@Deep Sight: I am done for now.

Although yes, there are some things I would have loved to mention; some further things that have to do with the nature of heaven and WHY salvation is necessary. On our own side, we can see it as a "reward", but what does God gain by our salvation? Answering this question may help to address the relevance of salvation to a non-Christian, if at all.

I expect your replies, in return, bro.

Cheers.

I hissed a very long hiss when i saw the topic. Salvation (according to who) of the Non-Christian? Please differentiate yourself first and dont think you are making me confused. I think you are one gnostic dude, and into some new age stuff or really read many motivational, new age, bhagavad gita, coptics and even buddhism. So Jesus can save a buddhist yes and if he still remains a buddhist after the process, will he still retain that salvation?

InesQor:

@All: Thanks for your patience.

@Deep Sight:

Having understood that you refer to an eternal salvation, I proceed.

I understand that Jesus Christ is the only portal into Heaven. But that portal is not necessarily exclusive to Christians. In fact, if some Christians are not careful, they will miss out. T[b]he same portal can decide to choose the extra people to allow inside, but Christians have a direct pass via a covenant of agreement. i.e. only Christians are assured of heaven, but some non-Christians may still manage to get in edge-ways because some of the Christians didn't make it.
[/b]
But just because there is an opportunity (like a U.S. VISA lottery) to get into heaven because some Christians who were meant to make it, missed out, does not mean that one should not accord Christ the respect he's meant to. See what happened to the anything-goes guy below.

Anyway its your belief my brother. But i don't know how some misinformed christians reading your posts will feel, they might even come to accept your posts or should i say teachings, so many more can choose to really make away with religion. You know this is how it goes, later you will say religion makes no sense. Its the doctrine i'm familiar with. You know you are spreading one belief to the other that either looks like you travelled into outerspace to get the revelation or its not understandable at all. Some christians will also follow your posts like teachings because you write voluminous posts and quotations. But i aint deceived.

@babaearly: Thanks for joining. For the record once again, I am a Christian. However I think you are too hasty to state the ones that wont enter heaven. Jesus has said no one can get in unless he says so. His say-so to me as a Christian does not negate the possibility of non-Christian entry if he so desires. But if a man does not want to gamble his eternal salvation, Christianity is the way to go. Note also that Deep Sight asked me a question and I answered, so I dont know why you are vexing.

InesQor:

However I think you are too hasty to state the ones that wont enter heaven. Jesus has said no one can get in unless he says so. His say-so to me as a Christian does not negate the possibility of non-Christian entry if he so desires. But if a man does not want to gamble his eternal salvation, Christianity is the way to go.

So you mean Jesus can allow a Taoist to enter heaven as he desires?
and do you mean a non-christian has eternal salvation but will gamble with it if he doesnt convert to christianity?

babaearly:

So you mean Jesus can allow a Taoist to enter heaven as he desires?
and do you mean a non-christian has eternal salvation but will gamble with it if he doesnt convert to christianity?

what awaits those who never heard the gospel? how will Jesus judge them?

@babaearly: Guy I hope you are not deliberately misconstruing my post. I never said everyone has eternal salvation from scratch. What I said is that

Christianity assures heaven but
other paths are a gamble that may work if they did not get the gospel but they managed to please God all the same.

If you are a Taoist who did not deliberately reject Christianity and you think you are pleasing God but you are not actually pleasing Him then you have gambled and lost because at the end of the day, no heaven for you!

My insinuations in my post, are dead simple.

More useful responses welcome, please.

Hi Inesqor.

Thanks for your time.

Might i ask what it takes to "reject Christ?"

Is it a rejection of -

1. The notion that he is God or Son of God

2. The notion that he died for our sins

OR -

Is it a rejection of -

The essential teachings of Christ as summarized in the beautitudes.

Thank you.

Might I also ask -

1. If it is possible for one who accepts christ's deity and sacrifice to simultaenously in his heart and by his actions "reject christ."

2. If it is possible for one who rejects christs's deity and sacrifice to simultaenously in his heart and by his actions "accept Christ."

Thank you.

@InesQor
Thanks for your kind words.

InesQor:

I understand that Jesus Christ is the only portal into Heaven. But that portal is not necessarily exclusive to Christians. In fact, if some Christians are not careful, they will miss out. The same portal can decide to choose the extra people to allow inside, but Christians have a direct pass via a covenant of agreement. i.e. only Christians are assured of heaven, but some non-Christians may still manage to get in edge-ways because some of the Christians didn't make it.

But just because there is an opportunity (like a U.S. VISA lottery) to get into heaven because some Christians who were meant to make it, missed out, does not mean that one should not accord Christ the respect he's meant to. See what happened to the anything-goes guy below.

If I understand you correctly, this agrees with the point I made in response to someone here, reproduced below:

MyJoe:

RWilliams:

@ vocalist

It is true that just calling ones-self a Jehovah’s Witness or any other religion for that matter will not  bring you salvation. I am sure that there are many JW's that are doing things wrong, we are all sinners, and that many people of other or no denominations are good people. However many scriptures allude to the fact that in the time of the end, god will organise a people to look after the earth after the destruction of the wicked at Armageddon as talked about in revelation.

Jesus parable about the wheat and the weeds pointed to this, that for a long time, gods followers, basically people who strive to do his will, would be mixed in amongst all religions, but it was not until the time of the end, the 'time of the harvest' that these ones would be identifiable from the false wheat or weeds and would be collected together. Surely this group would be ' united and in one line of thought' as the apostle Paul encouraged Christians to be.

You are clearly interpreting a scripture wrongly here. In fact, I am not sure where you got your interpretation from since the leadership of your religion has stopped putting it like this after doing so for over 70 years.
Here is Matthew 13:24-31, NLT:
24 Here is another story Jesus told: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. 25 But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat. 26 When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. 27 The farmer’s servants came and told him, ‘Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds!’ 28 “ ‘An enemy has done it!’ the farmer exclaimed. “ ‘Shall we pull out the weeds?’ they asked. 29 “He replied, ‘No, you’ll hurt the wheat if you do. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds and burn them and to put the wheat in the barn.’ ”

The Master would not allow his servants to collect the weeds, because "while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest." (Verses 29, 30, NWT)

When is the separation done? Let’s read verses 37-43, NLT:
37 “All right,” he said. “I, the Son of Man, am the farmer who plants the good seed. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed represents the people of the Kingdom. The weeds are the people who belong to the evil one. 39 The enemy who planted the weeds among the wheat is the Devil. The harvest is the end of the world, and the harvesters are the angels. 40 “Just as the weeds are separated out and burned, so it will be at the end of the world. 41 I, the Son of Man, will send my angels, and they will remove from my Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace and burn them. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the godly will shine like the sun in their Father’s Kingdom. Anyone who is willing to hear should listen and understand!

Clearly, it was at the "harvest" (= at the "end of the world", verse 39) that the angels--not Christ's servants or followers--would remove the "weeds" from "the kingdom" (= the world) and gather "the wheat" into Christ's "barn." (Verses 40-43, 30)
This clearly shows that the good and bad people are together – in all worldviews. God, not any self-proclaimed “true religion”, would do the separation, Himself.

Deep Sight has asked this very important question of many Christians in this forum, but I must say this is by far the best reasoned and thought-out response I have read so far. Thanks, InesQor.

But as an aside and at the risk of sounding like a contrarian, I must add that I find the level of endorsement Deep Sight has conferred on products of liberalist hagiography like Mohandas Gandhi a bit bewildering. Most people I know take it from what they hear that these (add Abraham Lincoln and Kwame Nkrumah, among others, to the list) are “great men”. There are songs, books, and Hollywood movies, all in the service of revisionism. But Deep Sight is not “most people”. If a new universe was discovered at 4am tomorrow morning, Deep Sight would give you precise details of its inner workings by 5am. That is why I find this whole Ghandi business surprising. But, of course, we may have different standards for beatification and he may know things I don’t.

no xtan has any knowledge to answer d thread cuz they just dont KNOW how can pple who llve good lives not be saved ?

blackcypha:

no xtan has  any knowledge to answer d thread cuz they just dont KNOW how can pple who llve good lives not be saved ?

