He's been criticised for being racist and hating lower caste Indians among other things such as his celibacy....

for hating lower castes? that's the dumbest thing ever said.

he's the one who fought for the rights of the "untouchables". they were not even allowed in a temple to pray but he fought to change that and more

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Jesus Christ is the straight gate, the right gate, the wide gate is ALL the religions in the world and those who represent those religions, such as Ghandi.

Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

All others are false prophets, a prophet is one who is speaking for God, Ghandi if you consider him to be a prophet was a false prophet.

I know he operated and taught some great principles, but thats not the point, the point is that he was not the way to God.

Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other (Man) : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

This is the Gods teaching on this subject, its plain and simple, it can get complicated only if you do not believe it and rationalize it.

LT you struggle with the potential of an otherwise good person not going to heaven (and presumably going to hell) if he lived a good life but didn't specifically reject Jesus. But you don't struggle if they lived the exact same good life but says that God should accept him on that basis and even if he doesn't praise Jesus.

Serious question which I've broached many times and received no answers: doesn't that seem petty to you? Or that Paul Bernardo could get into heaven by accepting Jesus before he dies and the hypothetical otherwise good person who didn't accept Jesus doesn't?

Why would a being as mighty as God have so much invested in the praise of his creatures? Why would he not just want them to be good without worrying about who they pray to, or if they pray to anyone at all? Demanding thanks and praise just doesn't seem that grand you know?

in the other discussion on this page, it looks like christians are trying to rationalize their dilemma by saying "Gandhi followed Christ, so maybe he won't go to hell"

He was clearly following his favorite Hindu God, Rama or any other Hindu God who also told human beings to live a life filled with love, peace etc

i have a hindu friend who i talked with about this not that long ago. he very much took a ghandi'ish approach: everyone's religion is true, everyone is fine practicing whatever they want it's all good just be a better person and it will all work out, i'm still a hindu though. imo that is a fine belief. but don't pretend that belief is somehow in accordance with your or anyone else's religion and not something you just made up because it makes you feel warmer and fuzzier inside.

So we've diverted from the original topic to now question the morality of Gandhi. This "debate" (if you can even call it that) has become absurd.

Why do you continue to do this even though everyone knows its a gimmick account ment to level this forum. If you are confident in your atheist beliefs, shouldn't you be actively discussing what you really believe in? What do you gain from this aside from reconfirming your own beliefs for yourself?

And thus, their teachings are fundamentally the same. I have been saying this since the beginning of this thread...

I'm sorry for being sarcastic and somewhat angry, but these are such basic questions and the standard response is being "challenged" in such childish ways. That, and I think Pletho should just be banned from the forums.

If we are free to throw out whatever part of the religion we don't like, and are able to decide, for example, as you have, that living" as Christ did" is more important than following the rules set out in the bible, then we'd have no atheists.

It is only if/when someone wants to claim that the fantastical parts of their religion are not only true, but should also give them the right to park in the street on Sunday morning and not get a ticket for it, that there is a reason for someone to stand up and say, "its all fine and well to love your neighbors as yourself, but we're all grown ups here; you know that sticks don't really turn into snakes, right?"

It's not throwing out a part of the religion that you don't like. It's about throwing out the parts of the religion that are superfluous to the core teachings. This is also taking into consideration that different interpretations can be made of the same event or text and that we should allow for that. There is a difference between dismissing "Don't eat meat on Friday's" and dismissing "Thou shall not kill."

I also think that even if this were the case, many atheists would still not convert. Atheists do not claim to not believe in Christianity, Judiaism, or another specific religion; they do not believe in God. These are very different.

I acknowledge your point here, but I think you are recognizing the fanatics more than the group as a whole. I may be missing something, but I'm interpretting this as the "Some Muslims strap bombs to themselves" idea.

+1 on wanting to hear an answer to this question from theists (preferably starting with a yes/no - but that's maybe too much to ask of theists)

This becomes a modified version of the non-believer in Pascal's Wager in my opinion. An empty person who simply says "I believe in Jesus Christ," lacks faith in God, and/or does not following the teachings of Jesus will not experience salvation. On the other hand, someone who follows the teachings and has faith will find salvation.

One thing many atheists seem to not understand is that saying, "I believe in God" does not mean a person has faith. However, faith, by its nature, implies a belief in God.

The right religion is the one that is right for you.

SCIENTOLOGY is the answer...

Believe what you want about me being a gimmick.

I am not a gimmick just for good measure by the way...........

Read the post and foget about who wrote it if that will help........

Either way what I wrote is the truth.......

In other words let me tell you what you believe and then let me tell you what i tell you that you believe is wrong.

I get that you would not believe that someone who just mouths the words "I believe in JC" wouldn't pass the test. But that wasn't the question nor did my post imply that.

Why is eating meat on Friday not as bad as killing? In the context of "rules handed down from God" I don't think there is any particular reason to place one above the other.

