Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Thank you, Phil Yerkess, for the quotes in .0.
    
    Richard
    

    Z        "I love Christ, but despise Christians because they do not live
    Z        as Christ lived."
    
    Yet the dichotomy is that he affirms his hatred toward Christ here.  He
    knew not what he was saying.
    
    "For whenever you do this unto the least of my bretheren, you do it
    unto me."  Even the lowliest believer here is despised by Gandhi
    carries over to Christ himself.  Of course this is a human attribute
    all are guilty of.
    
    I was touched by God's lesson to Jonah when he despised the
    Ninevites....who of their own will wore sackcloth and ashes in
    repentence.  While Jonah sat on the hill awaiting the destruction of
    that great city. 
------------------------
Z    Jonah went out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made
Z    himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen 
Z    to the city. Then the LORD God provided a vine and made it grow up over 
Z    Jonah to give shade for his
Z    head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the vine. 
Z    But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so
Z    that it withered. 
Z    When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun
Z    blazed on Jonah's head
Z    so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, "It would be
Z    better for me to die than to live." 
Z    But God said to Jonah, "Do you have a right to be angry about the
Z    vine?" "I do," he said. "I
Z    am angry enough to die." But the LORD said, "You have been
Z    concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or
Z    make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 
Z    But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who
Z    cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. 
Z    Should I not be concerned about that great city?"
    ------------------------------------------------------
    
    Gandhi made the same tactical error that Jonah made.  He felt in his
    heart justified to reject Christ's forgiveness due to something that was 
    out of his control.  God has tarried with the church throughout 2000 years.
    A period ranging from great growth to utter decrepidness.  And yet the
    church, with its numerous people, is an institution that God has a deep
    love for.
    
    -Jack

>    Gandhi made the same tactical error that Jonah made.  He felt in his
>    heart justified to reject Christ's forgiveness due to something that was 
>    out of his control.  God has tarried with the church throughout 2000 years.
>    A period ranging from great growth to utter decrepidness.  And yet the
>    church, with its numerous people, is an institution that God has a deep
>    love for.

    And you make the *EXACT* same error, Jack, when you reject other
    christians that don't believe exactly like you do.  You keep talking
    about separating the sheep from the goats and heap scorn on all
    who call themselves christian and yet do not pass your litmus test.
    
    The term is "Hypocrisy."  Jesus had some special words just
    for hypocrites.

    Tom

    Somehow I don't think Gandhi assigned the weight to the word "despise"
    that we would today.
    
    I think it's clear Gandhi was grieving the hypocrisy rampant among
    Christians, how many Christian's evade and avoid living the life of
    their Master.
    
    I think Gandhi was making an appeal to Christians.  I think he was
    saying, "Show me I'm wrong!"  And we *still* by and large cannot.
    
    Richard
    

 Z   And you make the *EXACT* same error, Jack, when you reject other
 Z   christians that don't believe exactly like you do.  You keep
 Z   talking about separating the sheep from the goats and heap scorn on all
 Z   who call themselves christian and yet do not pass your litmus test.
    
    And that may very well be the case Tom...except what does this have to
    do with Gandhi and his proclamation that he rejects Christ and
    Christianity, ie by his own admission he is not a Christian?  Secondly,
    you have no basis for inferring what I think you are inferring.  That
    being I ever made a bold statement of any kind saying somebody is or is
    not saved.  This is a right only reserved to almighty God.  The whole
    basis of discussion is scriptural tenets as to what exemplafies a
    Christian from a non Christian...that being what one personally
    believes.  The goats in the case as mentioned in Matthew, refers to NON
    believers who persecuted the church.  I have never referred to nominal
    christians as the goats, as this is not in context with that particular
    illustration Jesus was making.  I do openly embrace the belief there
    will be people who think they are saved but actually are not...because
    of their lack of belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus
    Christ..,.which again, by his own admission, is the category Gandhi
    falls into.      
    
    Z    The term is "Hypocrisy."  Jesus had some special words just
    Z    for hypocrites.
    
    Okay, perhaps I should reflect on my own life and see what the Spirit
    of God has to tell me regaridng hypocrisy in my own life.  But what
    does this have to do with Gandhi and his open choice to remain an
    infidel?
    
    -Jack

    By the way Tom, I would openly invite you to begin a string here
    called, Jack Martin and Hypocrisy.  Unlike Gandhi, It would be a place
    where participants could discuss my hypocrisy and unlike poor Gandhi
    who isn't available to defend himself, I would be forced to!  
    
    -Jack

    I'm sure that it's true Gandhi said what was quoted.  As I said in the
    other string, he was just a fallable man.  Maybe he would have
    rephrased what he said if he had the chance, especially if he knew it
    was going to be misinterpreted.  Who knows.
    
    But let's take a look at the written words of someone you hold to be
    infallible.  Didn't Jesus say that his disciples should hate their 
    parents, spouse, etc...  (ref: Luke 14:26)?  Yes, yes, I know, there's
    a symbolic meaning behind this.  What other way could there be to
    reconcile Jesus overidding message of love with hating one's own family?  
                                                                           
    So why don't you give Gandhi the same consideration when you scrutinize
    his quotes?  What do you think he "really" meant given everything else
    he had to say about christianity, christinas, Jesus, etc... ?
    
    Are we guilty of "straining for a gnat yet swallowing a camel"?
    
    -dave

>Gandhi on Christ:

>	"I love Christ, but despise Christians because they do not live
>	as Christ lived."
    
    This is a completely contradictory and excessively judgemental
    statement.  It is impossible to love Christ and despise Christians for
    Christ died for Christians.  And it is a complete certainty that Gandhi
    did not live as Christ lived either.

    Gandhi was a product of a Hindu culture and I suspect a Hindu himself. 
    Hinduism, polytheistic as it is, would attribute the same respect to
    Zeus and Christ.
    
    Gandhi is now an idol for the modern western pagan.
    
    jeff 

    Jeff,
    
    Funny, I don't see the contradiction.  The gentle Jesus of the new
    testement seems to have been forgotten by many of his self-proclaimed
    followers.  Instead of trying to attack a long dead and gentle man,
    which to me give truth to his statements, why not look to see why
    Gandhi would have made a statement you interpret as contradictory.  
    
    meg
    

>    Jeff,
    
>    Funny, I don't see the contradiction.  The gentle Jesus of the new
>    testement seems to have been forgotten by many of his self-proclaimed
>    followers.  Instead of trying to attack a long dead and gentle man,
>    which to me give truth to his statements, why not look to see why
>    Gandhi would have made a statement you interpret as contradictory.  
    
>    meg
    
    Well, if you would apply just a bit of critical thinking to Gandhi's
    statement you would see the contradiction.  "I love Christ, I despise
    his followers" is an impossible position according to Christ. 
    And according to Christ, he himself could be judged for the same thing
    he is judging others for - a failure to meet his obligations to God. 
    The Christian doesn't deny his failure, Gandhi appears to.
    
    And there's nothing gentle about his statement whatsoever.
    
    You're constantly accusing folks of "attacking" other folks.  Get real,
    Meg, please.  When someone is positioned for discussion, criticism is
    not attacking. You make it sooo difficult and for no good reason.
    
    jeff    

    Meg:
    
    Jesus made it clear that it is not the believer who is being persecuted
    but Christ himself.  When Saul of Tarsus was on the Road to Damascus,
    Jesus blinded him and asked, "Saul Saul why do you persecute me?"  He
    made absolutely no reference to the Christians Paul tortured and
    executed.  Jesus Christ was making a clear non distinction between he
    and the church.  So while Gandhi's despising of Christians seems non
    contradictory, it is actually a reproach toward Jesus himself.  
    
    "Woa unto those who hurt one of my little ones.  For it would be better
    that a millstone were attached to your neck and thrown in the depths of
    the sea".  Jesus speaking of non Christians persecuting the church. 
    Jesus Christ put a high price tag on the church.
    
    -Jack

Z    But let's take a look at the written words of someone you hold to be
Z    infallible.  Didn't Jesus say that his disciples should hate their 
Z    parents, spouse, etc...  (ref: Luke 14:26)?  Yes, yes, I know,
Z    there's a symbolic meaning behind this.  What other way could there be to
Z    reconcile Jesus overidding message of love with hating one's own
Z    family?  
    
    No, actually Dave there isn't even a symbolic meaning.  Love and hate
    are not emotions.  They are allegiances.  Jesus Christ is making the
    clear distinction here between loving God with your whole heart...so
    much so that our love for family and self is one of indifference.  Not 
    to actually display hatred but that our love for self cannot even pale
    with our love for Christ.
          
Z    So why don't you give Gandhi the same consideration when you
Z    scrutinize his quotes?  What do you think he "really" meant given 
Z    everything else he had to say about christianity, christinas, Jesus, etc... ?
    
 Because Gandhi, if our perception of what he said is accurate, chose to
    despise God and love self.  Not because he was a bad person on the
    outside or by our standards, but because God offered Gandhi a provision
    for the removal of sin in his life and by his own admission, rejected
    it.  This is a disregard for Gods provision...thereby hating God.
    
    -Jack

    Jack and Jeff,
    
    Why so defensive?  I would think you would be giving guidance to
    christians who are so far off the path of christ, rather than berating
    people for an honest (to them) assessment of people who say they follow
    him.  To me these people are doing far more damage to the name of
    Christ than us non christians who see this and point it out.  
    
    I don't defend members of my circle if they step outside the goddess's
    teachings and steal from people, say negative things, or do things that
    reflect badly on the craft.  why defend those in your churches who do
    the same?
    
    meg

 Z   To me these people are doing far more damage to the name of
 Z       Christ than us non christians who see this and point it out. 
    
    Meg, I'm not defending anybody.  I would say all Christians are guilty
    of bringing reproach to the name of Christ in one way or another.  This
    is the case because while there is sanctification, there is also a
    battle between the sin nature and the Spirit.  So if it will appease
    the discussion, shame on the church for a bad testimony.
    
    The discussion at hand is on Gandhi.  The question you ask should be
    directed at a string regarding the testimony of the local church.  I'm
    not bereating  anybody...not even Gandhi.  I am simply stating that the
    poor testimony of the church will not justify the Gandhi's of the
    world.  Gandhi will still be accountable for his own sin.
    
    -Jack

You just don't get it, do you?

This statement of Gandhi has been trotted out, but when examined carefully
it really exposes him at the exact opposite end of the love God requires of
all of us.

Christ called the whole world to love one another as he loved us.
(The new commandment, the Maundy.)  To love to death.

Every Christian must deplore that fact that no one since Jesus has ever
perfectly lived up to that perfect love.  Every Christian must remember
that Jesus called us to pray for and support each other, to reproach and
encourage BUT NOT DESPISE those who fall short of the mark.  Or anyone.

If Gandhi truly loved God, he would despise no man.

/john

    Somehow I don't think Gandhi assigned the weight to the word "despise"
    that we would today.
    
    I think it's clear Gandhi was grieving the hypocrisy rampant among
    Christians, how many Christian's evade and avoid living the life of
    their Master.
    
    I think Gandhi was making an appeal to Christians.  I think he was
    saying, "Show me I'm wrong!"  And sadly, we *still* by and large cannot.
    
    Richard
    

.8
    
>    This is a completely contradictory and excessively judgemental
>    statement.  It is impossible to love Christ and despise Christians for
>    Christ died for Christians.  And it is a complete certainty that Gandhi
>    did not live as Christ lived either.

I don't believe Christ died exclusively for Christians.  Nor do I believe Christ
rose again just for Christians, for that matter.

Though there are those who will be blind to it, it is clear to others that
the life Gandhi led was more Christ-like than the lives of many who bear the
name Christian.

>    Gandhi was a product of a Hindu culture and I suspect a Hindu himself. 
>    Hinduism, polytheistic as it is, would attribute the same respect to
>    Zeus and Christ.

Ah, that word "respect" again.  Funny how and when it crops up.
    
>    Gandhi is now an idol for the modern western pagan.

We're a culture of idols.  No one is immune.
    