@blackcypha:
Thanks for your comment. Please read the thread from the beginning. Cheers.

P.S. When you refer to living "good lives", how do you know who lived a "good life" since you are not in their minds and hearts? Only God knows who lived good lives because only God is good. Whatever deviates from HIS OWN perfection and counsel is not good.

@MyJoe: Thanks for your comment, and the valuable contribution it has brought to the thread Your post resonates with what I said earlier, although of course I have strong reason to believe that there are more pockets of wheat among Christians than in other worldviews (refer to the parable of the virgins who left to look for oil at the sound of the wrong voice). Keep it real, bro. God bless.

@Deep Sight: I answer you in the next post. Gracias.

Deep Sight:

Hi Inesqor.

Thanks for your time.

Might i ask what it takes to "reject Christ?"

Is it a rejection of -

1. The notion that he is God or Son of God

2. The notion that he died for our sins

OR -

Is it a rejection of -

The essential teachings of Christ as summarized in the beautitudes.

Thank you.

@Deep Sight:

You asked what it takes to "reject Christ". Is it a rejection of his person and divine purpose, or a rejection of a teaching he rendered about the ones who are to be called "blessed" by men (Beatitudes), you ask?

Here is an Extract on Eternal Salvation, and on accepting Christ:

Joh 6:40 For this is My Father's will and His purpose, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in and cleaves to and trusts in and relies on Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up [from the dead] at the last day. (AMP)

Joh 6:40 This is what my Father wants: that anyone who sees the Son and trusts who he is and what he does and then aligns with him will enter real life, eternal life. My part is to put them on their feet alive and whole at the completion of time." (MSG)

Deliberately accepting Christ is not only about what he did/does, but is hinged on his part in the divinity, and in his sacrifice.

Thus, deliberately rejecting Christ will involve rejecting who he is (divinity in humanity) and what he does (did): the sacrifice, and not just his teachings on the mount (Beatitudes).

To understand in context that Christ was a sacrifice for us, he likened himself to the bread (manna) that was sent from heaven to save the lives of the Israelites. They bickered, "How can this man serve himself up for us as a meal?" In retrospect we know how he served himself up as a spiritual meal to save spiritual lives: it was not a physical meal like the manna, geared to preserve physical lives.

---

And in full (PLEASE read it entirely. I quote the Message version). Note how Jesus makes a clear distinction between the things he was doing, and who he WAS. People were following him around for his good works, but he was emphasizing his divine personality and purpose. Pay particular attention to the words in red. My side-comments are in blue.

Joh 6:25 When they found him back across the sea, they said, "Rabbi, when did you get here?"
Joh 6:26 Jesus answered, "You've come looking for me not because you saw God in my actions but because I fed you, filled your stomachs--and for free.
Joh 6:27 "Don't waste your energy striving for perishable food like that. Work for the food that sticks with you, food that nourishes your lasting life, food the Son of Man provides. He and what he does are guaranteed by God the Father to last."
What food does the Son of Man provide? Read further

Joh 6:28 To that they said, "Well, what do we do then to get in on God's works?"
Joh 6:29 Jesus said, "Throw your lot in with the One that God has sent. That kind of a commitment gets you in on God's works."
Here is outlined a commitment to the One sent from God, and not just a following of, say, the Beatitudes. But what kind of commitment?

Joh 6:30 They waffled: "Why don't you give us a clue about who you are, just a hint of what's going on? When we see what's up, we'll commit ourselves. Show us what you can do.
Joh 6:31 Moses fed our ancestors with bread in the desert. It says so in the Scriptures: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
This is like wanting God to prove to them that he exists. Show us what you can do!

Joh 6:32 Jesus responded, "The real significance of that Scripture is not that Moses gave you bread from heaven but that my Father is right now offering you bread from heaven, the real bread.
Joh 6:33 The Bread of God came down out of heaven and is giving life to the world."
This Bread of God is the means by which the world's life can be preserved.

Joh 6:34 They jumped at that: "Master, give us this bread, now and forever!"
Joh 6:35 Jesus said, "I am the Bread of Life. The person who aligns with me hungers no more and thirsts no more, ever.
They wanted the real bread from heaven's source. But Jesus outlined that it's those that align with him that get that bread.

Joh 6:36 I have told you this explicitly because even though you have seen me in action, you don't really believe me.
And therein lies the problem of mankind. They keep seeing the remote actions but not the Divinity of the one doing the work

Joh 6:37 Every person the Father gives me eventually comes running to me. And once that person is with me, I hold on and don't let go.

Joh 6:38 I came down from heaven not to follow my own whim but to accomplish the will of the One who sent me.

Joh 6:39 "This, in a nutshell, is that will: that everything handed over to me by the Father be completed--not a single detail missed--and at the wrap-up of time I have everything and everyone put together, upright and whole.

Joh 6:40 This is what my Father wants: that anyone who sees the Son and [size=16pt]trusts who he is[/size] and [size=16pt]what he doe[/size]s and [size=16pt]then aligns with him[/size] will enter real life, eternal life. My part is to put them on their feet alive and whole at the completion of time."

Joh 6:41 At this, because he said, "I am the Bread that came down from heaven," the Jews started arguing over him:
Joh 6:42 "Isn't this the son of Joseph? Don't we know his father? Don't we know his mother? How can he now say, 'I came down out of heaven' and expect anyone to believe him?"
And this is the part where believing in his divinity is an essential component. The Jews didn't take it.

Joh 6:43 Jesus said, "Don't bicker among yourselves over me.

Joh 6:44 You're not in charge here. The Father who sent me is in charge. He draws people to me--that's the only way you'll ever come. Only then do I do my work, putting people together, setting them on their feet, ready for the End.

Joh 6:45 This is what the prophets meant when they wrote, 'And then they will all be personally taught by God.' Anyone who has spent any time at all listening to the Father, really listening and therefore learning, comes to me to be taught personally--to see it with his own eyes, hear it with his own ears, from me, since I have it firsthand from the Father.

Joh 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the One who has his Being alongside the Father--and you can see me.

Joh 6:47 "I'm telling you the most solemn and sober truth now: Whoever believes in me has real life, eternal life.

Joh 6:48 I am the Bread of Life.

Joh 6:49 Your ancestors ate the manna bread in the desert and died.

Now Jesus foretells the sacrifice on the cross

Joh 6:50 But now here is Bread that truly comes down out of heaven. Anyone eating this Bread will not die, ever.
Joh 6:51 I am the Bread--living Bread!--who came down out of heaven. Anyone who eats this Bread will live--and forever! The Bread that I present to the world so that it can eat and live is myself, this flesh-and-blood self."

Joh 6:52 At this, the Jews started fighting among themselves: "How can this man serve up his flesh for a meal?"
Joh 6:53 But Jesus didn't give an inch. "Only insofar as you eat and drink flesh and blood, the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, do you have life within you.

Joh 6:54 The one who brings a hearty appetite to this eating and drinking has eternal life and will be fit and ready for the Final Day.
GBAM! GBAM!! A very healthy appetite for the person and purpose of Christ's coming: the sacrifice.

Joh 6:55 My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
Joh 6:56 By eating my flesh and drinking my blood you enter into me and I into you.

Joh 6:57 In the same way that the fully alive Father sent me here and I live because of him, so the one who makes a meal of me lives because of me.
How does one make a meal of Christ? Have you ever wondered? It's in deliberate acceptance of the sacrifice. In the OT, when a sacrifice is made, a meal is made out of it as a witness that the person accepts the efficacy of the sacrifice. That's how to make a meal of Christ.