If, on the other hand, someone writes an essay entitled, "How to Reduce Suffering and increase Freedom for All," and thoughtfully derives some rules to live by to produce that result, and in fact produces a list that contains not eating meat on Friday, as well as not killing, we will have reasons in front of us that we can agree or disagree with, that we can model, test to some degree, and examine for logical fallacies, etc., and conclude with reason if one or the other is more important, and why.

I think you are actually arguing for "Common Sense + The Bible" as your guiding principle, and even though perhaps you don't see it as such, I think the logical conclusion of that point of view is, "Do whatever you want; also, I like the Bible."

---

I have absolutely no idea how you got from Christians parking in the street on Sunday to the conclusion that I'm thinking of the extremists akin to Muslims who employ suicide bombs.

I meant the Christians in my own neighborhood who don't have adequate parking at the tax free palaces in which they worship once a week, so they park in the streets, in front of fire hydrants, etc., with complete immunity -- in my neighborhood, and all over the country.

Of course I could have picked the many people in the southern USA who want Christian prayers in school, or even more extreme outliers who bomb abortion clinics or burn crosses in the yards of black people, but I didn't actually go in that direction at all.

Evil Polka man,

If it's the same message, then what makes you think Christianity is right and Hinduism is wrong? Based on superfluous things that don't really matter?

Gandhi's quote about all religions being true is contradictory. If he's right that christianity is true but he didn't accept Jesus as his savior anyway and stayed as a faithful Hindu, then you're assuming that a rational man like Gandhi accepted that he's going to hell eventhough he could've avoided it by sincerely believing Christ as his savior.

The fact that many religions may have many tenets that are very good and just and nice things to do in no way impacts on the veracity of the supernatural being involved.

Oh noes, FluffyPuff the Nice Creator went down the drains too. Damn you and your atheist wits.

Eating meat on Friday is different from killing someone because one is a fundamental law, while the other is a culturally influenced tradition. One can be ridded; the other cannot. In other words, there is a sense of bliss that is obtainable on this Earth. This can be obtained if you eat meat on Fridays. It cannot be realized if you kill another.

However, there is a very big diffference between not doing something because you're prohibited from doing it and not doing something because you recognize that it is wrong. Essays and such can tell you what you should and should not do; however, I have yet to see an atheist propose a moral code that deals with controlling our intentions as well our actions.

I suppose you could say that I am using common sense in addition to the Bible. However, the Bible has presented truths to me through following Jesus' teachings that make it foolish for me to disregard it. I am not using solely reason and tacking on the Bible, but am taking the Bible and interpretting it to my own knowledge and experiences.

Sorry, I did not understand the parking car situation and thought you were making the "People do things they shouldn't in the name of religion" point. I do agree with the point I think you are making here though.


Go to page 1 of this thread. Start reading.

My temporary stance, though not one that I'm ready to start debating at the moment, is that God exists in the metaphysical "thing in itself" properties of everything. We cannot prove it, but can witness and experience it through our senses. I need to do some reading on this first though, but it makes sense to me at the moment.

I would suggest that all laws are culturally influenced tradition, and it is only with concern for life on earth, as opposed to the "here after" that anyone can give a reasonable explanation for why murder might be considered a worse crime than eating meat on Friday.


I can't think of many moral codes proposed by atheists. I'm an atheist and I make do with the laws and customs of the society that I live in. There are aspects that I would love to see improved, and I effect that change with my vote and my spending.

Peter Singer proposes some ethics in some of his books. They are quite consistent and well reasoned. I don't know what the significance of "controlling our intentions" is, as you have used it above.

That is fine. I think that says the same thing as what I proposed above. As long as you interpret the bible, and I interpret the bible, and so does everyone else, we will have to have discussions about what it means and how it should be applied to law or custom. The problem is, if we hold out the bible as holy, then people are allowed to argue for their interpretation because of how well they may argue the bible fits it, rather than having to convince everyone independent of the bible alone.

Anyway, this is kind of a double-edged sword, because let me be clear, it is far from obvious (to me at least) that the majority of religious people look to their religion for unbiased advice on how to live their life. Or that, for instance, "religious wars" would not have happened, were it not for religion. But I digress.

I did and didn't get any explanation for why Gandhi thinks all religions are true but still remained a Hindu when he'll go to hell for not accepting Christ as his savior. If he thinks Christianity is true, why chant "hare rama hare krishna" seconds before he died?

That's fine too, and I'm not questioning you feeling what you are feeling. What I might question is the cause of your feelings. Our senses are notoriously unreliable.

You have decided there is a difference. could be your ticket to hell if you're wrong.

Quote:

I also think that even if this were the case, many atheists would still not convert. Atheists do not claim to not believe in Christianity, Judiaism, or another specific religion; they do not believe in God. These are very different.

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...so that means I'm not like those god-forsaken atheists, right?

You seem to be saying that believing in some type of God makes you a better person than not believing. Is this your stance?