Did Mahatma Gandhi going to heaven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dianne_Schiltz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PbloPicasso said:
I thought you were a bible Christian. Don’t you know that this is contained within the text of scripture?🤷 Oops. I guess you almost Catholic, by being Episcopalian. You may lack the depth of bible knowledge that I gained growing up in a bible only Christian faith.
Click to expand...
Then give me chapter and verse!

It is rather insulting to accuse someone of lacking “depth of knowledge” without actually substantiating your claim to superior knowledge!

Edwin
 
PbloPicasso said:
I want to make a point by telling a story about a very good person I know that had caught on fire while talking to him. I was surprised at the event but didn’t want to offend him because he was deep in thought over a topic very passionate to his heart. If I told him that his clothing had caught fire he would have stopped in the middle of the most important part of what he was teaching. I became anxious, obviously, and started to tell him, but pulled back each time he tried to over ride my insistence for attention. I felt bad, but because he was my friend I waiting until he was finished speaking.
Click to expand...
I think if I were in the throes of spontaneous combustion I would expect, nay demand that my friend interrupt me. But that’s me.
 
Contarini said:
Then give me chapter and verse!

It is rather insulting to accuse someone of lacking “depth of knowledge” without actually substantiating your claim to superior knowledge!

Edwin
Click to expand...
I’ll take your BCV and up you with Jewish Tradition.😛

thejewishweek.com/jewish_life/sabbath_week/humility_and_prophecy_hearing_word_god

Torah Attitude: Parashas Beha’aloscha: From humility to prophecy
shemayisrael.com/parsha/kahn/archives/behaloscha68.htm

The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9174

**Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth **
come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_62.html

What are the requirements of a ‘true prophet’?

askmoses.com/en/article/248,2100910/What-are-the-requirements-of-a-true-prophet.html

:eek: yet?

Did you know that Orthodox Jews will tell you the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches about birth control, generally. Do you know about the 12 period following a woman’s period requires abstinence from sexual relations? I never knew this until about 4 years ago when I first started studying Catholic teaching. I’m more enclined towards Orthodox Christianity on top of that but found out that much of the teachings are fairly identical to Catholic teaching. I bought into the papacy though and now am a Papist.
 
PbloPicasso said:
I’ll take your BCV and up you with Jewish Tradition.😛

thejewishweek.com/jewish_life/sabbath_week/humility_and_prophecy_hearing_word_god

Torah Attitude: Parashas Beha’aloscha: From humility to prophecy
shemayisrael.com/parsha/kahn/archives/behaloscha68.htm

The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9174

**Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth **
come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_62.html

What are the requirements of a ‘true prophet’?

askmoses.com/en/article/248,2100910/What-are-the-requirements-of-a-true-prophet.html
Click to expand...
That is interesting. A minor nit-picking point is that the Talmud doesn’t say that it was because of the Burning Bush, but because of Moses’ constant contact with the Shekinah. However, that doesn’t affect the point you’re making.

Still, you were both rude and unjust when you accused me of lacking Biblical knowledge. Last I checked, Christians do not consider the Talmud to be canonical Scripture. I am certainly aware of Numbers 12:1, but have never seen (and still do not see) any reason to interpret it in this way. Accusing people of lacking Biblical knowledge because they don’t accept a certain interpretation of Scripture is a bad habit of many Protestant fundamentalists (what you call “Bible Christians”–not a term I readily grant them). This stems from their literalism–they can’t admit that true interpretations of Scripture may be non-obvious. Catholics surely have no such constraint. You and I can surely agree that your interpretation is not obvious to all readers of Numbers 12:1!
Did you know that Orthodox Jews will tell you the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches about birth control, generally.
Click to expand...
But not abortion. They do not consider the fetus to be fully a human person until birth. So I would not rest too much on Orthodox Judaism.

Also, in spite of the particular tradition about Moses you cite, Jews do not as a general rule value celibacy. Indeed, that’s the premise of the interpretation of Num. 12:1 you’re citing: Aaron and Miriam find Moses’ behavior odd, because other prophets don’t do this. However, you’re certainly right that this interpretation is an interesting parallel to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity.
Do you know about the 12 period following a woman’s period requires abstinence from sexual relations?
Click to expand...
Yes. I didn’t know how long it was exactly (and still don’t–do you mean 12 hours or 12 days?).
I never knew this until about 4 years ago when I first started studying Catholic teaching. I’m more enclined towards Orthodox Christianity on top of that but found out that much of the teachings are fairly identical to Catholic teaching. I bought into the papacy though and now am a Papist.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on your union with the Bishop of Rome!