Joh 6:58 This is the Bread from heaven. Your ancestors ate bread and later died. Whoever eats this Bread will live always."

Joh 6:59 He said these things while teaching in the meeting place in Capernaum.

Joh 6:60 Many among his disciples heard this and said, "This is tough teaching, too tough to swallow."

Joh 6:61 Jesus sensed that his disciples were having a hard time with this and said, "Does this throw you completely?
Joh 6:62 What would happen if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where he came from?
If you find it hard accepting his sacrifice, you will be entirely shocked beyond repair to accept his divinity as well. His divinity implies the sacrifice because only a pure sacrifice can cleanse of sin without a recoil. For instance, one renders an impure sacrifice, and has to render ano0ther impure sacrifice to pay for rendering an impure sacrifice, etc, ad infinitum.

Joh 6:63 The Spirit can make life. Sheer muscle and willpower don't make anything happen. Every word I've spoken to you is a Spirit-word, and so it is life-making.
The Beatitude teachings involve body and soul: sheer muscle and willpower. But when the Spirit is involved, one has life definitely.

Joh 6:64 But some of you are resisting, refusing to have any part in this." (Jesus knew from the start that some weren't going to risk themselves with him. He knew also who would betray him.)

Joh 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you earlier that no one is capable of coming to me on his own. You get to me only as a gift from the Father."

Joh 6:66 After this a lot of his disciples left. They no longer wanted to be associated with him.

Joh 6:67 Then Jesus gave the Twelve their chance: "Do you also want to leave?"

Joh 6:68 Peter replied, "Master, to whom would we go? You have the words of real life, eternal life.

Joh 6:69 We've already committed ourselves, confident that you are the Holy One of God."

Joh 6:70 Jesus responded, "Haven't I handpicked you, the Twelve? Still, one of you is a devil!"

Joh 6:71 He was referring to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot. This man--one from the Twelve!--was even then getting ready to betray him.

---

---

Deep Sight:

Might I also ask -

1. If it is possible for one who accepts christ's deity and sacrifice to simultaenously in his heart and by his actions "reject christ."

2. If it is possible for one who rejects christs's deity and sacrifice to simultaenously in his heart and by his actions "accept Christ."

Thank you.

1. YES. One may accept Christ's deity and sacrifice (it's a deliberate agreement) without loving Christ. Thus (s)he has rejected Christ already, and in his/her case it's deliberate! Compare this to one who read and signs a term of agreement only to work against it. It can only be a deliberate action. These ones are like the guests that the king invited to the banquet and they refused to attend. They acknowledged him as king and they knew he honoured them to refer to them as his guests for a grand banquet, but yet they gave lame excuses. They are the Christians and others who may not get a place in heaven.

2. NO. I am assuming you refer to a deliberate rejection (after considering and understanding it) of Christ's deity and sacrifice. The passage above in John 6 shows that one cannot wilfully reject Christ's person as Son of God, and His purpose as the bread of life, and yet claim to accept Christ! Rather, such a person is like those Jews that were following him around because they wanted to fill their bellies. . . they were choosing what they wanted from Jesus' teaching and from his good works and deliberately rejecting what they didn't like. When he referred to his deity, they took a round-about turn. You can't accept Christ without accepting his deity. It's like working with a legal agreement that you LIKE after you have signed "I disagree". It's rather illegal.

Cheers.

I notice babaearly disappeared when Noetic asked the question about those who never heard the gospel of Christ. One text that we may want to consider at this time is "Shall not the judge of the whole earth do right?". People go about screaming Jesus is the only way but forget that Jesus is both a personality and context. You miss out if you know/understand the personality and deliberately "reject" it. "know" here is a word only God can define and there I agree totally with InesQor that God sees better and will do the sifting Himself.

Where the personality is not known or understood, the context come in. There have existed people who without ever hearing of Jesus fulfilled the terms He set out in the beatitudes. Peace-makers etc. Their reward is assured not because they believed in Jesus but because they fulfilled certain conditions - however, such rewards "might" be earth based and then, "maybe NOT". We do not know. But God will do right. I would like to see scriptural analysis/support for the Almighty sending a 2 day old baby to hell if he/she dies at that age.

The greatest point here IMO, remains that "Christians" have it easier being they have started the walk. But judgement starts inhouse so they also, might have it toughest.

Inesqor –

I am at odds when you speak about “having heard and understood the person of Christ and still rejecting his deity and sacrifice.”

I positively assert that there is enough reason within the Bible itself to suppose that the questions of his deity or sacrifice are totally irrelevant to salvation.

Indeed what is relevant is the disposition within the heart, and also the “deeds” of each man.

The bible supports this -

From the first letter of John chapter 2 verses 3 and 4.

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Another translation renders it thus -

3[b]We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God’s loveb is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.[/b]

Thus showing that the Christ-like life of love and brotherhood is what is required for salvation.

Furthermore there is great emphasis to be placed on this -

Acts 10:34 - 35: "Of a truth i perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. . ."

Let's not forget the full context of that verse. Cornelius was a gentile, a roman whose prayers, kindness and service to the poor went up to God in simple purity. He had no knowledge of Christian or even Jewish theology. – [I]Quote from Pastor AIO[/I]

Furthermore lets have a look at this -

Revelation 20:11-13:
The Final Judgment
11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds.

The foregoing is painfully clear that each person will be judged on the basis of their deeds.

An acknowledgement of Mr. Jesus from Nazareth is thus devastatingly beside the point.

Again have a look here -

Matthew 25:31-40:

The Final Judgment
31 “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was unclothed, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’
37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or unclothed and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
40 “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

I cannot go on.

It is vitally clear that each human spirit shall account for his own deeds, his state of heart, and this actions to his fellow man.

I cannot emphasize the point enough – “rejecting Jesus Deity or sacrifice” are items that pale into pagan insignificance beside the eternal truths cited above.

Gracias.

MyJoe:

Deep Sight has asked this very important question of many Christians in this forum, but I must say this is by far the best reasoned and thought-out response I have read so far. Thanks, InesQor.

But as an aside and at the risk of sounding like a contrarian, I must add that I find the level of endorsement Deep Sight has conferred on products of liberalist hagiography like Mohandas Gandhi a bit bewildering. Most people I know take it from what they hear that these (add Abraham Lincoln and Kwame Nkrumah, among others, to the list) are “great men”. There are songs, books, and Hollywood movies, all in the service of revisionism. But Deep Sight is not “most people”. If a new universe was discovered at 4am tomorrow morning, Deep Sight would give you precise details of its inner workings by 5am. That is why I find this whole Ghandi business surprising. But, of course, we may have different standards for beatification and he may know things I don’t.

@  Myjoe –

I strongly urge you to study the life, times and passions of Mr. Ghandi.

Here are a few of his sounbites -

“In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”  - Mahatma Gandhi

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well.”  - Mahatma Gandhi

“It is beyond my power to induce in you a belief in God. There are certain things which are self proved and certain which are not proved at all. The existence of God is like a geometrical axiom. It may be beyond our heart grasp. I shall not talk of an intellectual grasp. Intellectual attempts are more or less failures, as a rational explanation cannot give you the faith in a living God. For it is a thing beyond the grasp of reason. It transcends reason. There are numerous phenomena from which you can reason out the existence of God, but I shall not insult your intelligence by offering you a rational explanation of that type. I would have you brush aside all rational explanations and begin with a simple childlike faith in God. If I exist, God exists. With me it is a necessity of my being as it is with millions. They may not be able to talk about it, but from their life you can see that it is a part of their life. I am only asking you to restore the belief that has been undermined. In order to do so, you have to unlearn a lot of literature that dazzles your intelligence and throws you off your feet. Start with the faith which is also a token of humility and an admission that we know nothing, that we are less than atoms in this universe.” – Mahatma Ghandi

“I worship God as Truth only. I have not yet found Him, but I am seeking after Him.”  - An Autobiography (1936); also in All Men Are Brothers : Autobiographical Reflections (2005) edited by Krishna Kripalani, p. 63

“Truth alone will endure, all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time.” – Mahatma Ghandi

“We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.” – Mahatma Ghandi

When Christians like Noetic assert that Ghandi is going to hell, or Inesqor imagines that since he knew and understood Christ but never accepted Christian dogma – then he is not saved. . .

