go off and try to say that I am misunderstanding Revelations 22:18-19 let me point out two facts that people seem to try to arguee against this with..incorrectly:

1. The warning is not written as a hypothetical nor as in the form of a warning against "attempting" or "trying" to change what is written. The Greek (Konie) that was used in the book Revelations indeed uses language that indicates the actual doing of something not its meer "attempt" The Greeks had words for "attempting" or "trying" and those words were never used in the passage.

2. The warning does not only concern Revelations. If revelations could be tampered with there is no reasonable arguement for why the other books of the bible would somehow be more protected than Revelations. Especially considering the serious nature of what is discussed in Revelations. One would if anything think that work would be more protected than any of the other books. The fact is that there is no "devine" protection over the words of the bible. Therefore reading and interpretating the bible "literally" makes no sense.

Okay, either you take the Bible literally - in which case anyone who added to or subtracted from it is cursed, which means it is protected by God (protected by a curse); or you DON'T take it literally, there is no divine protection, and believing it is ignorant. So which is it?

I am not saying this because I like being argumentive but rather so others who read my words might consider this when they hear others such as yourself trying to convince them to accept everything as literal. I want them to realize that your approach is not supported by the facts.

So, I guess the question is, what are you going to believe?

Man's reasoning skills, human logic, what we can prove?

OR

God, who's thoughts are not like our thoughts, and ways are not like our ways? Who offers us eternal life with Him out of love?

You can't have it both ways. Or you can, but there's a point you have to choose, and say, "No, there's no objective, discernable evidence of a god, so there must not be one." Or else, "No, there's not objective, discernible evidence of God, but there's plenty of subjective proof. There's the wonder of nature, changed lives, miracles. So I choose to believe in You, God."

Personally, I wouldn't follow a God that I could totally explain. I want my God to be much bigger than I am. My God has reasons for things, reasons that I may never understand. And that's okay with me.

 

[brinny]

people who dont believe in jesus are going to hell according to the bible. so i decided to pick the posterboy for peace...mohandas gandhi. he wasnt christian...so according to the christian tradition that kid in the video states...gandhi is going to hell...

true or false? comments, opinions are appreciated.

What does God say?

 

[max1120]

What you call cruel about God, I call just. None of us deserve to go to heaven because of the sinful nature we were born with by Adams sin.

So you actually believe that because someone who you personally never have met, for that matter no one you haver met has met, did something whatever it may have been...you, me and all humanity deserves to boil in hell forever??? That makes absolutely no sense...it makes less than no sense. IF I believed that god was that petty he would not be worth the time spent talking about him. He would be an evil despot. IF all it takes is one guy eating an apple (Yes I know its is symbolic and we really have no idea what Adam's actuall "sin" might have been) to damm everyone ..even those who were not born for billions of years after Adam did whatever it was he did, than that god would be an evil god not a good and loving god that anyone sane would choose to worship. Punishment of children for things there parents (or in this case ancient ancestors) did is cruel and lacks any sense of justice. It could never be defended.

However, this is the reason that Jesus came to earth, took on flesh and died on the cross for the sins of the whole world to buy us back. The ransom is paid in full. We owe all to Jesus because of the debt he paid on calvary's cross. He conquered death, hell, and the grave when he was ressurected. He also said I'm going to prepare a place for you and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself that where I am, there ye may be also. He also said I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comethi unto the Father but by me. Jesus paved the way for everyone to go to heaven but there are conditions to go there. There are some conditions to leave the US and to enter into another country. So what makes you think, this is not the same. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven. That's scripture that's the word of the Almighty God, it's doesn't make mistakes, it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

If someone didn't receive Christ as their Lord and Savior and they was given the gospel of Christ but they rejected it, you're going to hell, you're not going to heaven. That's what his word says, and his word shall always stand. So, if Ghandi didn't accept Christ, then yes he is in Hell.