Richard

	Boy o' boy, I didn't think quoting Gandhi would cause so
	many problems. He made insightful observations, and as Dave
	pointed out he was the type of person who didn't hate any one.
	This has be taken into account when understanding his words.
	It is obvious, he was making judgment on the practise of
	hypocrisy. Jesus himself didn't mince words when addressing
	the religious leaders of his time, but again it is quite
	obvious he was addressing the practise of hypocrisy.

	Do you really think, after reading the gospel accounts and
	knowing Jesus' views on hypocrites, that he will actually 
	embrace such ones if they don't repent? ( compare Matthew 
	7:21-23). Jesus' teachings weren't for nothing .

	No one likes being called a hypocrite, but when we so openly
	display this trait aren't we glad that someone brings this
	to our attention?. 	

	Phil.
	

    Phil:
    
    When somebody calls me a hypocrite, I will usually give it some thought
    before responding...it makes me go into rewind and try to consider what
    I said or did that makes me a hypocrite.
    
    Typically, when somebody rejects a belief system, throwing the blame on
    somebody else, as Gandhi has done, is more likely than not a subtrifuge 
    for something else...as in this case, a lack of faith or belief.  
    
    My belief in Christ would not wane based on the behavior of others. 
    Were this the case, I imagine most of the great evangelists of years
    past would have abandoned Christianity years ago!!
    
    -Jack

    
    When St. Paul speaks out against the early Christians for not following
    the teachings of Christ, he is pious. When Gandhi does the same with
    modern Christians, he is a mean-spirited hypocrite. Gandhi was no more
    "persecuting" Christians or Christ (as suggested in .11) than Paul was.

    Gandhi, as a man, merely called a spade a spade. Certainly the brush
    with which he painted was a too-broad one, and to those who see
    everything as literal and legalistic I can see how they miss the point.
    Once again the message is within the words, not the words themselves. 

    I am not so much disappointed with Gandhi for making such a broad
    judgment, but for our inability to prove him wrong. We choose to kick
    dirt on his character rather than display the supposed cleanliness of
    our own.

    Eric

>    This is a completely contradictory and excessively judgemental
>    statement.  It is impossible to love Christ and despise Christians for
>    Christ died for Christians.  And it is a complete certainty that Gandhi
>    did not live as Christ lived either.

>>I don't believe Christ died exclusively for Christians.  Nor do I believe Christ
>>rose again just for Christians, for that matter.
    
    Of course you don't.  But that's not really the point.  The point is
    that for Gandhi to despise those whom Christ loves is contradictory to
    Gandhi's stated love for Christ.

>>Though there are those who will be blind to it, it is clear to others that
>>the life Gandhi led was more Christ-like than the lives of many who bear the
>>name Christian.
    
    Well, it really doesn't matter that some folks believe Gandhi's life was 
    more Christ-like than some Christians' unless you believe moralism is
    the center of Christ's life and teaching.  Biblical and traditional
    Christianity rejects the notion of moralism as a means of appeasing
    God's judgement and wrath toward sinful man.  

>    Gandhi is now an idol for the modern western pagan.

>>We're a culture of idols.  No one is immune.
    
    Certainly our culture is idolatrous.  It has been less so in the past
    when the culture enjoyed the residual moral capital from a more
    self-consciously Christian culture.  I was only noting by implication
    how far our western civilization has deterioated where a product of the
    polytheistic east could be so popular in a western world which once
    strongly separated itself from such pagan, irrational, and
    superstitious worldviews.
    
    jeff  
    
Richard

>    When somebody calls me a hypocrite, I will usually give it some thought
>    before responding...it makes me go into rewind and try to consider what
>    I said or did that makes me a hypocrite.

    I wish everyone did the same.

    --------------------------------

    When Gandhi said that, he wasn't talking about humble Jehovah's
    Witnesses.  His major adversary at the time was the British
    Empire.  These are the people who ruled his native India for
    a century.

    Gandhi embraced the teachings of Christ, but rejected the opinions
    of those who claimed to embrace them, but didn't.

    I dare say that many of the viceroys who ruled India were total
    jerks.  If they ruled you and claimed to follow Christ, and
    you saw that they clearly didn't, you'd have a hard time not
    despising them, too.  Not only would they be oppressing you
    but also giving the teaching that you hold so dear a very bad
    name.

    Tom

    RE .18 (Phil)
    
    Excellent and "grounding" note Phil,  Thank You.
    
    
    RE (Jeff)
    
    As always Jeff, I disagree with everything you say.  But, in keeping
    with a spirit of "nonviolence", I'll refrain from responding to the
    details.  
    
    
    Re .9 (Meg)
    
    I thought you'd find a quote from a book I've read on Gandhi
    interesting...
    
    "The past decades have been distinguished by many Christian prophets of 
    nonviolence: Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker, Danilo Dolci in
    Scicily, Lanza del Vasto in France, Cesar Chavez, Thomas Merton.  All
    of them traced their vision to the teachings and witness of Jesus.  But
    just as surely they acknowledged that it was by way of Gandhi, and not
    through the teachings of the Christian Churches, that they encountered
    the nonviolent face of Christ."
    
       "Gandhi on Christianity"   Robert Ellsberg
    
    And with regard to "giving guidance to christians who are so far off the
    path of christ", one more interesting quote from Gandhi himself...
    
    "I rebel against orthodox Christianity, as I am convinced that it has
    distorted the message of Jesus.  He was an asiatic whose message was
    delivered through many media and when it had the backing of the Roman
    emperor, it became an imperialist faith as it remains to this day"
    
    BTW, I see no contradiction either.
    
    
    Re (Jack)
    
    "Woa unto those who hurt one of my little ones.  For it would be better
    that a millstone were attached to your neck and thrown in the depths of
    the sea".  Jesus speaking of non Christians persecuting the church.
    Jesus Christ put a high price tag on the church."
    
    Why not "Jesus speaking of people hurting children"?  Your
    interprettion is interesting, but is the indirection appropriate?
    
    >No, actually Dave there isn't even a symbolic meaning.  Love and hate
    >    are not emotions. ...
    
    Love and hate are not emotions?  If not, then they take on some
    non-literal meaning, right?  So when Gandhi said he "despised"
    christians, what non-literal meaning could you assign to that given
    everything else he said?  
    
    >Because Gandhi, if our perception of what he said is accurate, chose
    >to despise God and love self.
    
    Oh no Jack.  Please, no. He loved God with all his heart and soul.  He
    described his life as a humble quest to seek God.  Love of self? 
    That's the first time I've ever heard him accused of that.  Anyway, I'm
    sure you've heard of his hunger strikes and why he took that course
    more than once. This doesn't seem like self love to me.  If his words
    mean anything, he can be quoted with words that would disclaim your
    assertion that he loved himself more than God.  I urge you to read more
    of him if you're interested in geting better insight into the man.
    
    >I am simply stating that the
    >    poor testimony of the church will not justify the Gandhi's of the
    >    world.
    
    I don't believe Gandhi was looking for any form of justification. He
    just asked, for the sake of humanity, that christians follow Jesus'
    teachings and example.  To him, it didn't matter what religious
    pigeonhole someone placed themselves as long as they followed these
    core truths.  
    
    I guess it was said earlier that Gandhi has evolved into some sort of
    "western pagan idol" (or something to that effect).  I can't imagine
    anything that would have upset him more.
    
    >...when somebody rejects a belief system, throwing the blame on
    >    somebody else, as Gandhi has done,
    
    Gandhi agreed with the moral core of Christianity but saw hypocricy 
    when it came down to practicing what was being preached.  His own
    beloved India and Hinduism was far from being a model of nonhypocricy
    as he watched his country torn in two, it's citizens killing each other
    in the streets.  His pleah was for all mankind, Christians, Hindus,
    Moslems alike, to "PRACTICE" nonviolence and brotherly love as
    professed by all the world's religions.  
    
    Many of the christians in that place/time had put themselves on a sort
    of high moral pedestal, claiming that they had "The" way and it was the
    only right and moral path to God.  Gandhi criticisms exposed the fact
    that their sh!% stank too.
    
    
    RE .16 (John)
    
    >This statement of Gandhi has been trotted out..
    
    Yes, it has.  But, as I said earlier, it was one statement that was
    either mispoken and/or misinterpreted.  Mere mortals sometimes do an
    imperfect job of wording thoughts.  "Examining it ferther" is almost
    certainly reading into it too deeply.  As Phil pointed out in .18,
    Gandhi didn't hate anyone and that has to be taken into account when
    yuo read his words.
    
    If you "strain for this gnat" you might be "swallowing a camel" if you
    come to the conclusion that Gandhi hated christians. (pardon the use of
    the biblical reference)
    
    
    Re .17 (Richard)
    
    >I don't believe Christ died exclusively for Christians.
    
    Gandhi didn't believ that either.
    
            
    
    

re .19

;    Typically, when somebody rejects a belief system, throwing the blame on
;    somebody else, as Gandhi has done, is more likely than not a subtrifuge 
;    for something else...as in this case, a lack of faith or belief.

	Jack,

	But he didn't reject Jesus' teachings on the Sermon on the Mount but
	promoted them. This is seen by his words "I love christ", no? .  I agree
	he didn't become a Christian, but the actions of others didn't change
	his view on Jesus and his teachings. He wasn't rejecting the belief
	system, but made a observation of hypocritical behaviour.

;    My belief in Christ would not wane based on the behavior of others. 
;    Were this the case, I imagine most of the great evangelists of years
;    past would have abandoned Christianity years ago!!

	Good, then you no doubt feel like Gandhi whom saw the potential in Jesus' 
	teachings and the need to promote them. Gandhi, was also purported to have 
	said to the British viceroy "When your country and mine shall get together on 
	the teachings laid down by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, we shall have 
	solved the problems, not only of our countries but those of the whole world.".
	Jesus left us something precious, it would be a shame to say "We are imperfect
	so we are just going to hide the Talent Jesus gave us." What is Jesus' view
	on this? (Matthew 25:14-30). Would one be angry at the fact that an unbeliever
	highlighted that one was hidding the Talent, or recognise that perhaps he is 
	right and we have something precious that can't be left hidden and needs to be 
	put to use. 

	Jack, would you not agree that the great evangelists have lived their lives
	in harmony with Jesus' teachings. If an unbeliever makes the observation that
	many are not following Jesus' teachings but showing hypocritical behaviour, 
	are they wrong in making their observation known?.

	Phil.

    RE .20 (Eric)
    
    >We choose to kick dirt on his character...
    
    I'm amazed that none of the dirt that's been kicked in his face seems
    to be sticking here in this discussion.  I wonder if that's an
    attribute of someone who spoke the truth and bore "good fruit".
    
    -dave

    I will be glad to admit a failure of the local body in the case of
    Gandhi.  I believe truth transcends all else.  Eric, the primary
    difference is that Paul's admonitions and exhortations given to the
    church were based on his love for Christ and the local church.  He
    didn't approach the Corinthian church, for example, to malign them for
    their failures, but to sharpen them for the service of Chirst.  I was
    lead to believe that Gandhi despised the local church.  Gandhi may have
    pointed out the errors of Christianity...and perhaps rightly so.  But
    if Gandhi really loved and followed the gospel of Christ, he should
    have been more ready to follow the precepts of Romans 12...that being
    not to return evil for evil and to bless those who persecute
    you...bless and curse not.  In human terms, this is a very difficult
    thing to do, but I recently ha to do such a thinkg in my life....and I
    found it has worked.  Unfortunately, Gandhi's indictment on the local
    church is drowned by his "disdain" for the local body.  And as a
    spiritual leader in a pagan nation, he will, fairly or unfairly, have
    his character scrutinized for that very reason.  You cannot love Jesus
    and hate the local church at the same time.  
    
 ZZ      I don't believe Gandhi was looking for any form of justification.
    
    Hi Dave, this is a tactical error on the part of Gandhi.  If Jesus died
    so that all may be justified, then Gandhi is in essence spitting on the
    provision of God.
    
    -Jack

>>    RE .20 (Eric)
    
    >We choose to kick dirt on his character...
    
>>    I'm amazed that none of the dirt that's been kicked in his face seems
>>    to be sticking here in this discussion.  I wonder if that's an
>>    attribute of someone who spoke the truth and bore "good fruit".
    