I can only utter a silent prayer that they themselves ever attain the spiritual height and development of an advanced and blessed human soul like Mahatma Ghandi.

Ants assessing an elephant.

Deep Sight:

<snip>
When Christians like Noetic assert that Ghandi is going to hell, or Inesqor imagines that since he knew and understood Christ but never accepted Christian dogma – then he is not saved. . .

I can only utter a silent prayer that they themselves ever attain the spiritual height and development of an advanced and blessed human soul like Mahatma Ghandi.

Ants assessing an elephant.

@Deep Sight: First of all, about ants assessing elephants, I only wonder, as nuclearboy too has indicated, how you are so sure of the scales. I think only God will know such references and scales because he discerns and pierces every heart. I, for one, will not say I am mightier than anyone else. I leave such claims for the WOF folk.

---

Now to your post directed at me, you failed to show me where the Bible teaches that one may DELIBERATELY REJECT Jesus' deity and sacrifice and yet gain eternal salvation. All the ones you quoted did not exclusively state this point, but infer salvation for those who did not know of the Deity and sacrifice (men like Cornelius). And since I have quoted the converse to the argument, do oblige us with this, thanks.

Posted by: Deep Sight

Inesqor –

I am at odds when you speak about “having heard and understood the person of Christ and still rejecting his deity and sacrifice.”

I positively assert that there is enough reason within the Bible itself to suppose that the questions of his deity or sacrifice are totally irrelevant to salvation.

Indeed what is relevant is the disposition within the heart, and also the “deeds” of each man.

The bible supports this -

From the first letter of John chapter 2 verses 3 and 4.

Quote
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Another translation renders it thus -

Quote
3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God’s loveb is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Thus showing that the Christ-like life of love and brotherhood is what is required for salvation.

Furthermore there is great emphasis to be placed on this -

Quote
Acts 10:34 - 35: "Of a truth i perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. . ."

Let's not forget the full context of that verse.  Cornelius was a gentile, a roman whose prayers, kindness and service to the poor went up to God in simple purity.  He had no knowledge of Christian or even Jewish theology. – Quote from Pastor AIO

Furthermore lets have a look at this -

Quote
Revelation 20:11-13:
The Final Judgment   
11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds.

The foregoing is painfully clear that each person will be judged on the basis of their deeds.

An acknowledgement of Mr. Jesus from Nazareth is thus devastatingly beside the point.

Again have a look here -

[b]Quote
Matthew 25:31-40:

The Final Judgment
   31 “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.
   34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was unclothed, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’
   37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or unclothed and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
   40 “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’[/b]

I cannot go on.

It is vitally clear that each human spirit shall account for his own deeds, his state of heart, and this actions to his fellow man.

I cannot emphasize the point enough – “rejecting Jesus Deity or sacrifice” are items that pale into pagan insignificance beside the eternal truths cited above.

Gracias.

Deep Sight, please quit frightening these people with those scriptural quotes. You are making them quake with fear and confusion. You are giving their egos some serious burning. The truth that salvation is not based on the criteria invented by the christians and for the christians will be too unbearable for a lot of christians here.

It is an anguish that a lot of them cannot bear, so their egos will keep on fighting to deny this all too obvious fact. It is horrendously painful to not be the only special creations of the one true creator in the whole universe through their precious beliefs as they have been so falsely taught.

Our deeds are the only criteria for  salvation? Bugger me, that is way too much for these folks to swallow! It is just way too painful for these folks to bear! Why? Because these folks were brought up and indoctrinated with the doctrines of henotheistic religions like christianity, or judaism and islam, which were all built on the foundations of the FALSE SELF, the EGO! These religions are ego driven and that is why they are termed, HENOTHEISTIC.

As long as these folks continue to be totally controlled by the false self, the ego, they will continue to see the doctrines in which they grew as the only criteria for salvation. End of story. The only way they can see things otherwise, is to first of all KILL the ego in them, or atleast loosen it's grip to a large extent so that it no longer controls their thoughts, hence their lives through their religious outlook. Quite a big number of christians have done this already (Gabry is a shining example of such christians) and the numbers are growing steadily day by day, so it is obviously not impossible.

@jagunlabi: Thanks for your post, but I must say you are really entitled to your opinions. Only time will tell who was right.

And for the record, Gabry is as much Christian as she is Pagan, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic and she even found some resonance with Satanism; all in a frenzied smorgasbord of theistic worldviews. But I can see that you chose to say that she is Christian because that suits your post. You have lied very well, but just quit your duplicity already.

InesQor:

@jagunlabi: Thanks for your post, but I must say you are really entitled to your opinions. Only time will tell who was right.

And for the record, Gabry is as much Christian as she is Pagan, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic and she even found some resonance with Satanism; all in a frenzied smorgasbord of theistic worldviews. But I can see that you chose to say that she is Christian because that suits your post. You have lied very well, but just quit your duplicity already.

Inesqor, why don't you get out of the ego if only for a few minutes and consider this; don't you think that all those labels that you have just mentioned, are nothing but worldly and carnal things? Did jesus not tell you to leave all the worldly things behind and follow his teachings? You ego originated mind forms, your thoughts, your ideologies that let you make those worldly labels like christians, muslims, pagans, buddhists, and so on, are the worldly things Jesus was refering to.

When you do manage, for a few minutes, to step out of the ego and look at your fellow human being, what you will see is that human being without any of those labels. You will see past those labels and into that human being and discover his/her humanity ans te oneness that you share with that human being, and it is always a beautiful thing to experience. That is what your Jesus asked you to do, and that was what Gabry did and is still doing.

So, can you do it, inesqor? Can you step out of your ego for just a few minutes? Do you have the courage?

You're right, though, time will tell who is right. but for the time being, let us keep on bashing each other on the head with our own ideologies. It is fun.

I don't think the point being made here is getting across. "Christian" is today a term that refers, to be born in any minimally Jesus "professing" household or to calling oneself such. But the context for the purposes of this thread is totally different. I'm sure most of us read Davidylan saying "being a CE pastor and being Christian are mutually exclusive" - that would suggest that even within Christianity, we differentiate between "claims" and "reality". Here, we are talking about reality, not "professing".

The point thus, here is this - A Christian (real) WILL make Heaven being totally in tune with Christ's Love and comandments! He/She lives "the life" as a matter of "his new nature"! A professing "christian, on the other hand, will not neccesarily achieve same. Just as "Christians" have these "categories", Non-Christians fall into categories also - you have those who never heard the Gospel (spelt LOVE and its workings in the man) and you have those who heard and rejected (take this as rejection of Christ's personality and divinity which is synonymous with His teachings). You can almost not seperate the person from His works and thus REJECTING HIM IS USUALLY TANTAMOUNT TO REJECTING HIS TEACHINGS".

Capische?

jagunlabi:

Inesqor, why don't you get out of the ego if only for a few minutes and consider this; don't you think that all those labels that you have just mentioned, are nothing but worldly and carnal things? Did jesus not tell you to leave all the worldly things behind and follow his teachings? You ego originated mind forms, your thoughts, your ideologies that let you make those worldly labels like christians, muslims, pagans, buddhists, and so on, are the worldly things Jesus was refering to.