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
I’m not Wanderer, but I would say the same thing. Advaita Vedanta philosophers seem to have a very different view of things from, say, bhakti Vashnavas in the tradition of someone like Caitanya (a point of view best known in the West through the Hare Krishnas), with the non-dualist Shaivas having another perspective again And on the level of worship and ritual obviously there are many different cults (not using that word pejoratively but simply in the sense of “organized forms of worship”) and traditions.

I recognize that there are certain things held in common, and that many of the “Hindu” philosophical traditions that most clearly fall outside the broadly Vedanta spectrum have died out or been absorbed into the mainstream. I also recognize that modern Western scholars have a strong bias toward emphasizing plurality over unity.

But certainly the statement Wanderer made is a fairly common observation made by Western scholars of Hinduism. Perhaps Hindus would reject it?

Edwin
Click to expand...
Hi Contarini: My point of reference when I asked the question was that I have never seen Hindus disagree among one another as to what our scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita means or what the Upanishads mean, but there are indeed a wide range of practices. They are all seen as valid. For instance, I do not follow a Tantric path, but I understand that path and respect those who follow it. I am not aware of what western scholars would say of our faith, but I trust what you’ve said. As to whether or not Hindus would reject what you said, I for one don’t reject what you have said.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
Contarini said:
I am no Gandhi scholar, but that’s my impression too. Of course, that’s true of most if not all historical figures!

From the parts of the autobiography that I’ve read, it seems pretty clear that Gandhi was poorly formed in his own Hindu tradition. According to Paul Griffiths, editor of the excellent volume Christianity through non-Christian Eyes, the “all religions are equally true” approach is characteristic of “neo-Hinduism” rather than traditional Hinduism–and Griffiths points out that this position really does imply superiority, since Hindus are essentially claiming that their religion is superior to less inclusive religions!

The whole problem is different for Hindus and Buddhists than for us, because of their belief in rebirth/reincarnation. So, for instance, Buddhists (even the Dalai Lama) believe that you have to be a Buddhist in order to reach final enlightenment, but other religions can still do a lot to move you down the path toward enlightenment by teaching compassion, detachment from selfish passions, etc.

But back to Gandhi–my basic take on him is that he was a sincere and idealistic person who was heavily shaped by British culture and largely detached from his own tradition. His fight against colonialism was internal as well as external–he tried valiantly to detach himself from Western values and reconnect with his spiritual heritage. But at the same time, he seems to have done this in a very idiosyncratic way. He could, after all, have given up all his political activities for a while and gone to study with a guru from one of the major Hindu traditions. I’m not saying that he should have done this, only that clearly he wasn’t a representative of ancient Hindu wisdom so much as a highly Westernized person who idealized Indian spiritual values in a lot of the same ways that Westerners do–hence, I think, his popularity with the West as the embodiment of Hindu wisdom!

I may be wrong on this, and welcome correction.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I think everyone is making this too complicated. It’s nothing to fret over really. He was a political and social leader with strong a religious foundation. Like Abe Lincoln or Martin Luther Kind, Jr. I do not know if either of these men are in what you call heaven. According to the faith of Gandhi they are probably still working on it, but who can say? Gandhi was not an Avatar or saint. He was just Gandhi. According to his faith he will someday be with God and so will you. This is certain. According to your faith, I understand that the answer is less certain, but that;s your faith to deal with, not mine or Gandhi’s. 🙂

Your friend
Sufjon
 
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
 
Contarini said:
That is interesting. A minor nit-picking point is that the Talmud doesn’t say that it was because of the Burning Bush, but because of Moses’ constant contact with the Shekinah. However, that doesn’t affect the point you’re making.

Still, you were both rude and unjust when you accused me of lacking Biblical knowledge. Last I checked, Christians do not consider the Talmud to be canonical Scripture. I am certainly aware of Numbers 12:1, but have never seen (and still do not see) any reason to interpret it in this way. Accusing people of lacking Biblical knowledge because they don’t accept a certain interpretation of Scripture is a bad habit of many Protestant fundamentalists (what you call “Bible Christians”–not a term I readily grant them). This stems from their literalism–they can’t admit that true interpretations of Scripture may be non-obvious. Catholics surely have no such constraint. You and I can surely agree that your interpretation is not obvious to all readers of Numbers 12:1!