>>    -dave
    
    This is a good example of the inability to think straight which I have
    cited here. 
    
    Gandhi is offered as a model Christian, both directly and indirectly.
    
    Christians are, through the eyes of Gandhi, belittled both directly and
    indirectly.
    
    It is pointed out by Christians that Gandhi's statement about his
    relationship to Christ, as his view is characterised, is contradictory.
    
    It is then asserted that pointing out Gandhi's contradictory statement
    and philosophy is to "kick dirt on his character".
    
    If folks thought straight they would first analyze Gandhi's statement
    in the light of the teaching of Christ on the subject.  It would then
    be obvious that Gandhi's statement is contradictory, self-defeating.
    And finally, those who think straight would not accuse those who
    analyzed Gandhi's statement of trying to disparage Gandhi's character.
    
    Gandhi is wrong in separating Christ's deity from Christ's teachings. 
    Gandhi is wrong in separating Christ's death and resurrection from 
    Christ's teachings.  Gandhi is wrong to separate Christ's elaboration
    of the Law from Christ's elaboration of man's sinfulness and need for a
    Savior.
    
    This says nothing bad about Gandhi's character, as a man might view it.
    Gandhi obviously had good qualities and Gandhi obviously appreciated
    the truths of Christ's teachings which paralleled his own worldview and 
    personal goals.
    
    Is Gandhi God?  Was Gandhi greater than Jesus?  Was Gandhi perfect? Was
    Gandhi intellectually superior?  Is answering no to any or all of these 
    equivalent to kicking dirt in his face?  A person who thinks straight 
    will see that they are not the same at all.
    
    jeff

1:1  Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor
 standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
1:2  But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate
 day and night.
1:3  And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth
 forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever
 he doeth shall prosper.
1:4  The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth
 away.
1:5  Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the
 congregation of the righteous.
1:6  For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly
 shall perish.

>    This is a good example of the inability to think straight which I have
>    cited here. 

	:-)

    
    > You cannot love Jesus and hate the local church at the same time.

    If this is true then the Protestant Reformation is illegitimate.
    Certainly Luther, Calvin, et al. claimed exactly what you say is
    impossible.
    
    Eric
    

    
    > You cannot love Jesus and hate the local church at the same time.

>>    If this is true then the Protestant Reformation is illegitimate.
>>    Certainly Luther, Calvin, et al. claimed exactly what you say is
>>    impossible.
    
>>    Eric
    
    You're completely wrong, Eric.  Calvin and Luther loved the Lord with
    all their heart, soul, and mind and as a result loved the flocks they
    had direct responsibility for.  They hated the evil practices of the
    RC church.
    
    jeff

>    had direct responsibility for.  They hated the evil practices of the
>    RC church.

    Errr.. That *was* the local church at the time.

    Yes but was it a church gone apostate?

    
    
    > Eric, the primary difference is that Paul's admonitions and
    > exhortations....

    Gandhi and Paul both wished that those who carried the name "Christian"
    more closely followed the ways of the one they called Master. Paul
    wished this for spiritual reason, Gandhi for humanitarian reasons.

    Does Gandhi's lack of conversion make his comments untrue? Is a sinner
    incapable of recognizing sin? 


    Eric

>    Yes but was it a church gone apostate?

    Could you say the same about the Church of England in
    India at that time?

    Tom

    The *local* church is the people, not an institution.  If you love
    Christ, you love Christians.  This is a key prerequisite that shows if
    you are saved or not and explained in 1 John 2-3.  

 Z   Does Gandhi's lack of conversion make his comments untrue? Is a sinner
 Z       incapable of recognizing sin? 
    
    No, his comments may very well be true.  
    
    It would seem we are discussing two issues here...that being the poor
    testimony of the local church and the spiritual well being of Gandhi. 
    As far as the latter, I believe the eternal security of Gandhi rests
    between God and Gandhi...although it is merely an intellectual exercise
    to discuss Gandhi's eternal destiny based solely on his profession or
    rejection of Christ.  To tie the two together, Gandhi's indictment on
    the church is as valid as Pauls.  The difference is Paul indicted the
    church at times in order to build the body whereas Gandhi was an
    observer outside the realm of the church who apparently rejected Christ
    because he was swayed by the poor example of fallable humans.  
    
    The example of the church may very well have been a travesty.  A church
    that truly practiced to love of Christ may have been instrumental in
    converting Gandhi and possibly flourishing Christianity throughout
    India.  So in that light, it is a missed opportunity and a blight to
    the history of the church.  At the same time I have to believe God is
    sovereign in these matters to allow a bad testimony to occur. 
    HOWEVER...Gandhi dying as an infidel will still rest with Gandhi, and
    in spite of all the excuses he may have had for rejecting the saving
    power of Christs' resurrection, God would still see him as unredeemed
    and eternally lost....GIVEN the limited information we have.  
    
    It is of course my hope that Gandhi converted without telling anybody.
    
    -Jack

>    The *local* church is the people, not an institution.  If you love
>    Christ, you love Christians.  This is a key prerequisite that shows if
>    you are saved or not and explained in 1 John 2-3.  

    Well, try convincing Jeff of that when he said:

>    You're completely wrong, Eric.  Calvin and Luther loved the Lord with
>    all their heart, soul, and mind and as a result loved the flocks they
>    had direct responsibility for.  They hated the evil practices of the
>    RC church.
>
>    jeff

    Is the RC church comprised of people, or isn't it?

    Tom

>    had direct responsibility for.  They hated the evil practices of the
>    RC church.

>>    Errr.. That *was* the local church at the time.
    
    Read better, Tom.  They hated the evil practices of the leaders of the
    RC church, not the rank and file members of the RC church.
    
    jeff

    Besides, we're talking apples and oranges here.

    Luther's flock were common people.  The Church of England 
    parishioner in India some 50-60 years ago, was of the 
    ruling class.  *THESE WERE NOT OPPRESSED CHRISTIANS*

    Tom

re Note 1329.27 by ALFSS1::BENSONA:

>     Gandhi is offered as a model Christian, both directly and indirectly.
  
        More accurately, Gandhi was offered as a model of a person
        bearing "good fruit".

        Only to the extent that Christians are to bear "good fruit"
        could Gandhi be considered a model for Christians.

        Bob

>     Gandhi is offered as a model Christian, both directly and indirectly.
  
>>        More accurately, Gandhi was offered as a model of a person
>>        bearing "good fruit".

>>        Only to the extent that Christians are to bear "good fruit"
>>        could Gandhi be considered a model for Christians.

>>        Bob
    
    Oh, I see.  That's a much more narrow argument and much more
    appropriate than what is generally presented.
    
    It still is offensive and simply inaccurate.  Gandhi's "good fruit",
    whatever it was, is not good in the eyes of God.  All of our works are
    as filthy rags, according to His own word.  Filthy. Rags.  Those are strong
    words full of meaning.
    
    The only "good" work is that which is commanded by God and flows from a
    Christian heart, regenerated by faith in Christ.  Even then, works are
    only good in that the author of them is magnificent.  Our performance
    is still relatively pitiful.
    
    The merely religious man will always view works as supremely valuable
    and ultimately acceptable to God as a propitiation for his/her sin. 
    But then, no man ever permanently escapes the deep, ever-recurring
    certainty of judgement to come, by virtue of his works.  But God is
    merciful and loving and has provided the sacrifice, Jesus, which when
    trusted does result in that peaceful reconciliation with God and that
    great hope for the future and the pleasure of having one's works be
    actually meaningful.
    
    jeff

.0

>Gandhi on Christ:

>	"I love Christ,
	 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny how little attention this is getting.  This, I thought, was supposed
to be the main thing.  But overshadowing it is this:

>	but despise Christians because they do not live
>	as Christ lived."      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This, as I see it, is another way of saying the church has fallen short, way
short.  Christ's followers, by and large, have taken an easier path.

Richard

    Re: .42
    
    Richard, all this shows is that Ghandi/Gandhi wasn't saved according to
    scripture.  He loved Christ and hated Christians.  This completely
    contradicts 1 John and the 1 commandment that covers the entire Law.
    
1 John 3:23-24
    And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his
 Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
   And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And
 hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
    
    Praise God that Christians don't have the spiritual blindness, darkness, 
    and hatred of Gandhi/Ghandi.

>Gandhi on Christ:

>	"I love Christ,
	 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Funny how little attention this is getting.  This, I thought, was supposed
>>to be the main thing.  But overshadowing it is this:
    
    I would hope that the reason Gandhi's statement is not getting
    attention is because it is shown to be preposterous in light of further
    analysis.
    
    In effect, Gandhi loved a portion of Christ's teachings, not Christ. 
    He didn't know Christ and he rejected the actual suffering of Christ on
    his behalf.  To know someone is to know their suffering.  To love
    someone is to love them in totality.  Gandhi was not capable of loving
    Christ in any significant fashion for he rejected the great passion of
    Christ's life, His death and resurrection.
    
    It's not unusual that moral men say they love Christ.  It is unusual
    for a Christian to believe such a statement when such men reject the
    fundamental purpose and message of Christ's life. 

>	but despise Christians because they do not live
>	as Christ lived."      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>This, as I see it, is another way of saying the church has fallen short, way
>>short.  Christ's followers, by and large, have taken an easier path.

>>Richard
    
    The fact that the church has fallen short, falls short, will fall short
    on earth is hardly profound.
    
    jeff

.27
        
>    This is a good example of the inability to think straight which I have
>    cited here. 

What a persuasive approach!  Why don't more of us use it in dealing with
each other?
    
>    Is Gandhi God?  Was Gandhi greater than Jesus?  Was Gandhi perfect? Was
>    Gandhi intellectually superior?  Is answering no to any or all of these 
>    equivalent to kicking dirt in his face?  A person who thinks straight 
>    will see that they are not the same at all.

Is Gandhi God?  No.

Was Gandhi greater that Jesus?  Interesting what Jesus said about who is the
greatest.  Applying the teaching, Gandhi was greater than most Christians.

Was Gandhi intellectually superior?  Superior to whom?

I would ask, are Christians equal to or the same as Christ?

Richard

    |I would ask, are Christians equal to or the same as Christ?
    
    Ask me again after 1 Corinthians 15 is fulfilled.

.48

>    |I would ask, are Christians equal to or the same as Christ?
    
>    Ask me again after 1 Corinthians 15 is fulfilled.

Okay.  If I remember.

Richard

Z    Was Gandhi greater that Jesus?  Interesting what Jesus said about who
Z    is the
Z    greatest.  Applying the teaching, Gandhi was greater than most Christians.
    
    Jesus said in regard to John the Baptist, "Yea the very least of my
    bretheren is greater than he".  I think this is the point of
    misunderstanding Richard.  Apparently by Gandhi's own admission, he was
    not a Christian and therefore doesn't even qualify as the least of the
    bretheren...because he rejected the gift of brotherhood through his
    lack of faith.  
    
    So the teaching can't be applied here.  Even in Gandhi's humility, he
    would be weighed on the scale and found to be deficient.  As a
    humanitarian...he had it all over many Christians...in appearance of
    course.  We really don't know where his heart was at.  But in the
    essence of reality, Gandhi by his own admission died in a Christless
    grave and will face the judgement of God.  This is indeed the sad
    commentary here.  
    
    -Jack

    RE .26 (Jack)
    
    >But if Gandhi really loved and followed the gospel of Christ, he should  
    > have been more ready to follow the precepts of Romans 12...
    
    There was a massacre in India.  Hundreds of unarmed civilians fell to 
    British guns.  The Indian leaders met to discuss their reaction, and,
    as always, they asked Gandhi to attend.  Most wanted revenge.  Acts of
    retalliation were being suggested.  One of them attempted to justify
    this by quoting "An eye for an eye...".  Well, I'm sure you know
    Gandhi's response.  It didn't seem like the response of a vindictive
    person.  
    
    On an earlier occassion in S.Africa, Gandhi was imprisoned and beaten. 
    While in prison, he made a pair of leather sandals for the warden, to
    whom he presented the gift upon his release.  I believe the act had the
    desired effect on the warden.  This, in my mind, is a small act of
    returning love for hate.  
    