When you do manage, for a few minutes, to step out of the ego and look at your fellow human being, what you will see is that human being without any of those labels. You will see past those labels and into that human being and discover his/her humanity ans te oneness that you share with that human being, and it is always a beautiful thing to experience. That is what your Jesus asked you to do, and that was what Gabry did and is still doing.

So, can you do it, inesqor? Can you step out of your ego for just a few minutes? Do you have the courage?

You're right, though, time will tell who is right. but for the time being, let us keep on bashing each other on the head with our own ideologies. It is fun.

@jagunlabi: Your post above makes no sense, I am sorry. You were the same one who labelled some worldviews as henotheistic, and then labelled Gabry a Christian. Now you return to say labels are not to be rendered. Your point has been pre-nulled by your same self.

Any objective reader who sees this thread knows that I am not showing any egoistic tendencies, but I have in fact done quite the opposite on this thread, enough to brand me a heretic. Deep Sight asked me what the Biblical views are on the (possible) salvation of non-Christians and I have quoted Jesus' teachings to explain them, which necessarily involves accepting his person (Deity) and his purpose (the sacrifice); except in cases of innocence and/or ignorance in which case God will take a fair judgment of the heart. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Christianity. Please get off my back.

---

@Deep Sight: One more thing. If a man steps into his ill girlfriend's house to comfort her and he hears the sound of running water (the water was left open in the bathroom) and he goes over to close the tap, is it sensible for an observer to say that coming to shut off the water was his purpose of visiting?

Jesus was called the MESSIAH. Jesus came to die as a sacrifice, and he made this plain to his disciples, but he killed many birds with a stone by teaching the way of the kingdom, cleaning up human mess in the name of diseases, etc etc. And that's why when he resurrected he returned to heaven. Mission accomplished. He didn't continue teaching the Beatitudes and healing the sick, like a version of Arnold Schwarzenegger that refused to die in a commando movie.

InesQor:

@jagunlabi: Your post above makes no sense, I am sorry. You were the same one who labelled some worldviews as henotheistic, and then labelled Gabry a Christian. Now you return to say labels are not to be rendered. Your point has been pre-nulled by your same self.

Any objective reader who sees this thread knows that I am not showing any egoistic tendencies, but I have in fact done quite the opposite on this thread, enough to brand me a heretic. Deep Sight asked me what the Biblical views are on the (possible) salvation of non-Christians and I have quoted Jesus' teachings to explain them, which necessarily involves accepting his person (Deity) and his purpose (the sacrifice); except in cases of innocence and/or ignorance in which case God will take a fair judgment of the heart. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Christianity. Please get off my back.

Well, inesqor, when you are conversing with egos, you get infected by egoism, and that is the reason why i use labels in this thread as well as other threads, so bear with me. To be out of the ego, i have to avoid interracting with folks totally embedded in it, lfolks like you, for instance. But, unfortunately, in forums like this, that cannot be achieved.

Labelling is the language of the egoic minds and one slips into it again and again. Creating and wallowing in the illusory "US vs THEM" paradigm is the game of the EGO. But the difference is that some people can actually rid themselves of the ego when doing real life interractions with their fellow human beings and i will be correct to say that most christians can't manage that because they are mindcontrolled by the EGO strongly sustained by the dogma of their faith. You can never see your fellow human being as he/she truly is, inesqor, except as a label, THE OTHER, THE UNBELIEVER. Labels will always come first when you interract with people who are not of your religious beliefs, no matter what.

And that is the real big point here, is it not? I don't care of which faith a person is, or which colour, or which tribe, and so on. I always accept people the way they are instead of looking to turn them into myself through the imposition of my ideologies. To be out of control of the ego is to see through all the labels the ego has created in our minds, to get out of prejudicial mental boxes and see the much bigger picture. How many christians can accept other folks for who and what they are, instead of trying to impose themselves on them? Precious few and it seems like Gabry is one of those few.

Now you said that any objective reader who is following this thread will see that you are not showing egoistic tendencies in your views. How wrong you are, especially when you are making your views from a rigid ideological standpoint which is very very christian in nature.

Your biggest egoic statement in this thread is that which you stated that non- christians will only make heaven in place of christians who did not make it! You also stated that all christians have already automatically booked their tickets to heaven, except those who lose their "reserved spots" through they losing their faiths or whatever. That only then would non- christians have a chance of getting into heaven as substitutes or place fillers of some sort. Now how egotistical is that for statements? It doesn't get more egotistical than that, inesqor. In fact you posts so far has been overflowing with so much ego that they got me shaking my head in disgust.

Now, i can understand that you are definitely not always aware of the ego working in you because that is always the case when one is possessed and controlled by the ego. YOU WON'T KNOW. That is the reason for your denial. But i can see it, i can feel it, and any objective reader following this thread would have spotted it instantly after reading just a few lines of your very first contribution. As long as you keep debating from the christian pov, you  are seeking specialness and can only mean that you are in the grip of the ego, and anything you utter will always come from the ego, always.

What does one call people who think that they own heaven? EGOTISTICAL.

What does one call those who think that they own God? EGOSTISTICAL.

What does one call those who think that they are the only children of God on earth? EGOTISTICAL.

What does one call those who think that salvation is their birthright, but not the birthright of others like them until the others join their ways of thinking? EGOTISTICAL.

What is the cause of intolerance? THE EGO

What is the cause of prejudice? THE EGO

What is the cause of discrimination of all kinds? THE EGO

What is the cause of fanaticism of any kind? THE EGO

The EGO is the root of all evil.

@jagunlabi: LMAO you are a joker. 

I anticipated this, and this was WHY I asked at the beginning: WHICH salvation? WHICH eternal rescue? WHICH heaven?

AND YOU, jagunlabi, said it was the Christian take. Deep Sight came along and agreed. Now you guys make me believe you didn't really want answers because I have provided the answers and you are raising crappy side-talk that don't involve the Christian perspective.

I thought we were talking about the CHRISTIAN perspectives on Heaven, so how can you expect me to debate from another perspective?

I am here discussing the heaven that Jesus described to us. Feel free to believe and imagine that there are other heavens.

If you need a perspective that covers all worldviews, start another thread and discuss with someone else, maybe Gabry or benodic. And you too can head the discourse, if you are not too cowardly    .

I knew things would eventually tow this path, and it's why I clarified on salvation before I started.

Non-Christians like MyJoe have attended the thread, understood and moved on. You and Deep Sight are still here arguing. So why did you ask for a Christian perspective?

If you believe it is an ego-centric concept for us to take Jesus by His words concerning HIS heaven, then take Davidylan's advice and go to Shangri-La or Xanadu or Nirvana or some other, any other, heaven of your choosing. For the heaven that Christ described; this thread is discussing.

Cheers.

^^^ Okay o, i don shut up, inesqor.

Deep Sight:

@  Myjoe –

I strongly urge you to study the life, times and passions of Mr. Ghandi.

It is not conceivable that I would offer an opinion, least of all, one contrary to that held by almost everyone, on a subject I am not acquainted with.