But not abortion. They do not consider the fetus to be fully a human person until birth. So I would not rest too much on Orthodox Judaism.

Also, in spite of the particular tradition about Moses you cite, Jews do not as a general rule value celibacy. Indeed, that’s the premise of the interpretation of Num. 12:1 you’re citing: Aaron and Miriam find Moses’ behavior odd, because other prophets don’t do this. However, you’re certainly right that this interpretation is an interesting parallel to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity.

Yes. I didn’t know how long it was exactly (and still don’t–do you mean 12 hours or 12 days?).

Congratulations on your union with the Bishop of Rome!

Edwin
Click to expand...
First, to clear the air. I did NOT mean to be rude. I realized that I stated my point a bit to pithy for most people’s taste. But I’m not a creative writer and have to depend on information rather than trying to read between the lines, because most people offend me too often without realizing it. Second, I may have mistated the burning bush thing but I knew that Moses was separated from his wife. It’s been a couple of years since I read this about him anyway. Having read the bible so many times without sacred tradition, history, church fathers, spiritual writings of the saints, papal documents, moral theology, SO, I’m not reading scripture as much but pay closer attention to daily readings. I still read my scripture to fill in the blanks that I never realized were there, even though I read them many times. It just goes to show you that a solo scriptura Christian doesn’t know everything they love to act like they know. This (me) new Catholic has much to learn, but some things I feel like I have a pretty strong grasp on.

I can see clearly that a non Christian would have a very difficult time accepting the Christian faith. Rude is fundamentalist and evangeligal about it. Not even Baptists come close to the fundamental background I come from. Many people, as you’ve displayed, FEEL much better talking to a person from what you perceive as NICE. But when it comes to talking to someone from your own faith that knows that true charity is not ignoring the sins of the sinner or the lack of faith in a brother or sister in Christ. When dealing with … well anyway. I did not mean to be rude. At least accept my word for it. If it helps, I apologize, but know I didn’t mean to offend. I was being more humorous.
 
Memorare777 said:
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Click to expand...
Many Catholics don’t realize the fact that CAtholics are not required to believe non-Catholics can be saved. I tend to fall somewhat on the edge. If someone knows the truth of the Catholic Church taught by Christ, then I personally believe they will be held culpable. Exposure to the truth does not mean one understand or gets the truth within the realm of their knowledge and faith tradition. Unlike those of my previous fundamentalist faith tradition I rejected the idea that noone outside of my faith was saved because when one studies the entire scripture in spite of some of the definitive sounding scripures. When someone can say with absolute affirmation that they truly know I’ll show you someone that doesn’t understand what “FAITH” means. “For it is by Grace that you have been saved, through faith, and not by works, it is the give of God, so that no man can boast…” paraphrased from the various bibles I study. Same meaning. Faith without works is dead. But the works don’t save us. It truly is a gift of God. So Grace saves us. The works are when we join in with Christs suffering, as Paul put it. The works are not from us but opportunities set out from God for us to participate in celebration of His Holiness.

Further, John 6, clearly states some very radical ideas that was very hard for Jesus followers who turned away, except the 12. The betrayal of Judas is embedded in this denial of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. I fear the loss of souls for those who have been exposed to this knowledge, yet, because of personal pride and arrogance dismiss it so flippantly. A Buddhist not exposed to Christian doctrine has more of a chance at salvation that a Christian (Catholic especially) that has been exposed to the truth contained in the scriptures (not separated from Sacred Tradition for Catholics) and yet mocks it or rejects the obvious teaching contained within it. I’d expect to see an unknowing Ghuandi in heaven before a Catholic that rejects the truth taught to him/her. There are so many factors that is above our paygrade. We can not know for sure and therefore the Catholic Church never proclaims anyone to be cast in hell by name.
 
Dianne_Schiltz said:
Is Mahatma GAndhi going to heaven? He was Hindu. What is Catholic teaching on this?
Click to expand...
No he is in hell.
Jesus mentions quite a few times that the only way to heaven is through him.
But gandhi was good? No, noone is good but the father.
 
latin_rite said:
No he is in hell.
Jesus mentions quite a few times that the only way to heaven is through him.
But gandhi was good? No, noone is good but the father.
Click to expand...
You’re right, unfortunately. It’s sad that so many Catholics today are trying to widen the narrow gate to include non-Christians. It all has to do with new-age thinking and how everyone wants their family, friends, and “good” people in heaven. We don’t go to heaven for being “good”. We go to heaven because we trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation. I don’t know why there is so much ignorance on the matter.
 