    No Jack, he held up well in that space too I'm afraid.  I'm sure there
    were instances in his imperfect life when he was not so loving.  I'm sure
    you can find them in his actions and words, both written and spoken. 
    But, for the most part....
    
    
    >And as a spiritual leader in a pagan nation,...
    
    It's odd.  I always thought of him as a political leader, then a
    spiritual one.  But the more I read of the man, the clearer it becomes
    that he was neither.  He consistently turned down political positions of
    office and was far, far too "mutidenominational" to be considered a
    spiritual leader of any particular faith.  
    
    
    >You cannot love Jesus and hate the local church at the same time.
    
    WHat's "the church"?  The people?  Then he certainly did not hate the
    church.  Even if you define the chUrch as a collection of doctrines and
    practices, he didn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater".  And even
    within a specific ascpect of the church, he would discriminate between
    what was right and what was not.  E.g., when asked, he spoke against
    much of the missionary work in India at the time.  Food and medicine
    were being provided only to the converted, leaving others in hunger or
    in sickness.  Yet he spoke favorably on other missions, notably many of
    the catholic missions, who gave to all who were in need and did not put
    a conversional price tag on the assistance.  He had the greatest
    respect for the Franciscans who worked from within the "trenches"... at
    the poverty level, assisting all who were in need, no strings attached. 
    But now I'm rambling...
    
    >If Jesus died so that all may be justified, then Gandhi is in essence
    > spitting on the provision of God.
    
    Yes.  but for Gandhi (as for myself and I'm sure many others) there's
    that big "IF" prefixing the whole ides.  I seriously consider another
    "if"...  If the gospels are an inaccurate accounting of who/what Jesus
    was, I would be spitting back in God's face the God given gifts of my
    senses and ability to reason on this matter.   These God given
    abilities serve me so well in every other ascpect of life and I'm very
    thankful for that.  Why should I disregard them in this matter?
    
    Re .29
    
    >> This is a good example of the inability to think straight which I have
    >> cited here.
    
    >        :-)
    
    He can't help himself Tom.
    
    
    
    Re .37 (Jack)
    
    >...who apparently rejected Christ because he was swayed by the poor
    >example of fallable humans.
    
    I don't believe that.  He did not hold the Bible as inerrant.  He
    accepted Jesus, or Christ (he sometimes used the titles interchangebly)
    but not as Jesus=God. He saw the NT as being authored by 1st and 2nd
    century christians who added their interpretation of who Jesus was to
    the the various sayings and parables that survived the verbal
    tradition.  He sifted through the material, kept the baby and threw out
    what he percieved was bathwater.  His personal beliefs were not swayed
    by the actions of christians or the doctrines of the church.  They were
    at one time when he was younger.  He judged christianity by the
    actions of the christians he knew in S.Africa and did not like what he
    saw.   But he eventually read the Bible, being particularly moved by the
    message of the NT.  He saw the truth in Jesus' teachings and his own
    error in judging Christianity by judging Christians.  I recommend 
    "Gandhi and Christianity" by  Robert Ellsberg.  It's a good synopsis of
    the man and his views toward Christianity.
    
    Gandhi interpreted Jesus' sacrifice in a different way than you do. 
    I'll look for the passage....
    
    "Jesus atoned for the sins of those who accepted his teachings by being
    an infallible example to them.  But the example was worth nothing to
    those who never troubled to chenge their lives.  A regenerate outgrows
    the original taint, even as purified gold outgrows the original alloy"
    
    His sense of what sin and attonement were differe from the
    Judeo-Christian.  In his mind, people were not perfect and to that
    extent they had and will always have some sin... be imperfect.  But it
    was possible to improve... to get closer to God by perhaps follwing
    Jesus' example.  To Gandhi, simply giving Jesus lip service as being
    a savior was in an of itself worthless.  A change of heart which
    manifested itself in actions meant so much more to him than a mere
    belief.
    
    Re .41 (Bob)
    
    > More accurately, Gandhi was offered as a model of a person
    >        bearing "good fruit".
    
    I agree.  And if he bore good fruit, he must have been tapped into a
    clean well (or however the analogy should be extended here).  
    
    
    -dave
    
    

>    Is Gandhi God?  Was Gandhi greater than Jesus?  Was Gandhi perfect? Was
>    Gandhi intellectually superior?  Is answering no to any or all of these 
>    equivalent to kicking dirt in his face?  A person who thinks straight 
>    will see that they are not the same at all.

>>Is Gandhi God?  No.
    
    Well, not according to you anyway.

>>Was Gandhi greater that Jesus?  Interesting what Jesus said about who is the
>>greatest.  Applying the teaching, Gandhi was greater than most Christians.

    Yes, it is.  He said it to his disciples.  Actually he said it to three
    people for sure.  James and John's Mother, James, and John.  Probably
    also within the hearing of other disciples.  The context of Jesus's
    statements have no meaning outside the broader context of Christ's
    ministry.  They cannot positively be applied to Gandhi nor to any other
    unbeliever.
    
    Interesting too, what did Gandhi do that was so great anyway?  Is it that he
    played a large part in a political drama?  Does the scale of the impact
    of his actions impress you?  
    
    The Christian understands that to gain the favor and admiration of the 
    world is common among the unbelieving and uncommon among Christians.
    
    jeff
    

    Dave:
    
    And I don't mean to belittle some of the attitudes Gandhi apparently
    held.  It appears he was a man of character and had to endure much in
    his own homeland.  So the bottom line here is that Gandhi rejected the
    resurrection of Christ because he didn't believe in the authority of
    scripture.  This doesn't coincide with what I've heard...that being, "I
    would be a Christian today were it not for the Christians."  
    
    Another thing to consider...it is a common mistake to equate Christians
    with gentiles.  Many would claim Hitler to be a Christian...after all,
    Germany is half catholic and half Lutheran...therefore....
    
    This is faulty logic.  Hitler was an occultist pure and simple. 
    Therefore, Gandhi should have recognized in his wisdom that a white
    anglo saxon church goer does not a Christian make!
    
    -Jack

.45

>    Richard, all this shows is that Ghandi/Gandhi wasn't saved according to
>    scripture.  He loved Christ and hated Christians.  This completely
>    contradicts 1 John and the 1 commandment that covers the entire Law.

Although the Scripture you cite doesn't speak of salvation, I'm not
really worried about Gandhi's salvation.  Nice you are, I guess.
    
>1 John 3:23-24
>    And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his
> Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
>   And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And
> hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
    
According to his quote, Gandhi would have loved Christians who lived according
to the model of Christ.

>    Praise God that Christians don't have the spiritual blindness, darkness, 
>    and hatred of Gandhi/Ghandi.

Um...Christians are far from exempt from spiritual blindness, darkness, and
hatred.  I need not supply historical or anecdotal evidence, I trust.

Richard

.53
    
>    And I don't mean to belittle some of the attitudes Gandhi apparently
>    held.

Well, this does separate you from some of your fellows here.

>  It appears he was a man of character and had to endure much in
>    his own homeland.  So the bottom line here is that Gandhi rejected the
>    resurrection of Christ because he didn't believe in the authority of
>    scripture.  This doesn't coincide with what I've heard...that being, "I
>    would be a Christian today were it not for the Christians."

Nothing has been said about Gandhi's stance concerning Scripture (talk about
idols!).
    
>    Therefore, Gandhi should have recognized in his wisdom that a white
>    anglo saxon church goer does not a Christian make!

This is precisely what Gandhi was saying!  How do you feel about those
who call themselves Christians while watering down the teachings of Christ??

Richard

 Z   Although the Scripture you cite doesn't speak of salvation, I'm not
 Z   really worried about Gandhi's salvation.  Nice you are, I guess.
    
    Richard, not so much a case of worrying of Gandhi's salvation, but more
    a case of mourning a 2nd death that was needless.
    
    -Jack

>    Richard, all this shows is that Ghandi/Gandhi wasn't saved according to
>    scripture.  He loved Christ and hated Christians.  This completely
>    contradicts 1 John and the 1 commandment that covers the entire Law.

>>Although the Scripture you cite doesn't speak of salvation, I'm not
>>really worried about Gandhi's salvation.  Nice you are, I guess.
    
    Are you a universalist, Richard?  If not, what is biblical salvation in 
    your view?  And what is the gospel of Christ in your view?
    
>>According to his quote, Gandhi would have loved Christians who lived according
>>to the model of Christ.
    
    That's the problem with Gandhi. By separating Christ's passion from his
    teachings, Gandhi's expectation of others is unrealistic and
    metaphysically false.  He's basically saying that if everyone were as 
    moral as Christ, as presumably he is, he would love them. Christ's life 
    on earth was not a model for men to emulate but a *perfect* life lived 
    in dependence upon God, for a purpose.  The purpose of Christ's life was 
    fulfilled in Christ's death on the cross and resurrection, all on behalf 
    of those who would believe. Jesus modeled sinlessness.  Jesus is God as 
    well as man.  Jesus did not have the same expectation of Christians
    which Gandhi had.
    
    	
    jeff

Jesus said:

Mark 9:35  And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto
them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last
of all, and �servant� �of� �all.�

Mark 10:44  And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be
�servant� �of� �all.�

Put your dividing lines wherever you will.  Say it doesn't apply outside
the fold.  I am not so quick to dismiss it.

Richard

    Re .50 (jack)
    
    >"Yea the very least of my bretheren is greater than he". 
    
    I've always interpreted Jesus' bretheren to be all of mankind.  ANd
    when Jesus said that when "you do this to the least of your brothers,
    you do this to me", I've never thought that he meant "Christians Only".
    
    Yes?  No?
    
    >Gandhi by his own admission died in a Christless grave...
    
    I wonder.  He died on his way to a Moslem area which had just sufferred 
    at the hands of Hindu rioting.  He was on his way to help the moslems,
    much like the Samaritan helping the fallen Jew.  
    
    -dave
    

.56
    
>    Richard, not so much a case of worrying of Gandhi's salvation, but more
>    a case of mourning a 2nd death that was needless.

Mourn away then.  I shall not grieve, but shall leave it to God.

Richard

Z    Nothing has been said about Gandhi's stance concerning Scripture (talk
Z    about idols!).
    
    I only brought this up because of Dave's recent reply, comparing
    Gandhi's lack of belief in the inerrant word to his own.  
    
    As far as how I feel, I feel it is a travesty when the local church is
    abrogating it's responsibility to minister to a lost world.  But I
    can't change history, I can only try to influence that which lies
    ahead.
    
    
    -Jack

    What Christians did Gandhi/Ghandi meet/observe when he was moved to say he
    hated them?  The soldiers of Britain?  The politicians of Britain?  
    Do you think that is a fair statement based on who he observed?  
    
    You could argue that if he based this solely on the actions of soldiers 
    and politicians, that Ghandi/Gandhi never really met a Christian.

    
    Oh, I don't dismiss it at all.  Quite the contrary.  It is a very
    pointed statement about the relationship to be fostered among
    believers.
    
    There's another passage in Matthew where James/John's Mother asks Jesus
    if her two sons can sit on Jesus's left and right in his kingdom. 
    Jesus asks her (and the sons presumably) if they can drink the cup
    which Christ will drink to be seated by the Father.  They said yes, not
    yet understanding that Christ's kingdom was not going to be an earthly
    one and that his cup was his crucifixion for the sins of those who
    would believe.
    
    Jesus goes on to tell them how the greater of them will be the greater
    servant.  Honor in God's kingdom is based upon service.
    
    You know, the fundamentalist has much more objectively legitimate basis 
    for approaching the Scriptures as he does than you do in your approach.
    
    jeff

.61

>    As far as how I feel, I feel it is a travesty when the local church is
>    abrogating it's responsibility to minister to a lost world.  But I
>    can't change history, I can only try to influence that which lies
>    ahead.
    
Do I hear contempt?  Do I hear that you might even despise what's been done in
Christ's name?

You are not so different from Gandhi in feeling this way, if you do.  And
I believe Gandhi was only trying to influence what lay ahead also.