Again I think it sounds like you want heaven as some sort of special reward for being so accepting of what was taught to you. Not everyone beileves everything they are told or for that matter reads that is not backed up by proofs. That makes them wise. Ghandi did not deserve hell regardless of if or if not he "accepted" Christ. A true and powerful god suerly would have a better mesure of who should be included in hell and who whould be brought to heaven rather than saying blessed be the naive who will believe anything they are told. I think there are going to be a lot of surprised people in the end and Ghandi is not going to be one of them.

I believe in the God I serve on faith and I don't know any other so-called gods that have given evidence the way that Jesus has.

Really? What "evidence" do you suggest exist? Again anyone can write anything in a book but what "emphirical" evidence do you have to prove what you are suggesting?

I am not saying this because I do not believe in god, but rather I am explaining why it is a sad fallacy that anyone would condem someone to hell simply because they were not convinced of god's existence in light of the scant evidence for his existence beyond words on paper that have not been proven. Words that have been manipulated and changed over the centuries. We do not even know who the authors were and we have evidence that (actual evidence) that things have been added to it and subtraced from it over the last 2000 years are so.

 

[brinny]

The god I believe in would not send Gandi to hell simply because of his beliefs.

Which god/God are you speaking of?

 

[brinny]

What you call cruel about God, I call just. None of us deserve to go to heaven because of the sinful nature we were born with by Adams sin.

So you actually believe that because someone who you personally never have met, for that matter no one you haver met has met, did something whatever it may have been...you, me and all humanity deserves to boil in hell forever??? That makes absolutely no sense...it makes less than no sense. IF I believed that god was that petty he would not be worth the time spent talking about him. He would be an evil despot. IF all it takes is one guy eating an apple (Yes I know its is symbolic and we really have no idea what Adam's actuall "sin" might have been) to damm everyone ..even those who were not born for billions of years after Adam did whatever it was he did, than that god would be an evil god not a good and loving god that anyone sane would choose to worship. Punishment of children for things there parents (or in this case ancient ancestors) did is cruel and lacks any sense of justice. It could never be defended.

However, this is the reason that Jesus came to earth, took on flesh and died on the cross for the sins of the whole world to buy us back. The ransom is paid in full. We owe all to Jesus because of the debt he paid on calvary's cross. He conquered death, hell, and the grave when he was ressurected. He also said I'm going to prepare a place for you and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself that where I am, there ye may be also. He also said I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comethi unto the Father but by me. Jesus paved the way for everyone to go to heaven but there are conditions to go there. There are some conditions to leave the US and to enter into another country. So what makes you think, this is not the same. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven. That's scripture that's the word of the Almighty God, it's doesn't make mistakes, it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

If someone didn't receive Christ as their Lord and Savior and they was given the gospel of Christ but they rejected it, you're going to hell, you're not going to heaven. That's what his word says, and his word shall always stand. So, if Ghandi didn't accept Christ, then yes he is in Hell.

Again I think it sounds like you want heaven as some sort of special reward for being so accepting of what was taught to you. Not everyone beileves everything they are told or for that matter reads that is not backed up by proofs. That makes them wise. Ghandi did not deserve hell regardless of if or if not he "accepted" Christ. A true and powerful god suerly would have a better mesure of who should be included in hell and who whould be brought to heaven rather than saying blessed be the naive who will believe anything they are told. I think there are going to be a lot of surprised people in the end and Ghandi is not going to be one of them.

I believe in the God I serve on faith and I don't know any other so-called gods that have given evidence the way that Jesus has.

Really? What "evidence" do you suggest exist? Again anyone can write anything in a book but what "emphirical" evidence do you have to prove what you are suggesting?

I am not saying this because I do not believe in god, but rather I am explaining why it is a sad fallacy that anyone would condem someone to hell simply because they were not convinced of god's existence in light of the scant evidence for his existence beyond words on paper that have not been proven. Words that have been manipulated and changed over the centuries. We do not even know who the authors were and we have evidence that (actual evidence) that things have been added to it and subtraced from it over the last 2000 years are so.

Please share what your god/God says Himself about hell and the consequences of not accepting His pricelerss sac rifice of His only begotten Son. Which god/God do you speak of, the living God? The God of Abraham? Who do you speak of?

