TO a certain degree from the evidence i provided above Ghandhi was follower of Christ. He might not have recited the nicene creed, interpreted the meaning of the crucifixion the same way traditional christianity does and posit that Christianity is the only path to God but he clearly had an appreciation for Christ.
Yes, he did, although he thought Buddha was even more admirable in some ways.
The point I think that should be made about Ghandhi s that lets say that Ghandhi for the sake of argument never commited any sin and if he did they were nominal sins or sins that he commited in his youth.
Or more reasonably, assume that he repented of his sins and accepted God’s grace as he understood it.
Now is it fair to sentence this man for eternity to suffer in hell simply because his culture’s interpretation of who God is and his relationsip to humanity is wrong. This is ridiculous, There is no logical reason why someone should endure such a puishment simply because they dont subscribe to a 2000 year old faith that is not scientifically verifiable.
Gandhi isn’t really the best example, because unlike many non-Christians Gandhi clearly understood Christianity pretty well and encountered some Christians whose lives deeply impressed him (though not more so than holy people of other religions). A conservative Christian could make the case that Gandhi clearly had every reason to become a Christian and did not do so because he couldn’t stand the idea of Jesus being more divine than he himself was. Scientific verification isn’t really the issue. Christianity appeals to people’s moral and spiritual sense. And from my perspective as a Christian the question is: does a person reject Christianity for morally and spiritually valid reasons (which would include sincere intellectual doubt), or is a driving factor the person’s unwillingness to face the moral and spiritual demands made on them by Christ? Only God knows which of these is true of any given individual.
Remember though that you can uderstand the whole of any religion by reading books on the religion itself you have to go into the individual scriptures. I found in some parts of the Bhagvata Purana that it says to take refuge in Krishna alone. Also in some of the Kalpa Sutras Jainist scriptures it warns against follwing false doctrine. So Im sure exclusivst claims from other religions exist you just have to know where to find them. Also, In Vaishnava Hinduism particularly with the ISCON community it is believed that believers will eventually reach Krishnas 'abode" which might be interpreted as heaven.
As Pope Benedict reminds us in *Truth and Tolerance, *we have to distinguish between the question of revelation/truth and the question of salvation. The OP was asking about exclusivism
with regard to salvation. As I said in my earlier post, this is a tricky question when it comes to Eastern religions because of the belief in reincarnation. Buddhism (by your account Jainism also), which does not surprise me), and some forms of Vaishnava Hinduism are exclusivist in the sense that they see their particular teachings or savior figures as the only way to final liberation from the cycle of rebirth (and in the case of Hinduism union with God). But they can simply say that those who don’t follow the right path in this life will eventually be reborn as a Vaishnava or Buddhist or whatever, and that allows them to say that such a person’s good actions are rewarded and of genuine value in bringing them closer to a better rebirth and thus final liberation.
Hare Krishnas come from the one branch of Hinduism that does believe in hell, so I won’t vouch for what they think. But I would imagine that even they would think that a person who doesn’t trust in Krishna in this life could have a chance to be reincarnated eventually.
Still, you are right that I shouldn’t have started off by saying that only Christianity and some forms of Islam teach that they are the only way to heaven, since a number of Eastern traditions do think that for final salvation to take place you have to believe the right things or put your trust in the right savior. I responded to the OP’s post as if it were saying “every religion teaches that it is the only way to
escape hell,” but that is not what the OP said.
I would be curious to see the writings of Ghandhi insulting christianity. It might have been a momentary lapse in judgement based on his part. For the most part Christianity has been yoked with colonialism so it is understandable why someone like Ghandhi would have a distaste for Christianity.
Actually I don’t think he did. I think he was remarkably fair and generous to Christianity and went out of his way to talk about how much he respected many Christians (and, of course, Jesus Himself). The passage I had in mind primarily was from his autobiography, Part 2, chapter 22, in which he gratuitously made a disparaging comparison between Jesus and Buddha while enjoying the hospitality of Christians. That is the sort of thing that a contemporary Christian missions student would be taught *not *to do. I only think it of significance for Gandhi’s character inasmuch as it shows a certain lack of sensitivity to others and perhaps a certain degree of self-righteousness. In exactly the ways that Christians are accused of doing (often with justice), Gandhi seems to have been so sure that his values (vegetarianism, pacifism, etc.) were true and right that he had no problem trampling on the feelings of others who did not share his beliefs (in the same chapter he deliberately set out to make the son of his hosts a vegetarian, knowing that they would not approve).
Edwin
Lewis was an Anglican, but pretty traditional, and his views are very much like Catholic views on most topics.