Richard

>    You could argue that if he based this solely on the actions of soldiers 
>    and politicians, that Ghandi/Gandhi never really met a Christian.

You just might have something there.

  Z  I've always interpreted Jesus' bretheren to be all of mankind.  ANd
  Z  when Jesus said that when "you do this to the least of your
  Z  brothers, you do this to me", I've never thought that he meant "Christians
  Z  Only".
        
  Z  Yes?  No?
    
    No...in my opinion of course.  Keep in mind that we are not God's
    children at birth.  Nay nay...we are actually born into sin and
    depravity.  We are the enemies of the most high.  It is only those who
    through the resurrection of Jesus Christ are redeemed from sin and are
    now the "Adopted Sons of God".   The only time Jesus spoke of
    persecution, particularly of the church, He spoke as if the church'
    persecution was a direct violation to Christ alone...hence the
    conversion of Paul on the Road to Damascus (Saul Saul...why do you
    persecute me??),
    
    Jesus could not count an unredeemed world as bretheren.  In the context
    you mention regarding the least of my bretheren, he is speaking of the
    local church body.  
        
        >Gandhi by his own admission died in a Christless grave...
        
Z    I wonder.  He died on his way to a Moslem area which had just
Z    sufferred at the hands of Hindu rioting.  He was on his way to help the
Z    moslems, much like the Samaritan helping the fallen Jew.
    
    Yet in light of the oppression Rome beseiged on Israel, Jesus never got
    involved in the military matters of Rome.  What Ghandi had done was
    admirable by human standards.  But dying in the manner Gandhi had died
    is not an adequate payment for sin.  
    
    -Jack

.62

>    You could argue that if he based this solely on the actions of soldiers 
>    and politicians, that Ghandi/Gandhi never really met a Christian.

A shame there are so damned few of us genuine Christians, eh?  ;-}

Richard

    Mike,
    
    Hate was not the word Gandhi used.  Despise was.  

    Gandhi on Christian Scripture (in a nutshell, and from what I recall
    from the book I;ve read...)
    
    He disliked the OT, especially the book of Numbers (if I recall). 
    Whole different story when it came to reading about Jesus in the NT.
    He mapped the message of Jesus to the essense of his native Hindi faith
    as well as to others.  He fell virtually in love with the Sermon on the
    Mount, citing it many times.  He did not see the writting as inerrant.
    BTW, neither did he see literal inerrancy in the Hindu scriptures, or
    any other scriptures for that matter.  He did not subject himself to
    the authority of Christian Scriptuire in a student/teacher type of
    relationship.  To Gandhi, God was reflected in things like brotherly
    love and not on paper.
    
    -dave

    Re .50 (jack)
    
    >"Yea the very least of my bretheren is greater than he". 
    
>>    I've always interpreted Jesus' bretheren to be all of mankind.  
    
    And you always will unless your eyes are opened.
    
    >>ANd
    >>when Jesus said that when "you do this to the least of your brothers,
    >>you do this to me", I've never thought that he meant "Christians Only".
    
    >>Yes?  No?
    
    Who did Christ minister too largely?  In what communities did he
    preach?
    
    >Gandhi by his own admission died in a Christless grave...
    
    >>I wonder.  He died on his way to a Moslem area which had just sufferred 
    >>at the hands of Hindu rioting.  He was on his way to help the moslems,
    >>much like the Samaritan helping the fallen Jew.  
    
    >>-dave
    
    Gandhi's trips didn't help him ultimately.
    
    The story of the Samaritan was a parable, Dave, for teaching the Jews. 
    The Jews hated the Samaritans, thinking of them as racially and
    religiously inferior.  Christ used the *story* of the Samaritan to 
    instruct the Jews that it was not their racial and ritual purity which 
    justified them before God.  Christ used the story to demonstrate to the
    Jews that even though they had the Law of God and practiced it
    perfectly, they had missed the mark.  The legalist notions of the
    religious leaders of Christ's day had completely obscured the spirit of 
    the Law.  Jesus's use of the story of the Samaritan was perfect in its
    context.
    
    To strip the Samaritan story out of its context and attempt to fashion
    a basis for justification for Gandhi before God is to ignore the
    obvious.
    
    jeff    

 Z   Do I hear contempt?  Do I hear that you might even despise what's been
 Z   done in Christ's name?
    
    I acknowledge there is a human element in the building of the local
    church.  Anytime there is a human element, there is the battle between
    the flesh and the Spirit.  
    
    I recognize that as the apostle John wrote to his beloved Churches,
    there are wolves in the fold.  I find it contemptible that there were
    those who misrepresented Jesus Christ in years past!
    
    -Jack

ZZ     Re .50 (jack)
    
    
       >"Yea the very least of my bretheren is greater than he". 
        
    >>    I've always interpreted Jesus' bretheren to be all of mankind.  
        
  ZZ      And you always will unless your eyes are opened.
    
    Jeff, I think you meant this for Dave!! :-)

    
    yes, of course!
    
    jeff

    RE .52 (Jack)
    
    With regard to Hitler... If he accepted Jesus as his savior, he would
    be a christian, No?  Yes?    This is important as Gandhi was told that 
    all you have to do to be a Christian was accept Jesus as being the
    Christ, and in fact God on Earth.  Following the life prescribed by
    Jesus was at best of secondary importance.  And this was something that
    Gandhi had a problem with.  He read the Bible and interpreted the
    accounting of Jesus life in a different way.  He gave different meaning
    to the resurrection.  And he had a great deal to say about Jesus'
    sufferring and seemed extremely empathetic in this regard (a whole
    chapter was slated for this in the book I've read).  If I had the time,
    I'd transcribe a few more quotes here, but as it is, I've spent too
    much time in here already today.  :-}
    
    -dave

 Z   With regard to Hitler... If he accepted Jesus as his savior, he would
 Z   be a christian, No?  Yes?    This is important as Gandhi was told
 Z   that all you have to do to be a Christian was accept Jesus as being the
 Z   Christ, and in fact God on Earth.
    
    Do you mean after the fact or while he was in the depths of the third
    reisch?  Had he asked Christ in his heart on his deathbed for example,
    then I believe he would be redeemed.  Saul of Tarsus was equally
    hideous in his actions but on a smaller scale.  
    
    Gandhi was not given accurate information above.  Redemption
    encompasses a whole gamit of characteristics...including dying to our
    old selves and taking upon us newness of life.  In other words, a true
    believer would not have acted in such a manner...which supports my
    belief that nominal churches like the ones Gandhi faced in his lifetime
    may not have been Christians at all.  You shall know a man by his
    fruits.
    
    -Jack

    Trying to get a grasp on this idea that non-christians are not
    "brothers" as Jesus used the word.  I submit Matthew 12:50 as a
    definition....

      "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and
      sister and mother."

    And I keep remembering how Jesus pointed out the pagan Samaritan as
    doing God's works.  Any thoughts on this combination?


    With regard to Hitler, does it matter when he accepted Jesus as savior
    ("if" he accepted....)?   Are not all people sinners, and to some
    extent, all of our fruit is bad?  At least a little?  In the context of
    the quality of the fruit, where's the dividing line between Christian
    and non-Christian?  How bad does it have to be before one is judged as
    a nonchristian?  Or is it for us to be judging this at all?

    Is the opposite true?  Does good fruit signify a good Christian?  Is it
    possible Gahdhi was a good Christian regardless of what her said or how
    we interprett his beliefs?  If the fruit is the measure, and he had
    good fruit...

    -dave

    Dave,
    
    If you figure out how someone who follows the teachings is not saved,
    while someone who professes to be born again but treats other people
    very badly is, I would like to understand the logic.  I have this
    feeling that if the rapture occurs in the next few years in this town,
    there will be some very surprised people who profess to be Christian.
    
    meg

    Actually knowing what Gandhi and his people went through by the
    professed followers of christ, the fact that he could even acknowlege
    Jesus and the NT for the actual good in it is totally amazing.  

.77

>    I have this
>    feeling that if the rapture occurs in the next few years in this town,
>    there will be some very surprised people who profess to be Christian.

The regional post-rapture party is to be held at my house.  Bring munchies
to share!

Richard

Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the
second is like unto it:  Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  On these
two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

---------------

The great difficulty attributed to the pre-Reformation church (and being
attributed to Gandhi here) is to focus only on the second of these two
commandments: doing good works of charity for our neighbors.

The great heresy of "Reformed" Protestantism is to focus only only the first
of the two commandments: to say that faith alone is all that is required.

The Truth is in the Bible:  "Faith without works is dead."

The Truth is complicated, but not difficult:  While faith alone saves, more
than faith is required.  God demands not just faith (which saves) but also
obedience (which is the fruit of a true faith).

Works alone are of no avail, if there is no belief in God, no love of God,
no desire to worship Him and adore him with all our being.  But that belief
is worthless if we do not also do every good thing that our faith inspires.

Some may not be required to do anything.  The infirm may not be required
to do anything but believe.  Others who are infirm may be required to show
forth their love through actions not prevented by their infirmity that bring
the grace of God to others.

Anne Hutchinson was run out of Boston by the Puritans, accused of teaching
that belief alone was sufficient to save -- essentially teaching that a Hitler
who believed was free from any other moral obligations: the absurd carrying
of "sola fide" to extreme limits - antinomianism.

But the Bible truth, the Truth of Christianity is that Belief and Works go
hand in hand.  Faith saves; works sprout from saving faith.

/john

re .78

	Meg,

	You have got the point. This was an insightful observation from a
	Hindu, who saw the beauty of Jesus' teachings. Do those who profess
	to be a follower of Christ, view them likewise?.

	For those that don't believe that Jesus came to earth to leave a
	model for his followers to follow, then consider the Apostle Peter's
	words at 1 Peter 2:21 NWT "In fact, to this [course] YOU were called,
	called, because even Christ suffered for YOU, leaving a model for YOU
	to follow his steps closely." Yes, we are imperfect, but Jesus will
	be with his followers helping them to carry the yoke that he gives
	them. The yoke being, discipleship or service as a footstep follower
	(Matthew 11:28-30). If Jesus is under that yoke, then surely ones
	light would be shining for all to see, no?. That is why Jesus himself
	said you would know his followers by their fruit, should we doubt him?
	(Matthew 7:15-20). As Gandhi, was promoting these teachings of Jesus
	he was right in judging the practices of professing Christians by the 
	fruit they displayed.  

	Phil.

	"There is enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed."
	
	Mohandas Gandhi.

>    Trying to get a grasp on this idea that non-christians are not
>    "brothers" as Jesus used the word.  I submit Matthew 12:50 as a
>    definition....

>      "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and
>      sister and mother."
    
    Preeminently the will of the Father is believing that Christ is God and
    his crucifixion and resurrection the sacrifice and proof of our need
    for the Savior God has provided.  The will of God cannot be done
    outside of this context. 

    >And I keep remembering how Jesus pointed out the pagan Samaritan as
    >doing God's works.  Any thoughts on this combination?
    
    Jesus's use of the story of the Samaritan was to teach the Jews about
    themselves and their perversion of God's Law.  The story of the
    Samaritan was not to teach that the Samaritan was justified before God
    as a result of his actions.

    jeff

>The great heresy of "Reformed" Protestantism is to focus only only the first
>of the two commandments: to say that faith alone is all that is required.
    
    This is not a heresy of "Reformed" Protestantism but of Arminianism,
    particularly as popularized by Finney and Wesley.

>The Truth is in the Bible:  "Faith without works is dead."
    
    Yes, that's true.

>The Truth is complicated, but not difficult:  While faith alone saves, more
>than faith is required.  God demands not just faith (which saves) but also
>obedience (which is the fruit of a true faith).
    
    It is only difficult in the language you have chosen.  Faith alone
    saves period.  True faith results in works.  So those who have
    professed faith but have no works are deceiving themselves in their
    profession.

>Some may not be required to do anything.  The infirm may not be required
>to do anything but believe.  Others who are infirm may be required to show
>forth their love through actions not prevented by their infirmity that bring
>the grace of God to others.
    
    That's right.

