Is Ghandi in Hell?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Leave a child isolated on a desert island and see how he turns out? An interesting experiment -- if not a bit impractical. How about a more realistic test scenario.

Aimie and I have not been blessed with children. But we have been blessed with many nieces and nephews. I remember when my niece Elizabeth was just learning to walk. Her mother had to "baby proof" the house to ensure Elizabeth's curious hands didn't get hold of something breakable or otherwise dangerous.

My sister had an extensive collection of fragile figurines on display in the living room. Elizabeth would sit on the floor staring at the table where they were exhibited. She was especially drawn to a small china doll with a red dress. One day, her mother noticed her pulling herself up the table leg, trying with all her limited resources to reach the object of her desires.

"No sweetheart," she said kindly. "That's not for you. Come play with your toys." Some children might have complained, but not Elizabeth. She immediately smiled and did as she was told. But no sooner had we turned our backs than she was once again pulling her way up that table leg.

"Hey hey hey," my sister said, quickly scooping the child into her arms. "That's not for you. Come on over here." Once again, Elizabeth obeyed. This time, however, we hardly had a chance to redirect our attention before she started making her way back to the table.

Even though my niece could not yet talk, she understood language and clearly responded to instructions. Certainly, she knew the meaning of "no". There was something else Elizabeth understood; she clearly knew what it meant to disobey.

You don't have to be a Christian to perceive the problem with disobedience. But if you do believe the Bible, you will immediately acknowledge that a child's disobedience toward his/her parents is a sin [Ephesians 6:1]. Who taught Elizabeth to disobey her mother? Certainly not me, and certainly not her mother. Did someone sit this child down before the age of one and instill in her a sense of selfish rebellion against rightful authority? Of course not. So where did my niece learn to sin? Did early exposure to Sesame Street or Barney The Dinosaur infect her with wickedness?

The Bible offers only one explanation for this obvious problem. People are born sinners, because our original parents Adam and Eve rebelled against God. Through Adam, as the head of the original family, sin was passed to all people throughout time [1 Corinthians 15:22].

As a fellow Christian, I really liked your post up until you got to the part about Children sinning...

Originally posted by chickenlover98
in our society we control the facters, not random chance.

As much as I like relying on evolutionary theory, that sounds like the most agreeable statements I've heard during this conversation. With the greatest population of humans that has ever lived on earth at one time, there is absolutely no way for evolution to refine infant to the extent that so many children born today have the same basic characteristics. It all has to do with their experience after birth.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
yes but in a childs case, you cant expect them to know right from wrong. that is to much to ask of any child below the age of 6-7.

Age 8, if you ask a Mormon 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am so sorry for you. It live in such a world, would be too much to bare.

Naw...I'm not particularly devastated that you are going to burn in hell, Shaky!

JK. Actually, it's my personal belief that God's real criteria is based more on actions, service, kindness, etc. Ghandi is just fine!

Originally posted by Devil King
In my experience, that supposed concern is really just a cover for insecurity over your own religious choices. If everyone agrees with you, how can you be wrong?

If one disagrees with everyone, how can you be wrong?

Originally posted by queeq
If one disagrees with everyone, how can you be wrong?

Because everyone disagrees with you. "Duh?" That's why you want everyone to reach a consensus on your perspective.

So consensus is a judge for truth now? Scary.

Originally posted by queeq
So consensus is a judge for truth now? Scary.

Only when applied to my original point about needing everyone else to agree with you.

Point is, you suggested that thes urroundings determine whether you are are right or wrong. As if one would have no critical way of thinking by him or herself? You suggest one is passive in critical thinking, that's a little presumptious to assume.

Originally posted by queeq
Point is, you suggested that thes urroundings determine whether you are are right or wrong. As if one would have no critical way of thinking by him or herself? You suggest one is passive in critical thinking, that's a little presumptious to assume.

not at all. But, I congratulate you on missing the point.

Let me repeat myself for you.

Most people who feel the need to preach at others are motivated by some measure of insecurity over their descision to follow christianity as their religion, typically at the expense of that religion's main focus. This insecurity is driven by the need for others to accept it as a means to validate it to themselves. "Most" doesn't imply "all" though. I've met a very few christians who yeild the right to judge up to the god they profess to be propogating.

So most is like what... 90%...95%?

But you're entire judgment here is based on your own personal experience. With all respect for your undoubtedly great life experience, and seeing how you clearly have issues with religious people, I cannot help to see there appears to be some very basic bias at the heart of such statements.

If you believe something is right and are enthousiastic about it, be it buying certain shares, Amway, the Secret, the latest David Beckham after shave, and you want to tell people about the great thing you have found, would you consider that preaching? Well, yes, I suppose it can be interpreted that way, but that kind of perception is also in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand, I agree believers can be overly pushy - even to fellow believers - , which is different than preaching.

However, and maybe I'm being naive in this, I do not believe people do it, per se, out of insecurity. One could just as well argue you antagonise to hide insecurity, but where's the proof? Just the experience of debating with you? No, I wouldn't find that valid enough to base such an assumption on.