Deep Sight:
Here are a few of his sounbites -

“In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”  - Mahatma Gandhi

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well.”  - Mahatma Gandhi

“It is beyond my power to induce in you a belief in God. There are certain things which are self proved and certain which are not proved at all. The existence of God is like a geometrical axiom. It may be beyond our heart grasp. I shall not talk of an intellectual grasp. Intellectual attempts are more or less failures, as a rational explanation cannot give you the faith in a living God. For it is a thing beyond the grasp of reason. It transcends reason. There are numerous phenomena from which you can reason out the existence of God, but I shall not insult your intelligence by offering you a rational explanation of that type. I would have you brush aside all rational explanations and begin with a simple childlike faith in God. If I exist, God exists. With me it is a necessity of my being as it is with millions. They may not be able to talk about it, but from their life you can see that it is a part of their life. I am only asking you to restore the belief that has been undermined. In order to do so, you have to unlearn a lot of literature that dazzles your intelligence and throws you off your feet. Start with the faith which is also a token of humility and an admission that we know nothing, that we are less than atoms in this universe.” – Mahatma Ghandi

“I worship God as Truth only. I have not yet found Him, but I am seeking after Him.”  - An Autobiography (1936); also in All Men Are Brothers : Autobiographical Reflections (2005) edited by Krishna Kripalani, p. 63

“Truth alone will endure, all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time.” – Mahatma Ghandi

“We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.” – Mahatma Ghandi

I am familiar with the sentiments expressed in the quotes above, as they are embodied in the material you encounter on being introduced to Yoga. You can hardly do a thorough study of Eastern thought without being full of stuff like the above. The man who uses the sobriquet of Imhotep around here has studied them and you can see the result.

Deep Sight:
When Christians like Noetic assert that Ghandi is going to hell, or Inesqor imagines that since he knew and understood Christ but never accepted Christian dogma – then he is not saved. . .

I can only utter a silent prayer that they themselves ever attain the spiritual height and development of an advanced and blessed human soul like Mahatma Ghandi.

Ants assessing an elephant.

I do not accept the above assessment of the life, times and passions of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the one nicknamed “the Mahatma” or Great Soul. It is misguided. Your Gandhi appears to be the Gandhi of movies and story books, including my primary four reader. That Gandhi is a myth. If Gandhi subscribed to the principles of humanism, he did not live it. Indianism, yes. You see, history is a complicated subject. When we are trying to find out the true character of someone, we can only rely on his own words and what others observed him do. For example, you can argue that Ahmadu Bello was sectional in his outlook. But we know that is a partial assessment. Consider first his words:

“I prefer to share the little I have with those who have none at all. . . I can’t even hoard things for my children as many people do. For one thing, how do I know that my children, when I die, will not spend all the wealth I have thus amassed through tight-fistedness within twenty-four hours!”

And then his action
Once after buying some items at a supermarket, he collided with some boys loitering outside the shop. He asked them why they were there, at which they told him they did not have money. He told them to go into the shop and pick one item each. One of his aides asked the boys their names. Bello silenced him and remarked that he was asking for their names in order to have them reveal their tribal origins, which was not an issue at all.

There is no incident like the above in the life of Gandhi, so one wonders at the general “delusion” about Gandhi. Ahmadu Bello’s perceived tribal politics can be explained in terms of his fighting for his people in a system where other leaders were doing the same and his people would have lost out he not taken that approach. Gandhi’s racism cannot be similarly extenuated.

Yes, Mr Gandhi was a racist. Now, that is not a big thing when you are assessing someone in 1900 since everyone in those days, from the Pope to the slave was racist. Even today, most of us are still raised with some prejudice or the other. Only those who attain “spiritual [or intellectual] height and development” dump them soon enough. That would make Gandhi an average guy. But Gandhi was a racist of the worst kind, by which I mean a particularly hateful one. He hated blacks. And more, he instilled his racist views on his fellow Indians in South Africa. He was not the icon of peace, pacifism, tolerance and brotherly love that he is now presented to be. I will try not to zoom in on his other failings and sexual perversions, including paedophilia. After all, it is perfectly normal to assess someone like Prophet Mohammed without letting his marriage to a minor get in the way. But it is my view that these things should not be forgotten entirely lest we canonize People Like Us or outright knaves.

Since you did not make any reference to The Other Gandhi in your write-up above, I can only assume that either you are not acquainted with it or you are but it does not matter to you. I am acquainted with it and it does matter to me. The other Gandhi, the bad one, is completely blanked out by the hagiographers who have decorated the man in such garbs that what we now have is a designer Gandhi, one that is a blend of Guatama Budha, Jesus and Vishnu. And they have been so successful that I have been told that even Martin Luther King, Jr, did not know about the racist views of Gandhi. The truth, however, is much different. In fact, it can be argued that long before the likes of Hendrik Verwoerd came on the scene, Gandhi was among the earliest promoters of apartheid in South Africa.

I am in no position to write an essay right now, besides, you are much too intelligent to be spoon-fed on anything, so I will just reproduce a few of his quotes like you did.

[b]“The Raw Kaffir” – Gandhi Describing Blacks[/b]

"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and unclothedness."

"Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races, resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much?"
"Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."

Gandhi Complained about British use of ‘Kaffir Police’

"Poor people were, under the registration effected by Lord Milner's advice, dragged at four o'clock on a cold winter's morning -from their beds in Johannesburg, Heidelberg and Potchefstroom, and marched to the police station, or Asiatic Offices, as the case might be. It is they who under the Ordinance would be hustled by the Kaffir Police at every turn, and not the better-class Indians."

"At present, only the Permit Secretary is authorized to inspect a permit. Under the new Act, every Kaffir police constable can do so. Under the new Act, a Kaffir police constable can ask [an Asiatic] for particulars of name and identity, and, if not satisfied, can take him to the police station."

Was Gandhi really a pacifist?
"However, at about 12 o'clock we finished the day's journey, with no Kaffirs to fight."

Gandhi and Race
"As you were good enough to show very great sympathy with the cause of British Indians in the Transvaal, may I suggest your using your influence with the Boer leaders in the Transvaal? I feel certain that they did not share the same prejudice against British Indians as against the Kaffir races but as the prejudice against Kaffir races in a strong form was in existence in the Transvaal at the time when the British Indians immigrated there, the latter were immediately lumped together with the Kaffir races and described under the generic term "Coloured people". Gradually the Boer mind was habituated to this qualification and it refused to recognize the evident and sharp distinctions that undoubtedly exist between British Indians and the Kaffir races in South Africa."

"The bye-law has its origin in the alleged or real, impudent and, in some cases, indecent behaviour of the Kaffirs. But, whatever the charges are against the British Indians, no one has ever whispered that the Indians behave otherwise than as decent men. But, as it is the wont in this part of the world, they have been dragged down with the Kaffir without the slightest justification."
"It seems that the petition is being widely circulated, and signatures are being taken of all colored people in the three colonies named. The petition is non-Indian in character, although British Indians, being colored people, are very largely affected by it. We consider that it was a wise policy on the part of the British Indians throughout South Africa, to have kept themselves apart and distinct from the other colored communities in this country."

Gandhi was Aware of the Abusive Nature of his Words, including “Kaffir”

"And finally, about Mr. Douglas who, as I have stated above, has tendered his resignation. The gentleman has been simply overhasty. He took offence at the Maulana Saheb's use of the word kaffir for a Christian. I can understand his resentment. It would have been better if the word kaffir were not used." (21)


Gandhi on The Famous Train Incident when he was arrested on a coach reserved for whites

"You say that the magistrate's decision is unsatisfactory because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram, and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the magistrate's decision is quite different. The Court declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by tram. And according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court's decision, only clean Indians or colored people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams."
Note that “clean Indians” here refers to Indians of the higher castes.

Gandhi Supported Segregation

"Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all Kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen."

Gandhi’s Support for ‘Purity of Race’

"The petition dwells upon `the co-mingling of the colored and white races'. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type."

The above quotes are mostly picked from this website. I suggest you read everything. It has more Gandhi "sound bites" with all the references.

Let me place a caveat to anyone reading the above. Today, when we assess people like Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Thomas Jefferson and even Josef Stalin, historians warn us that we should not assess people of the past with standards of today. I share this view. There were very very few people in 1900 who did not have racist views. The British middle and upper classes looked down upon their Irish workers in those days. Even today people within African countries still look down upon people of other tribes as inferior. Gandhi was born a caste Hindu and Hindus are raised to see the world through the prism of stratification. An average Hindu followed this to the letter and was arrogant in asserting his caste. That is what Gandhi was in this respect – an average Hindu. Not a tad above average. Gandhi’s grandson says in defence of him that Gandhi lived in a time when racism was the norm, therefore he was normal. That is correct.