>Anne Hutchinson was run out of Boston by the Puritans, accused of teaching
>that belief alone was sufficient to save -- essentially teaching that a Hitler
>who believed was free from any other moral obligations: the absurd carrying
>of "sola fide" to extreme limits - antinomianism.
    
    That's right.  And the Reformed faith of the Puritans sent her on her
    way.

>But the Bible truth, the Truth of Christianity is that Belief and Works go
>hand in hand.  Faith saves; works sprout from saving faith.

    Amen, John.

    jeff

    
>    If you figure out how someone who follows the teachings is not saved,
>    while someone who professes to be born again but treats other people
>    very badly is, I would like to understand the logic.  I have this
>    feeling that if the rapture occurs in the next few years in this town,
>    there will be some very surprised people who profess to be Christian.
    
>    meg
    
    You have noted an important contradiction in modern evangelicalism.
    The Protestant Reformation knew nothing of such a dichotomy.
    
    jeff

    Richard,
    
    I'll bring the spinach dip, unless it's peak harvest time.  In that
    case I'll bring the corn on the cob.  Are you inviting Will?
    
    ;-)

    Re .77 (Meg)
    
    Depending on what biblical passages one uses, I suppose both points can
    be justified (belief only = salvation vs deeds).  Some merge the two,
    claiming that both are required.  Although each "side" apears to be
    able to stand on it's own given literal interpretation.  When I apply
    a filter to what I see as likely being early church doctrine (as opposed
    to Jesus' actual teachings), what emerges appears to be remarkably similar
    to the core teachings of other world religions.  And these same core
    values are seen in areligious belief systems as well.  Coincidence or
    a design feature?
    
    > Actually knowing what Gandhi and his people went through by the
    > professed followers of christ, the fact that he could even acknowlege
    > Jesus and the NT for the actual good in it is totally amazing.
    
    Yes. But it's important to remember that a lot of good was being done
    in that place/time by christians as well. There were many very generous
    missions, especially catholic missions, operating in the area.  Look
    today at Mother Theresa for current evidence of that.  Gandhi saw both
    the good and the not-so-good and had the courage to speak his mind on
    this subject.
    
    
    
    RE .79 (Richard)
    
    > Bring munchies to share!  
    
    Angelfood or Devlisfood cake :-|
    
    
    
    Re .81 (John)
    
    >Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all...
    
    Funny, when I read this, I saw that Ghandi was very very true to this
    philosoiphy.  WHen you claim that Ghandi focussed on just the second,
    you are wrong.  Much of what I've read about him would seem to indicate 
    that by loving his neighbor, he was in fact loving God too.  This would 
    be indicated in Jesus' teachings as well, no?  yes?  (whenever you do
    this to the least of my brothers...)  He regarded himiself as a simple
    man with a quest toward God.  The public saw him and portrayed him
    primarily as a politician, but I believe that to be in error.
    
    
    Re .82 (Phil)
    
    Gandhi saw Jesus as a perfect example for us to follow, including
    taking up the cross.  The courage it takes to do this is tremendous,
    and maybe the reason why he said that the road to the kingdom is
    narrow.  Just a theory.
    
    
    -dave
    
    
    
    

re .88

	Dave,

	The scripture your thinking of is Matthew 7:13,14 RSV where Jesus
	urges "'Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way 
	easy, that leads to destruction, and those that enter by it are many. 
	For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and 
	those who find it are few." The gate being narrow would mean, that 
	one would need to exert effort to get through it. Coming off the 
	broad road and becoming a disciple is certainly not easy and as you 
	say takes tremendous courage. Also walking the hard road would be 
	very challenging.

	Phil.

    >Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all...

    As the bullet pierced his heart, the last word out of Gandhi's 
    mouth was "Ram," one of the Hindu names for God.

    Tom

    >Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all...

>>    As the bullet pierced his heart, the last word out of Gandhi's 
>>    mouth was "Ram," one of the Hindu names for God.

>>    Tom
    
    I'm sure the last word out of the mouths of many Hindus is Ram.
    The last word out of the mouths of pagans, "good" pagans, is often the 
    name of their god, I'm sure.
    
    Christ said, "no one comes to the Father but by me".
    
    Thank you Jesus that in your sacrifice you made it possible for me to
    be reconciled to God.  Thank you Father that in your mercy, kindness, 
    and love, you changed my heart and my mind and saved me from the eternal 
    condemnation which I deserve and reconciled me to you, giving me hope
    and knowledge and the joy of your love in this life too. Amen.
    
    jeff  

    
    > Christ said, "no one comes to the Father but by me".

    And Oh, how much venom has been spewed over what exactly these words
    mean.

    Peace,

    	Eric

    About the prospect of an assassin's bullet, Gandhi once said...
    
    "I believe in the message of truth delivered by all the religious
    teachers of the world.  And it is my constant prayer that I may never
    have a feeling of anger against my transducers, that even if I fall a 
    victim to an assissin's bullet, I may deliver up my soul with the
    rememberance of me to be written down an imposter if my lips utter a
    word of anger or abuse against my assailant at the last moment."
    
    
    

    |A shame there are so damned few of us genuine Christians, eh?  ;-}
    
    Yes, and I think we will be surprised to see where they come from.  
    
Matthew 7:21-23
    Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
 kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
    Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
 thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
 wonderful works?
    And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
 that work iniquity.

    > Christ said, "no one comes to the Father but by me".

>>    And Oh, how much venom has been spewed over what exactly these words
>>    mean.

>>    Peace,

>>    	Eric
    
    It could not be a clearer statement. It is completely consistent with
    all of the Biblical testament and it is completely consistent with all
    of the NT and with each book of the Bible.
    
    The fact that it is a disliked statement and that folks want to
    interpret in a non-sensical way doesn't change its objective status as
    a declaratory statement whose meaning is crystal clear.
    
    jeff

>    Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
> kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    Nothing could be more crystal clear.  That he that doeth
    the will of the Father shall enter into heaven.

    Gandhi, with the help of Jesus' teaching, did great things.
    I would even say he did the Father's will.

    Tom

    
    > The fact that it is a disliked statement and that folks want to   
    > interpret in a non-sensical way...
    
    As I said....
    
     

    
    > The fact that it is a disliked statement and that folks want to   
    > interpret in a non-sensical way...
    
>>    As I said....
    
    You're equivocating, Eric.  And for what reason?    
    
    There is nothing remotely "venomous" about my statement.
    
    jeff 

    Re .96 (Tom)
    
    >Gandhi, with the help of Jesus' teaching, did great things.
    >    I would even say he did the Father's will.
    
    It would appear so.  And that brings up a question.  How much value
    should we place on what appears to be true and right vs what others
    tell us is true and right, even if that source is the Bible?  The dirt
    has been kicked into Gandhi's face throughout this string and still,
    none of it sticks.  Every ounce of sense tells me that this man was in
    touch with the truth.  Is it wrong to give that observation and that
    sense consideration?  Do we have witin us the ability to doscern what's
    right and wrong independent of external sources?  
    
    

    >Gandhi, with the help of Jesus' teaching, did great things.
    >    I would even say he did the Father's will.
    
>    It would appear so.  
    
    If you appreciate logic, it does not appear so.
    
    >And that brings up a question.  How much value
    >should we place on what appears to be true and right vs what others
    >tell us is true and right, even if that source is the Bible?  
    
    You mean, "that brings up my working presupposition".  Such a
    presupposition elevates personal opinion as a valid arbitrator of what
    is true.
    
    However, truth is discovered through the use of logic and authority,
    not opinion.  
    
    >The dirt has been kicked into Gandhi's face throughout this string and 
    >still, none of it sticks.  
    
    This is such a complete fabrication.  It is a lie.  When people can't
    rationally defend their beliefs and assertions they resort to
    distorting the truth.
    
    >Every ounce of sense tells me that this man was in
    >touch with the truth.  Is it wrong to give that observation and that
    >sense consideration?  
    
    What is truth?
    
    >Do we have witin us the ability to doscern what's
    >right and wrong independent of external sources?  
    
    No.  To discern what is objectively right or wrong is to assume an
    objective standard, an authority.  Personal opinion ultimately is
    completely subjective.
    
    It's funny how things develop.  Those with a Biblical Christian faith,
    portrayed most often as narrow, bigoted, ignorant, literalist, and so
    on, are the ones committed to objective truth and the related
    disciplines of logic, ethics, philosophy (all science) while the modern
    unbeliever's only appeal to truth is his subjective, personal opinion
    (not science at all).
    
    jeff

    I thought there was plenty of dirt sticking.  He denied Jesus as the 
    Christ.  You don't need any more facts than that.

re .101

	Mike,

	Why do you feel the need to throw dirt? No doubt his observations
	of Christian behaviour was seen through the British colonial
	power. Even in the Thirties many of the British people would
	have been church goers. At the time one could say it was viewed
	as a Christian nation, even today the monarchy is the head of the 
	church. As an American, how did your people find the yoke of British 
	rule?. 

	Phil.

>    It's funny how things develop.  Those with a Biblical Christian faith,
>    portrayed most often as narrow, bigoted, ignorant, literalist, and so
>    on, are the ones committed to objective truth and the related
>    disciplines of logic, ethics, philosophy (all science) while the modern
>    unbeliever's only appeal to truth is his subjective, personal opinion
>    (not science at all).

    Apparently, you think so.  I disagree with your analysis.

    Tom

>    It's funny how things develop.  Those with a Biblical Christian faith,
>    portrayed most often as narrow, bigoted, ignorant, literalist, and so
>    on, are the ones committed to objective truth and the related
>    disciplines of logic, ethics, philosophy (all science) while the modern
>    unbeliever's only appeal to truth is his subjective, personal opinion
>    (not science at all).

>>    Apparently, you think so.  I disagree with your analysis.

>>    Tom
    
    It's fine that you disagree, Tom.  But why?
    
    jeff

    |	Why do you feel the need to throw dirt? No doubt his observations
    
    Phil, it's not throwing dirt and I don't have the need to do anything
    but uphold the truth.  It is stating the obvious fact that Ghandi/Gandhi 
    himself denied Christ.  What more do you need?

Note 1329.90

>    As the bullet pierced his heart, the last word out of Gandhi's 
>    mouth was "Ram," one of the Hindu names for God.

I read recently by someone who knew Gandhi that his last words were
a plea for forgiveness for his killer.  Of whom does this remind you?

Richard

>    It's fine that you disagree, Tom.  But why?

    See .105  "Black and white in a grey world"

    Sounds like revisionist history couched in urban myth.  Even Jimi Hendrix,
    Jim Morisson, Janis Joplin, and Elvis have been exalted to near deity
    after death.  People are always looking for a messiah, but rarely find
    The Messiah.

.94

>    |A shame there are so damned few of us genuine Christians, eh?  ;-}
    
>    Yes, and I think we will be surprised to see where they come from.

Will be??  I'm often aghast at who thinks their eyes are open right now!
    
Richard

.101

>    I thought there was plenty of dirt sticking.  He denied Jesus as the 
>    Christ.  You don't need any more facts than that.

Gandhi denied Jesus was the Christ?  Do you have that quote at hand or is
this simply more reading into what's already been quoted here?

Richard

        >Every ounce of sense tells me that this man was in
        >touch with the truth.  Is it wrong to give that observation and that
        >sense consideration?  
    
    Tom, I thought we already agreed on the subject just a week ago
    regarding the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for the forgiveness of
    sin.  Now *assuming* Gandhi denied this truth, which apparently he did
    since he was a Hindu and for perhaps justifiable reasons rejected
    Christianity, on what tangible basis do you make the claim he was in
    touch with the truth?
    
Z    Gandhi denied Jesus was the Christ?  Do you have that quote at hand or
Z    is this simply more reading into what's already been quoted here?
    
    So for the purpose of discussion, it is possible that Gandhi embraced
    Jesus as the Christ but just rejected the local church?  That is a
    possibility.
    
    -Jack  

    RE .108 (Mike)
    
    >Sounds like revisionist history couched in urban myth.
    