Originally posted by Devil King
Most people who feel the need to preach at others are motivated by some measure of insecurity over their descision to follow christianity as their religion, typically at the expense of that religion's main focus. This insecurity is driven by the need for others to accept it as a means to validate it to themselves. "Most" doesn't imply "all" though. I've met a very few christians who yeild the right to judge up to the god they profess to be propogating.

Originally posted by queeq
So most is like what... 90%...95%?

But you're entire judgment here is based on your own personal experience. With all respect for your undoubtedly great life experience, and seeing how you clearly have issues with religious people, I cannot help to see there appears to be some very basic bias at the heart of such statements.

If you believe something is right and are enthousiastic about it, be it buying certain shares, Amway, the Secret, the latest David Beckham after shave, and you want to tell people about the great thing you have found, would you consider that preaching? Well, yes, I suppose it can be interpreted that way, but that kind of perception is also in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand, I agree believers can be overly pushy - even to fellow believers - , which is different than preaching.

However, and maybe I'm being naive in this, I do not believe people do it, per se, out of insecurity. One could just as well argue you antagonise to hide insecurity, but where's the proof? Just the experience of debating with you? No, I wouldn't find that valid enough to base such an assumption on.

Religious people rarely engage others who think as they do in any seriouse biblical discussion.

Of course you don't.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Your ability to discern intent is astounding. Would you care to read my palm?

Not astounding, merely a statement made from experience.

Originally posted by Devil King
Religious people rarely engage others who think as they do in any seriouse biblical discussion.

Only the religious people you know. That might be a relatively small portion of religious people all over the world.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not astounding, merely a statement made from experience.

Yes, YOUR experience.

Originally posted by queeq
Only the religious people you know. That might be a relatively small portion of religious people all over the world.

Yes, YOUR experience.

I'm not sure why a statement I made about the religious would offend you or incite such a heated response from you unless you had a perspective on the situation.

I'm not particuarly concerned with the biblical opinions of those who don't force them on me. This is why I'm not out in the streets, as are many christians, preaching at others. I don't address others about their religious beliefs, unless they approach me or present their perspective for public scrutiny on an internet forum; whether they are willing to admit their position or not.

But you do address people on how faulty their beliefs are whenyou disagree with them. That's about the same thing.

And I don't see why you first have to know who someone is, place your judgment on them and THEN listen (or not really anymore) to what they have to say. Because I see you doing just that. Maybe you should reorder that: first listen to what they have to say and respond to what they say, then when interested ask something about them and then refrain from judgment. That would be more elegant.

Originally posted by queeq
But you do address people on how faulty their beliefs are when you disagree with them. That's about the same thing.

And I don't see why you first have to know who someone is, place your judgment on them and THEN listen (or not really anymore) to what they have to say. Because I see you doing just that. Maybe you should reorder that: first listen to what they have to say and respond to what they say, then when interested ask something about them and then refrain from judgment. That would be more elegant.

But I don't seek out those who disagree with me. That's the difference. That's what makes it proslytizing. In fact, that's one of the few things I respect about you. You don't preach at others, despite your beliefs. They may become apparent at one point in a conversation, but you aren't pulling a JesusisAlive or a Ushomefree.

I'm not responsible for how others define themselves, they are; directly and honestly or otherwise.

Originally posted by Devil King
But I don't seek out those who disagree with me.

You don't like religious people very much, you don't seem to like religion very much, yet you post a lot in the Religion forum... I assume no one forces you to post here, so I would call that seeking out (at least an area) where people talk about religion and in such debates naturally profess what they believe.

Originally posted by queeq
You don't like religious people very much, you don't seem to like religion very much, yet you post a lot in the Religion forum... I assume no one forces you to post here, so I would call that seeking out (at least an area) where people talk about religion and in such debates naturally profess what they believe.

Nope, I have no problem with religion. In fact, if you spoke from an informed position, you'd know I don't hold it against anyone and consider it a personal and essential aspect to the human condition. I don't hold it against anyone until they hold their own position against others. I also assume no one forces you to post either, much less others who have "directed 3 documnetaries based entirely on a biblical perspective". It's a natural response for you, but not for those who don't subscribe to your particular position?

Originally posted by Devil King
Religious people rarely engage others who think as they do in any seriouse biblical discussion.

Of course you don't.

Not astounding, merely a statement made from experience.

Why are you always so intent on knowing someone's background first to weigh one's statement then? I just don't get that.
And you too hold your position against people no matter what... From where I'm standing, across the big pond, you seem to act a lot like the people you have problems with.

Originally posted by queeq

If you believe something is right and are enthousiastic about it, be it buying certain shares, Amway, the Secret, the latest David Beckham after shave, and you want to tell people about the great thing you have found, would you consider that preaching?

A good analogy. To stick with it, the issue I have is when you turn down the latest aftershave, and then the salesman tells you that you will forever stink if you don't buy his product and promptly attempts to splash said aftershave in your eyes and set fire to it, scarring you for all eternity.

Thats the deal with the main subject of this thread, methinks.

A good analogy back. Because it says more about how people deal with the aftershave than with the smell or quality of the aftershave itself.