 

[brinny]

So your god throws people into everlasting torment simply because the do not believe in him? Even though he provides no solid evidence of his existence much less "proof". The bible itself is riddled with mistranslations and things which have been added and subtracted over the centuries. Given all of this, god still throws you off into the abyis for not believing in him? I doubt that but of course I am sure you will disagree. I find it frighning to think that one would choose to worship a god who would torture people for ever and ever with fire simply because they did not believe in him given the scant evidence of his existence which he allowed them to view. Such a god would not be worthy of worship, fear yes, worship never. He would be a very cruel and abusive god. He would likely be what we would classify as narcissitic and meglamanial. Those are not good qualities for a leader, let alone a god.

Which god/God are you speaking of?

 

[stormdancer0]

So you actually believe that because someone who you personally never have met, for that matter no one you haver met has met, did something whatever it may have been...you, me and all humanity deserves to boil in hell forever??? That makes absolutely no sense...it makes less than no sense. IF I believed that god was that petty he would not be worth the time spent talking about him. He would be an evil despot. IF all it takes is one guy eating an apple (Yes I know its is symbolic and we really have no idea what Adam's actuall "sin" might have been) to damm everyone ..even those who were not born for billions of years after Adam did whatever it was he did, than that god would be an evil god not a good and loving god that anyone sane would choose to worship. Punishment of children for things there parents (or in this case ancient ancestors) did is cruel and lacks any sense of justice. It could never be defended.

NOW I see your misunderstanding. Who told you I'd never met Jesus? I have. A genuine, face-to-Face meeting.


Adam's sin was disobedience. God said, "Don't" and Adam did. Adam's sin allowed sin into the world. It is our own sin that sends us to hell. Hell was not even created for man, but for Satan and his angels. If we follow Satan, we will join him. The only way out is to accept a free gift, because everyone has sinned. Children sin, too, but because they are too young to understand, there is an age of accountability, before which their sins are not counted against them. In Jewish tradition, I think the age is 13, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, God doesn't go by our warped sense of fairness. It is His world, His rules. If He wants to punish me for the sins of my father, I belong to Him. Let it be done as He wishes. I have completely surrendered my life to Jesus. The Jesus that the Bible tells me about. I accept whatever He chooses to have me go through, and know He will be with me, and bring me through it.

For no one else would I honestly say that I would die before denying. Though I know He would forgive me, I just couldn't do it. I've seen too much.

 

[stormdancer0]

Oops, my mistake. I thought it was Jesus you were talking about not ever meeting.

As I said before, it doesn't sound all that fair from our perspective. But God has a better perspective, since He is over everything and can see everything, from before creation to the end of time. I don't live by my own sense of fairness - or of right and wrong - but by His.

 

[Catherineanne]

Can we conclude then that since God is love, anyone displaying love towards mankind must therefore be imbued with the spirit of God.

The atheistic humanist, the hindu, the buddhist, the wiccan, the christian and whoever else may come is entitled to life eternal because they have lived a life of good works and love.

Nice try.

Yes, God is (sacrificial) Love, endlessly giving of himself to the world. Yes, anyone displaying the same kind of sacrificial love is not generating that love within themselves, but rather reflecting it from God, in the same way as the moon has no light of its own, but rather reflects that of the sun.

All men are made in the image of God; all men are capable of reflecting God's sacrificial love for mankind, towards their brothers and sisters. ANY such love, revealed anywhere in the world, is of God, and therefore necessarily also of Christ, whether that person is a Christian or not. People who were not made in the image of God would be incapable of themselves of demonstrating sacrificial love for one another (hypothetical only; there are no such people). People may not know this love comes from God, they may not even believe in God, but nonetheless this kind of selfless giving is God's image revealed in them.

However, the next point is, as you are no doubt aware, works theology, and works theology is equally inapplicable to Hindus, Moslems, Jews and Christians. If, having seen and honoured their devout lives, God decides that such a person will enter eternity, this is an act of his Grace, not a reward for their behaviour. None of us earns our way to heaven, not even by being Christians. It is ALWAYS by grace.

God's Grace is not limited to Christians. Or, putting it another way, God is not a bigot.