    Hold that thought!  Consider what the story would look in the year 2040
    if it was never written down.  Add to this that the holders of the
    story sincerely believed him to be a flawlessly holy man.  Might the
    story be garbled a bit?  A little urban myth added perhaps?
    Maybe a few words misquoted?  Added?  SUbtracted? 
    
    See the problem?
    
    -dave
    
    

    Jack,
    
    Unlike you, many people believes there are many Toas to the true Tao. 
    But I forgot, you don't beieve in Karma, instant or long-term.
    
    
    meg

.111
    
>Z    Gandhi denied Jesus was the Christ?  Do you have that quote at hand or
>Z    is this simply more reading into what's already been quoted here?
    
>    So for the purpose of discussion, it is possible that Gandhi embraced
>    Jesus as the Christ but just rejected the local church?  That is a
>    possibility.

Gandhi would hardly be the first or last to feel this way.
    
Richard

    Understandable...however, this is at best disobedience to God, since we
    are called not to forsake the assembling together.  I realize this may
    have been difficult for Gandhi considering the environment he was stuck
    in; but think of all the lives that could have been won for Christ!!
    
    -Jack

.115

>    Understandable...however, this is at best disobedience to God, since we
>    are called not to forsake the assembling together.  I realize this may
>    have been difficult for Gandhi considering the environment he was stuck
>    in; but think of all the lives that could have been won for Christ!!

Oh, I don't think so.  Christ never intended to start the self-serving
and often dysfunctional institution we've now labelled the local church.

Gathering with others, yes.  The assembly is bigger than any institution.

Richard

|    Hold that thought!  Consider what the story would look in the year 2040
|    if it was never written down.  Add to this that the holders of the
|    story sincerely believed him to be a flawlessly holy man.  Might the
|    story be garbled a bit?  A little urban myth added perhaps?
|    Maybe a few words misquoted?  Added?  SUbtracted? 
|    
|    See the problem?
    
    No, but I get your drift.  332 Messianic prophecies fulfilled in 1
    person's lifetime separates that 1 person from humanity.  The odds of
    that happening are as astronomical as the creation of life by chance
    or man purposely trying to integrate underlying codes and acrostics in
    the Bible.  
    
    There is no other explanation for why Jesus Christ is still a dominant 
    figure and topic of discussion 2000 years later.  Most people barely recall
    Ghandi/Gandhi decades later.

 Z   Oh, I don't think so.  Christ never intended to start the self-serving
 Z   and often dysfunctional institution we've now labelled the local
 Z   church.
    
 Z   Gathering with others, yes.  The assembly is bigger than any
 Z   institution.
    
  I agree the bride of Christ is a compilation of all those who are saved. 
    This is the Church belonging to Jesus Christ.
    
    I also believe the assembling together is the ecclesia...or the local
    body.  I believe Paul acted under the direction of the Holy Spirit to
    build these local ecclesias throughout Asia Minor and Europe.  If Paul
    was an apostle out of season, then Paul had the authority under God to
    establish local churches...churches that were to operate under specific
    guidelines and to be accountable to a governing body.
    
    -Jack 

    Re .117 (Mike)
    
    >332 Messianic prophecies fulfilled in 1 person's lifetime separates...
    
    It's a trivial matter to pen in fulfillment of all the prophecies after
    you know what they are and have the mindset and license to do it.  Ask
    an orthodox Jew if Jesus was the Messiah giving the NT as
    justification.  What kind of response would you expect?  
    
    Richard told of someone who knew Gandhi to have said that he forgave
    his assasin just prior to dying.  Maybe true, maybe not.  If not, then
    can you see how these sorts of innocent exaggerations start leaking
    into the folklore as time passes?  First it's a single word... "Ram". 
    Then it's a message of forgiveness to his assasin.  A bullet in the
    heart of a frail old man would lead one to believe that he said nothing
    at all in the second or two of life remaining.  Left solely up to his
    followers, he'd be speaking sentences.  I expect something similar
    happened back in the 1st and 2nd century until someone finally wrote
    this stuff down.  I feel that the task at hand is to filter out all the
    "Ram"s and other messages they added to what Jesus REALLY said and did.   
    
    > There is no other explanation for why Jesus Christ is still a dominant
    > figure and topic of discussion 2000 years later.
    
    There are a lot of explanations.  But why is it that Buddah is still
    a dominant figure of discussion some 3000 years later?  I think it's
    because they had a similar message, one that appealed to the
    sensibilities of all men (and women... sorry Meg).  
    
    > Most people barely recall Ghandi/Gandhi decades later.
    
    There you go again, comparing Jesus to Gandhi.  If I didn't know
    better, I'd say there was some paranoia here.  No matter.  From what
    I've read, Gandhi seemed like the type who wished to amount to nothing
    in the eyes of men.  Fame was not his wish, true practice of Jesus'
    teachings by man was.
    
    
    -dave    

    
    re .98

    You accuse me of equivocating and yet clearly understand my point? 
    This is illogical. Nonetheless, I'll attempt to unequivocally reply
    here.

    In .95, your insistence that a verse "could not be a clearer statement"
    *implies* that those who disagree with your particular clarity are
    dullards at best and anti-Christian at worst. In case there is any
    confusion in you rebuke, you continue by accusing those who
    disagree with you of actually disliking the verse, and continue by
    characterizing their intellectual abilities as functioning in a
    "non-sensical" way.

    There most certainly is something "remotely venomous" about your words.
    It seems to me you have, once again, gone beyond honorable disagreement
    and into contemptuous diatribe. This *is*, at the very least, remotely
    venomous.

    Often I fear you speak not from love, but from pride and arrogance;
    a trap I too fall into... perhaps even by replying now, when my
    conscience tells me I should have let it lie. 

    In Peace,
    
    Eric

    Don't do it Eric.  It'll just get him going.

    PULL UP!   PULL UP!

    Gandhi is spelled correctly in the title of this string.
    
    	Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi
    
    

    
    Eric,
    
    No need to argue.  Christ's statement is declaratory, true, and clear.  To
    entertain or discuss that it is not clear is a waste of time. To suggest 
    that it is not declaratory and clear is nonsense.  Some things are
    self-evident.  This is one of them.
    
    jeff

    The Old Testament section of the Bible contains 332 references and
    prophecies related to the Messiah.  Jesus would have to fulfill every
    single one of them, in his lifetime of 33 years, without one failure to
    be the Messiah, and do so convincingly. To rule out coincidences, there
    are many prophecies fulfilled by Jesus that were TOTALLY BEYOND HIS
    CONTROL.  Eight of these are his place of birth, time of birth, manner
    of birth, betrayal, manner of death, people's reactions, piercing, and
    burial.  In dealing with the science of mathematical probabilities for
    these 8 prophecies, Peter Stoner writes, "We find that the chance that
    any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all 8
    prophecies is 1 in 10^17" (McDowell, vol. 1, 167).  Stoner further
    illustrates this with an analogy, "we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay
    them on the face of Texas.  They will cover all of the state 2 feet
    deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass
    thoroughly, all over the state.  Blindfold a man and tell him that he
    can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar
    and say that this is the right one.  What chance would he have of
    getting the right one?  Just the same chance that the prophets would
    have had of writing these 8 prophecies and having them all come true in
    any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote
    them in their own wisdom" (McDowell, vol. 1, 167).  Stone also states
    that when 48 of the 332 prophecies are considered, the odds increase to
    1 in 10^157.  Only divine guidance could defy these odds in absolute
    perfection.  Jesus Christ was part of a divine plan and fulfilled it to
    the last detail.

    Re .125 (Mike)
    
    I'm not getting through, am I?
    
    Let's take Jesus' place of birth as an example.  The only source we
    have on this is in Luke, right?  You accept Luke's information as being
    true and then, using McDowell and others, quote probabilities.  I
    consider that Jesus' birthplace was either stated by Luke to be Bethlem
    in an effort to portray Jesus as the Messiah, or, Luke heard that Jesus
    was born in Bethlehem from others who wanted to portray him as the
    Messiah. The same may be true for all the other prophecies.   Doing
    this sort of thing when describing a person or event was not uncommon
    in the literary tradition of that culture.  As you referred me to
    McDowell, I refere you to Spong.  Beyond that, I think he references a
    plethora of biblical scholars on this. 
    
    But nevermind the ancient Jews and their culture.  What of human nature
    in doing something like this?  What did Gandhi say after being shot?
    We've got 3 stories so far...  Nothing, "Ram" and a message of
    forgivness.  Assuming that the last two are fabrications, they are
    inaccurate insofar as they were not factual.  But, Gandhi being the
    sort of man he was, might very well of said either of these had he the
    time and breath to.  They may be consistent with the spirit of the man
    as he was known by those who were closest to him, while not being factual.
    IOW, you can learn something about Gandhi second hand, from those
    closest to him, even if they fabricate the words.
    
    So when I read in the goepels that Jesus' followers claimed him to be the
    Messiah, and indeed, that they claimed he claimed he was the Messiah, I
    consider the possibility that his followers were trying to tell me
    someting about how they perceived the man while possibly departed
    from fact in the process.  I am not saying that everything in the
    gospels was fabrication, rather, that parts might be given human nature
    being what it is.
    
    Probabilities?
    
    What's the probability of me picking the ace of spades from a deck
    of cards?  1/52.  But what's the probability if I stack the deck?  
    1/1.
    
    What's the probability that Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies and
    was not the Messiah?  Some astronomically small number that you quote.  
    What's the probability given that Luke and the others stacked the
    biblical deck?  1/1.
    
    I understand and accept that you hold an inerrant position which
    requires you to accept the gospel accountings as being fact and not
    fabrication.  I do not and this is the source of where we differ on
    this.
    
    
    -dave
    

    Dave,

>    I'm not getting through, am I?

    Do I detect a pattern?

    I, at least, enjoy and learn from your posts.

    Tom

|    Let's take Jesus' place of birth as an example.  The only source we
|    have on this is in Luke, right?  You accept Luke's information as being
|    true and then, using McDowell and others, quote probabilities.  I
    
    Unfortunately your speculation isn't possible.  The Temple was still
    alive and well then, with detailed records of geneaologies.  If the
    Pharisees, or anyone else for that matter, wanted to disprove Jesus as
    the Christ, they would only have to look to Temple records and show
    where He was born.  They could've attempted to deny Jesus was the Christ 
    in several areas like this, but couldn't.
    
    I could see 1 man fabricating a handful of prophecies, but a group of
    men working on integrating 332 prophecies is beyond even today's best 
    project managers.  

Unless the gospels were written after the Temple was destroyed.  Then the 
Christians could say anything they wanted.

Also, your assertion that Jesus fulfilled 332 prophesies rests on the
assumptions that many very obscure passages in the Old Testament are actually
prophesies of his life, and that the gospels are factual presentations of his
life.  I don't think you can prove either.

It is my opinion that the gospels were written more in the mythic tradition of
the times, rather than with an eye to factual innerancy.  Everything I've read
of the writing styles of the period seems to bear this out.

/Mike


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
              <<< Note 1329.128 by PHXSS1::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

|    Let's take Jesus' place of birth as an example.  The only source we
|    have on this is in Luke, right?  You accept Luke's information as being
|    true and then, using McDowell and others, quote probabilities.  I
    
    Unfortunately your speculation isn't possible.  The Temple was still
    alive and well then, with detailed records of geneaologies.  If the
    Pharisees, or anyone else for that matter, wanted to disprove Jesus as
    the Christ, they would only have to look to Temple records and show
    where He was born.  They could've attempted to deny Jesus was the Christ 
    in several areas like this, but couldn't.
    
    I could see 1 man fabricating a handful of prophecies, but a group of
    men working on integrating 332 prophecies is beyond even today's best 
    project managers.  

|Also, your assertion that Jesus fulfilled 332 prophesies rests on the
|assumptions that many very obscure passages in the Old Testament are actually
|prophesies of his life, and that the gospels are factual presentations of his
|life.  I don't think you can prove either.

    Actually most of the Messianic prophecies were documented in ancient
    rabbinical writings dated hundreds of years before Christ was born.

re .105

    |	Why do you feel the need to throw dirt? No doubt his observations
    
;    Phil, it's not throwing dirt and I don't have the need to do anything
;    but uphold the truth.  It is stating the obvious fact that Ghandi/Gandhi 
;    himself denied Christ.  What more do you need?