Nobody knows if Ghandi is in hell or heaven - only God knows that fact. If he fully understood that Jesus was divine but rejected it then he will not be saved. If however, he didn`t know in his heart then he will be judged on how holy he was in reality.

John 15:22 “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin”

As long as somebody does not reject Jesus they can stll be saved. But if you knowingly reject Jesus all the good works in the world will not save you.
 
ConfusedTim said:
Nobody knows if Ghandi is in hell or heaven - only God knows that fact. If he fully understood that Jesus was divine but rejected it then he will not be saved. If however, he didn`t know in his heart then he will be judged on how holy he was in reality.

John 15:22 “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin”

As long as somebody does not reject Jesus they can stll be saved. But if you knowingly reject Jesus all the good works in the world will not save you.
Click to expand...
This makes anyone virtually able to be saved. Jesus never said, “If you don’t think I’m God, that’s okay. I’ll forgive you.” Gandhi has written about Jesus, so he had knowledge of Him. He still rejected Him, though. Thus, what would be the conclusion? It’s not that hard. Why do modern Catholics keep trying to appeal to the secular world and to non-believers? Anyone who has heard the gospel and rejected it is damned. It’s that simple. It doesn’t matter if they believed it or didn’t and then rejected it. That rarely ever happens. When someone rejects it, they don’t believe it. And Jesus said that that earns you nothing more than eternal death. Sorry, but you can’t be good and go to Heaven. That defeats the purpose of Christianity and contradicts everything Jesus said. Gandhi knew of Jesus and rejected Him and thus, doesn’t qualify for salvation.
 
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=175992

Though I am in conflict with the differing OPINIONS of Catholics on here, as well as priests, I submit to the will of God through the teachings of the Catholic Church. Dissenting from the official Church teaching in and of itself is mortally wounding and therefore if you jump on the wrong side you’re doomed by your own conviction. I tend to believe most people really do know and because of their refusal to submit to the truth they will, in my OPINION, be judged according to the fruits of their labor (willfull disbelief). But I know for a fact that many clergy will not take this stronger stand and because of this many will be lead to the eternal fire as foretold at Fatima. The best thing for those of us who are inclined to be so judgmental is to keep watch over our own sins so that we too do not fall deeper into the fiery pits of hell. Judge not lest ye be judges. My recommendation is to follow what the Pater Noster says (bolded for convenience). But I would not want to be any of those people caught outside the communion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…

Lord’s Prayer
Our Father who art in heaven,hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come.Thy will be doneon earth as it is in heaven.Give us this day our daily bread,**and forgive us our trespasses,****as we forgive those who trespass against us,**and lead us not into temptation,but deliver us from evil.But this is my preference for praying the rosary.
Pater noster, qui es in caelis:sanctificetur Nomen Tuum;adveniat Regnum Tuum;fiat voluntas Tua,sicut in caelo, et in terra.Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie;**et dimitte nobis debita nostra,****Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris;**et ne nos inducas in tentationem;sed libera nos a Malo
 
there is a man from my workplace who believes all non-Christians are going to hell according to the bible. I respond by telling him the bible also tells us not to judge, as well as love your enemy, if you want to refer to non-Christians as enemies(I don’t). Paul the Apostle even tells us he won’t judge himself, let alone his fellow man.We really don’t know exactly what happens when we get to heaven. This is the greatest mystery of life. Being a Christian, I read the bible and live my life trying to live up to the Lord’s standards so I can see HIs Glory. I will not condemn anyone, including a man like gandhi.

Love to All
 
Did Mahatma Gandhi going to heaven? This is a serious grammatical nightmare! wowzers!? Subject-verb agreement tense issues up the wazoo!:confused::eek:
 
Well as far as the catechism, doesn’t it just come down to this…

First off if you clearly must understand the Bible and Christs role in Salvation.

Second do you accept that?

Is it even a question of “if” we know who’s in heaven? We know what you have to do to get there from Scripture.

There many good poeple who passed through life. Did they all get a pass and not believe Christ was the savior?

I don’t know, you tell me?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top