But does the fact it was 1900 really excuse Gandhi’s brand of racism? No. Nada. Nope. While it is true that everyone, including blacks themselves, considered black people to be inferior in those days, not everyone was contemptuous of them. The idea of “negro” inferiority was only brought into Western thought to justify the slave trade. By the 1700s it was the orthodoxy at universities no thanks to the efforts of philosophers like David Hume. But long before 1900 there were already intellectuals, movements and religious leaders, dismissed by The Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1884, as “ignorant philanthropists”, who advocated the fundamental equality of the races. There were many thinkers who asserted that if blacks were given the same opportunity as whites, they would “improve”. One would have expected a “sage” like Gandhi to be progressive, rather than primitively reactionary.

Has anyone taken note of the fact that Gandhi had no problem with violence when he joined the British in their war against the Zulus in South Africa but turned around to adopt “non-violence” in fighting the same British and the Boers for Indians knowing the Indians could not hope to win on the battlefield? A policy he later adopted in the Raj, again conveniently, when he came up against the well-armed British, thus preventing himself and his people from being slaughtered as much as the Zulu in South Africa and the Kikuyu (Mau Mau) in Kenya.

While I am here presenting The Other Gandhi, there should be no mistake about the fact that I recognise his contributions, even though outright lies have been told in hyping them out of proportion. I even alluded to his words here.  I particularly admire his work among the impoverished masses and how he brought his immense mental capabilities to solve communal problems. He was courageous in denouncing the idea of the untouchables, but even in that regard, he did not do enough in my opinion. The Untouchables were created by the caste system. So how tenable, then, was his position of rejecting untouchability while endorsing the caste system? Why did he not take the step, like the Bramo-Samaj and the Arya-Samaj movements, of rejecting the caste system?  And can anyone explain why the man you people now claim is a saint counseled Jews to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force”, by which he meant mass suicide, but advised the government of his protege Jawaharlal Nehru to annex Kashmir by armed forced? And has anyone ever asked himself why the leaders of Independent India who claimed to follow his principle of Satyagraha (non-violence) wasted no time pursing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction? Anyway, the idea that Gandhi won Indian freedom through non-violence is misguided. The British gave up the Raj because of the heat piped their way by World War II.

I do not accept the criteria of entering heaven or hell preached by noetic16 and InesQor. I have no clue whether Gandhi is going to heaven or not. All I am really saying is that if you place the Good Gandhi beside the Bad Gandhi, you would come out, not with a Saint Gandhi, but an average guy. I do not expect those I consider heroes to be perfect. I think highly of Karol Wojtyła (Pope John Paul II) because I consider the good things he did to be disproportionately more than his mistakes, like his unreasonable opposition to contraception. Same goes for Obafemi Awolowo. And one can write a whole book on the mistakes of Nelson Mandela that you don’t read in the media, but the sum of those mistakes would not be enough to dent his image. Sticking to the truth in these matters is the least we owe the victims of apartheid, colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism. Gandhi had the same attitude as the average caste Hindu of his day. The popular Gandhi is a product of hagiography and the manipulation of history, and does not qualify for the example you make of him. For his time, maybe he wasn’t a bad guy. But there is no way I can place him on the same pedestal as famous people of such moral stature as Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jnr, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Bertrand Russell, Nelson Mandela, Pope John Paul II, Julius Nyerere and others. (Seems the Nobel Peace Prize Committee shared my views, hence they never once nominated Gandhi, the “apostle of peace”.) These people are far from perfect, but I would nominate the worst of them for canonization a thousand years before Mr Gandhi. But, like I did say earlier, perhaps I am still missing something Deep Sight knows. I am talking of something concrete beyond beautiful expressions learnt from the Bhagavad Gita and the other Vedic scriptures. Maybe you can show an example, just one, where the man popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi lifted a finger to bring help to a human being who was not Indian. Or maybe anyone can counter the report that in the many pictures of his 21 years of living in South Africa there is not a single one with a black person within the distance. Some of his defenders have claimed that after making those remarks in South Africa, he got more enlightened. I have not seen evidence that he lost some of his deep-seated racism. Maybe someone here has.

Gandhi is not the first person to get this sort of treatment from the riggers of history. Everyone knows Abraham Lincoln liberated the slaves, but how many know his strongly-held racist views? Nkrumah is today the great pan-Africanist and liberator from the white man’s yoke, full stop. So not many know that beyond his Pan-Africanist posturing and socialist shenanigans, he was just another cynical African tyrant, not in the same league with Idi Amin, Mobutu or Mengistu, but clearly with the same primitive mindset and approach as characters like Laurent Gbagbo and Yahya Jameh. Actually, I think the historical figure he resembled the most was Catherine the Great of Russia. Not the reform-minded young queen, but the mean old empress of the later years. Mention John D. Rockefeller, and we all think of a kindly old philanthropist. I have not come across a single encyclopedia that tells us he was a vile kind of capitalist who came from the bottom of hell with the sole purpose of dispossessing people of what was theirs. There are other examples. If feelers I am getting are right, they have already started beatifying Jesse Helmes, in fact, they started the day he announced his retirement from the US Senate. Sometimes there is an orchestrated effort – like the case of John D Rockefeller whose sons and grandsons spent hundreds of millions laundering the Rockefeller name. Sometimes the dark side of someone just never came to light – like the case of William Clinton, along with his wife, easily one of the amoral political couples around. In some cases, such as Cecil Rhodes, it appears people simply forget. Characters like George Bush and Sylvio Berlusconi don’t even have to try hard. Conversely, there are heroes whom modern liberalism has denigrated to villains. I guess the world is like that.

WOW! MyJoe thanks and thanks again! The two posts above are absolutely enlightening! I never knew of "The Other Gandhi" and that, for one reason is why I keep saying what I have been telling Deep Sight and others:

Only God sees the heart, the mind, the soul of any man. Only God is the fair judge who does right: whether you are Christian or you are not. One size does not fit all.

C'est bon.

MyJoe:

It is not conceivable that I would offer an opinion, least of all, one contrary to that held by almost everyone, on a subject I am not acquainted with.

Ok.

I do not accept the above assessment of the life, times and passions of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the one nicknamed “the Mahatma” or Great Soul. It is misguided. Your Gandhi appears to be the Gandhi of movies and story books, including my primary four reader. That Gandhi is a myth. If Gandhi subscribed to the principles of humanism, he did not live it. Indianism, yes. You see, history is a complicated subject. When we are trying to find out the true character of someone, we can only rely on his own words and what others observed him do.

This is an extreme assertion. That he did not demonstrate his humanism? Can we honesty assert that in all fairness?

For example, you can argue that Ahmadu Bello was sectional in his outlook. But we know that is a partial assessment. Consider first his words:

“I prefer to share the little I have with those who have none at all. . . I can’t even hoard things for my children as many people do. For one thing, how do I know that my children, when I die, will not spend all the wealth I have thus amassed through tight-fistedness within twenty-four hours!”

And then his action
Once after buying some items at a supermarket, he collided with some boys loitering outside the shop. He asked them why they were there, at which they told him they did not have money. He told them to go into the shop and pick one item each. One of his aides asked the boys their names. Bello silenced him and remarked that he was asking for their names in order to have them reveal their tribal origins, which was not an issue at all.

There is no incident like the above in the life of Gandhi, so one wonders at the general “delusion” about Gandhi. Ahmadu Bello’s perceived tribal politics can be explained in terms of his fighting for his people in a system where other leaders were doing the same and his people would have lost out he not taken that approach. Gandhi’s racism cannot be similarly extenuated.

Haba Myjoe, Myjoe, Myjoe!

What sort of reasoning is this? ? ?

That you have no record of Ghandi buying sweets for young boys and denouncing his tribalistic aides as Ahmadu Bello did, suddenly translates into the general ideas about Ghandi being “delusions?”

Haba.


Before proceeding, let us note carefully the origin of the word which is littered throughout your quotes – Kaffir.

I source Wikipedia –

[I]“The word kaffir, sometimes spelled kaffer or kafir, is an offensive term for a black person, most common in South Africa and other African countries. Generally considered a racial or ethnic slur in modern usage, it was previously a neutral term for black southern African people.[/i]

Now at the very outset the foregoing should make it clear that the very use of that word does not necessarily connote a racial denigration – but was in many ways a term of general description used in a neutral sense.

Yes, Mr Gandhi was a racist. . . . But Gandhi was a racist of the worst kind, by which I mean a particularly hateful one. He hated blacks.

I fear that this is at best, an overstatement and at worst, quite incorrect and misleading.

I have reviewed the quotes you presented to me and also read up on some of these issues.

I think to be fair to him – just as you have yourself noted – it is important to carfully contextualize the period of time and the social issues he was addressing.

From all that I have read I think that for the most part Ghandi’s references to Kaffirs in derogatory terms were socialy apt descriptions and not racial denigrations.

Socially speaking I may validly describe the state of an extremely poor segment of a given society. In a state of extreme poverty, it is correct to state that people may be very dirty, uncivilized and may even behave like animals.

Such was the derelict state of the generality of the Kaffirs that Ghandi referred to and to my mind the mere fact that he aptly described them as such does not automatically mean that he was denigrating the black race. Rather I think he was correctly describing the state in which they were at the time – and there can be nothing wrong with this.

And in support of this perspective let us look at some of his comments again –

“In Gandhi's opinion, the Draft Ordinance of 1906 brought the status of Indians below the level of Natives. He therefore urged Indians to resist the Ordinance along the lines of satyagraha by taking the example of "Kaffirs". In his words, "Even the half-castes and kaffirs, who are less advanced than we, have resisted the government. The pass law applies to them as well, but they do not take out passes."[24]

Now note the words – “Even the half-castes and kaffirs, who are less advanced than we have resisted the government”

I think that the statement quoted above is one that places things in careful context. He is clearly speaking about the state of advancement of each racial grouping. Remember as you have yourself pointed out that this is a period of history and a place where the society was highly fractionalized along ethnic, racial and cultural lines and each group was desperately struggling for relevance and survival.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in the above statement – and it shows clearly that Gandhi was referring to the state of advancement of each group which cannot be denied.

In today’s world, the white race is far more advanced than the black race and indeed almost every other race.

Does stating this fact make me racist?

Are you racist if you refer to the “less advanced black world?”

If in today’s world, that would not be considered rascist, then I think it is absolutely unfair to categorize Gandhi’s comments as rascist simply because he gave apt and frank assessments of the level of development of each racial grouping.

Now please do not misunderstand me – I am NOT suggesting that there were not in fact clear undertones of prejudice in some of the things that he said BUT I CONTEND AS FOLLOWS –

1. As you yourself have noted, Gandhi was only human. All great men are only human. Thus they all surfer from failings of character just as much as everyone else does.

2. The society of that time was highly divided, sectionalized along ethnic, cultural and racial lines and each grouping was struggling to define itself and its rights in society. Gandhi was doubtless in his younger years influenced by these tensions.

3. HOWEVER IT IS MOST INSTRUCTIVE TO NOTE that as he grew older and his experience within society improved, he matured into a well-rounded thinker devoid of prejudice. This development of his thinking and perceptions is what I wish to emphasize – to show you that the hot-blooded Mohandas Gandhi GREW AND CHANGED INTO A BROAD-MINDED ACTIVIST WITH HUMANISM AS HIS CENTRAL WORLDVIEW.

Point 3 above is what I will anchor my submissions on.

Have a look at this quote, also from Wikipedia –


“Two professors of history who specialize in South Africa, Surendra Bhana and Goolam Vahed, examined this controversy in their text, The Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South Africa, 1893–1914. (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005). They focus in Chapter 1, "Gandhi, Africans and Indians in Colonial Natal" on the relationship between the African and Indian communities under "White rule" and policies which enforced segregation (and, they argue, inevitable conflict between these communities). Of this relationship they state that, "the young Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions prevalent in the 1890s."[18] At the same time, they state, "Gandhi's experiences in jail seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight, the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause. His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans generally."[19]

Former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela is a follower of Gandhi,[20] despite efforts in 2003 on the part of Gandhi's critics to prevent the unveiling of a statue of Gandhi in Johannesburg.[17] [/i]

Please note the highlighted portions and I firmly believe that these put the discussion in context because you will note that –

1. The YOUNG Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions. Note the emphasis on the word “young.” As we said he is not perfect and he grew out of those influences as you will note that ALL of the supposed racist remarks were made in his relative youth, and that as he grew and refined himself, he removed himself from that mentality which evinces a clear improvement, development and laudable change in his mindset. The Old Mohanda Ghandi did not espouse such views. So my friend, we are all allowed to learn from our misguided past and refine our views as we grow older.

2. Note that the professors write that “Gandhi's experiences in jail seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight, the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause.”

3. Note particularly that it is written that –“His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans generally” This is a crucial point as it underscores what I earlier said  - to wit – that he aptly described poor people as being dirty or behaving like animals – he thus attacked a state of backwardness and NOT a race. There is a huge difference.

4. Most telling, is the fact that the champion of black rights, the great Madiba himself –Nelson Mandela – IS A FOLLWER OF GANDHI TILL THIS DAY! ! ! ! !

What does point No. 4 above suggest?

It suggests very clearly as I said that Ghandi’s remarks were directed at  state of backwardness and NOT a race. It also shows that Mandela is able to tell the difference – unless you are willing to suggest that Mandela – a lawyer and student of history himself – would condone rascism against black people. You know that that is as unlikely as it is absurd.

Gandhi’s comments this ought to be taken in careful context.

Now I have further evidence to suggest as I said that although he was influenced by segregationist ideas when young, he grew out of this mentality.

In fact, the man widely known for his pacifist and non-violent stance once openly advocated war –

Role in Zulu War of 1906
Main article: Bambatha Rebellion
In 1906, after the British introduced a new poll-tax, Zulus in South Africa killed two British officers. In response, the British declared a war against the Zulus. Gandhi actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship. The British, however, refused to commission Indians as army officers. Nonetheless, they accepted Gandhi's offer to let a detachment of Indians volunteer as a stretcher bearer corps to treat wounded British soldiers. This corps was commanded by Gandhi. On 21 July 1906, Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion: "The corps had been formed at the instance of the Natal Government by way of experiment, in connection with the operations against the Natives consists of twenty three Indians".[22] Gandhi urged the Indian population in South Africa to join the war through his columns in Indian Opinion: “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”[23]

Now this was Gandhi at a younger age.

As he grew older, he became famous for denouncing all forms of violence and advocated non-violent means of pressing for change.

It is thus clear that there was a huge paradigm shift within his mind from the early years in South Africa to the latter years when his wisdom had grown and he was virtually an old sage.

Now regarding the war which he had previously supported note this from Wikipedia –

”In 1927 Gandhi wrote of the event: "The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the [Zulu] 'rebellion' did. This was no war but a man-hunt, not only in my opinion, but also in that of many Englishmen with whom I had occasion to talk."[25]  

Thus he had clearly come to have a different perspective of things.

Whereas in his younger days he saw the war as a chance to assert Indian participation in the society of the time, he had now come to view it as a cruel and unjust persecution of fellow human beings.


So I believe the points should be clear – there is no doubt that he changed as he grew older – and this is recognized by Mandela, and is laudable in a human being.