	Mike,
	
	Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi was a Hindu and yes you could argue he
	denied Jesus as being the Christ. But because he was not a professed
	Christian doesn't mean one can't find value in his insightful 
	observations. Jesus told his followers that others would be able to
	recognise them by the love they had amongst themselves (John 13:34,35).
	Perhaps professing Christians could learn from observations of non 
	Christians such as made by Mohandas ?. Especially, if we make an honest
	appraisal of what he said. That is he despised hypocritical behaviour
	of many professing Christians, but loved Christ that would include those	
	that put into practice Jesus' teachings.

	Personally, from time to time I say or do the wrong thing and because
	of the faith I have this is quickly picked up by my work colleagues. Now,
	should I take offense to them pointing out my fault and retaliate or
	think perhaps they have a point and apologise?. Which approach would warm
	them to my faith?.


	Phil.  

	

    Here's another quote from Gandhi that I liked...
    
    Your whole life is more eloquent than your lips.  Language is always
    an obstacle to the full expression of thought.  How, for instance, will
    you tell a man to read the Bible as "you" read it, how by word of mouth
    will you transfer to him the light as you receive it from day to day
    and moment to moment?  Therefore, all religions say: "Your life is your
    speech."  If you are humble enough, you will say you cannot adaquately
    represent your religion by speech or pen.
    
    

|	Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi was a Hindu and yes you could argue he
|	denied Jesus as being the Christ. But because he was not a professed
|	Christian doesn't mean one can't find value in his insightful 
|	observations. Jesus told his followers that others would be able to
    
    Phil, see Psalm 1 (which was already posted in here).

re .133

;    Phil, see Psalm 1 (which was already posted in here).

	Mike,

	Please can you explain the point your making.

	Phil.

    God's Word sums it up best, especially in the first 3 verses of Psalm 1.

    A couple more quotes from Gandhi:
    
    A short section in "Gandhi on Christianity" entitled "The Letter Killeth"
    
       "The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life."  My very first
       reading of the Bible showed me that I would be repelled by many
       things in it, if I gave their literal meaning to many texts or
       even took eveery passage in it as the word of God.  I found, as I
       proceeded with my study of the scriptures of the various
       religions, that every scripture had to be treated likewise, not
       excepting the Vedas or the Upanishads.  Therefore, the story of
       the Immaculate Conception, when I interpret it mystically, does
       not repel me.  I should find it hard to believe in the literal
       meaning of the verses relating to the Immaculate Conception of
       Jesus.  Nor would it deepen my regard for Jesus, if I gave those
       verses their literal meaning.  This does not mean that the
       writers of the Gospels were untruthful persons.  They wrote in
       the mood of exaltation. From my youth upward, I learned the art
       of estimating the value of scriptures on the basis of their
       ethical teaching.  Miracles, therefore, had no interest for me. 
       The miracles said to have been performed by Jesus, even if I had
       beleived them literally, would not have reconciled me to any
       teaching that did not satisfy universal ethics. Somehow or other,
       words of religious teachers have for me, as I presume for
       millions, a living force which the same words uttered by ordinary
       mortals do not possess.
       
       - M.Gandhi
    
    
    
    A brief quote under a chapter entitled "Why I am not converted to
    Christianity"
    
       There is nothing in the world that would keep me from professing
       Christianity or any other faith, the moment I feel the truth of
       and the need for it.  Where there is fear, there is no
       religion....If I could call myself, say, a Christian, or a
       Mussalman, with my own interpretation of the Bible or the Koran I
       should not hesitate to call myself either. For then Hindu,
       Christian and Mussalman would be synonymous terms.
    
       -M.Gandhi     Young India, September 2, 1926
    
    
    
    
    So, I suppose that if he was allowed to use his own definition, he
    would call himself a Christian.  But, he did not accept the entirety
    of the orthodox definition, especially the part which claimed that 
    Jesus was God, thus the traditional disassociation from that label.
    
    Just words though.
    
    
    -dave
    
    
    

re .135 

;    God's Word sums it up best, especially in the first 3 verses of Psalm 1.

	Mike,

	It was with good reason that I asked you to explain, for this portion
	of Scripture sides more with Mohandas' thoughts. Let's take a close
	look.....

1:1  Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor
 standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

	Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi was directing peoples attention to
	Jesus' teachings, surely one can't find fault with "I love Christ".
	So there can't be anything wrong with this counsel. Whom would stand
	in the way of sinners?  Would it not be a hypocrite?, James 4:17 NWT
	reads "Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right and yet does
	not do it, it is a sin for him.". Hence, in a certain Bible one of 
	the cross references to "nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful" is 
	Psalms 26:4 which reads "I have not sat with men of untruth; And with 
	those who hide what they are I do not come in." NWT. From the Bible's 
	point of view the hypocrites make ridicule of God. As the Apostle Paul, 
	stated "Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a 
	man is sowing, this he will also reap." Galations 6:7. NWT

	Gandhi, was not despising all Christians, but those that label 
	themselves Christian but don't live by Jesus' teachings ie hypocrites. 
	Looking at the dictionary definition of hypocrite, it's something one 
	can shake off because of ones imperfections as it is something 
	deliberate.

	Hypocrisy is defined in one dictionary as "the feigning of virtues,
	beliefs or standards, esp in matters of religion or morality"

	Feign is given the meaning of "to dilberately give a false appearance
	or impression of; also to pretend"
	

1:2  But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate
 day and night.
1:3  And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth
 forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever
 he doeth shall prosper.

	Can it be said that a hypocrite delights in Jesus' teachings? Can it
	be said that he is allowing his roots to draw nourishment from the
	"rivers of water" if he is giving Jesus' teachings lip service?. 
	Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi could rightly make judgment on these
	hypocritical Christians because the fruit they were displaying was
	evidence that they had not "planted" themselves by "rivers of water".

	Whether or not Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi applied what he preached
	is irrelevent when considering his observation. Which was, many whom
	professed to be Christian were showing hypocritical behaviour. One
	could say the fruit they displayed highlighted that they were not
	"planted by the rivers of water" but rather taking in water from
	another source.

1:4  The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth
 away.
1:5  Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the
 congregation of the righteous.
1:6  For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly
 shall perish.

	Consider the Apostle Paul's warning to Christians in 1 Corinthians 
	10:1-13.

	Mike, I really find it hard to believe that any one would find offence
	from  Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi's words. Especially, those that
	take delight in the truth and ways of righteousness. Whom would side 
        with a person whom feigns being a Christian?.

	Phil.  

    RE: .137   Phil

    That's one of the best written notes I've ever read.

    Tom

    Phil, what was Gandhi's relationship with YHWH or Jesus Christ?  Did he
    ever renounce Hinduism and convert to Christianity?

>    Phil, what was Gandhi's relationship with YHWH or Jesus Christ?  Did he
>    ever renounce Hinduism and convert to Christianity?

    God is God, whatever you want to call Her.. er. I mean, Him.

    Gandhi loved God.  And, believe it or not, I believe God loved
    Gandhi.

    Relationship with Jesus?  He read the book.  He got the message
    of love and non-violence.  He lived it.  We should all be so lucky.

    Renounce Hinduism?  Hinduism doesn't teach any different from
    the Bible on such matters.  Why convert?

    You're probably going to come back and say something like how
    Gandhi wasn't religiously correct and missed your litmus test
    about the correct way to think.

    It's a cheap shot at a great man.

    Tom

re Note 1329.136 by SMARTT::DGAUTHIER:

>        I should find it hard to believe in the literal
>        meaning of the verses relating to the Immaculate Conception of
>        Jesus.  

        I should, too, since the phrase "Immaculate Conception"
        refers to the state of Mary's soul from conception, not to
        Jesus at all.

        Bob

re .139

	Mike,

	I really don't understand what his relationship with God has
	to do with his insightful observations. When Jesus said 
	"By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have 
	love among yourselves." John 13:35 NWT he was showing that
	all (whether believers or not) would recognise his disciples
	by their fruit. Why read more into Mohandas K. "Mahatma" 
	Gandhi's observation than is neccessary?. 

	Phil.

re .138

	Tom,

	Thanks, but you are making me blush. The credit should go to
	those who taught me and the tools I have been given.

	Phil. 

    I agree with Tom's assesment of Gandhi as stated in .140.  
    
    Mike, if you scan the quotes I transcribed in .136 again, you'll see
    that Gandhi preferred not to recognize the traditional definitions we
    use to stereotype and catagorize religions.  The man's beliefs were not
    easily pigeonholed.  It's probably just as accurate to say that Gandhi
    associated himself with no particular religion as it would be to call
    him an orthodox member of any one of them.  But, language being what it
    is, and everyone's insistance that he be pigeonholed as something, he's
    called a Hindu. 
    
    Phil, it was a good not.  Take the credit!
    
    -dave

    Phil, I only take Ghandi at his own word when it comes to his thoughts
    on Christ's nature.

|    God is God, whatever you want to call Her.. er. I mean, Him.
    
    prove it.

|    Gandhi loved God.  And, believe it or not, I believe God loved
|    Gandhi.
    
    He loved "Ram."  I don't know any such god.

|    Relationship with Jesus?  He read the book.  He got the message
|    of love and non-violence.  He lived it.  We should all be so lucky.
    
    So are you claiming he was saved?  saved by Ram?

|    Renounce Hinduism?  Hinduism doesn't teach any different from
|    the Bible on such matters.  Why convert?
    
    prove it.

|    You're probably going to come back and say something like how
|    Gandhi wasn't religiously correct and missed your litmus test
|    about the correct way to think.

    Not exactly.  It is obvious that he was a role model to many.

    given that Ram is the universal god of all according to some faiths,
    yeah, I would have to agree with you Mike.  

>        I should find it hard to believe in the literal
>        meaning of the verses relating to the Immaculate Conception of
>        Jesus.  

>>        I should, too, since the phrase "Immaculate Conception"
>>        refers to the state of Mary's soul from conception, not to
>>        Jesus at all.

>>        Bob
    
    And so should I since the Immaculate Conception is not discovered
    through a literal reading (and some would even say from a reasonable
    inferrence) of passages concerning Mary.
    
    jeff

>|    God is God, whatever you want to call Her.. er. I mean, Him.
>    
>    prove it.

    It's one of those self-evident things.  I can't prove it to you
    because you lack the experience of God to begin with.

>|    Gandhi loved God.  And, believe it or not, I believe God loved
>|    Gandhi.
>    
>    He loved "Ram."  I don't know any such god.

    As I said.  You don't seem to know God.

>|    Relationship with Jesus?  He read the book.  He got the message
>|    of love and non-violence.  He lived it.  We should all be so lucky.
>    
>    So are you claiming he was saved?  saved by Ram?

    No.  I'd say he was rather spent.  God got a lot of milage out
    of him.

>|    Renounce Hinduism?  Hinduism doesn't teach any different from
>|    the Bible on such matters.  Why convert?
>    
>    prove it.

    If you refuse to seriously consider anything I write before I 
    write it, you would reject even a perfect proof.  I follow the
    Lord of the Dance, not some would-be puppeteer.

>    It is obvious that he was a role model to many.

    Better than most people who call themselves christians.

    Tom

|    It's one of those self-evident things.  I can't prove it to you
|    because you lack the experience of God to begin with.
    
    How do you know that?  On what grounds do you judge this in me?

|    As I said.  You don't seem to know God.
    
    Again, on what grounds do you judge?

|    If you refuse to seriously consider anything I write before I 
|    write it, you would reject even a perfect proof.  I follow the
|    Lord of the Dance, not some would-be puppeteer.
    
    Tom, give me a logically and spiritually perfect proof.  I'll seriously
    consider it.

.138

>    RE: .137   Phil

>    That's one of the best written notes I've ever read.

I second that.

Richard

.145

>    Phil, I only take Ghandi at his own word when it comes to his thoughts
>    on Christ's nature.

That's fine.  I'm pretty sure Gandhi won't measure up in many ways.

And it is spelled Gandhi -- a human being as worthy of having his name
spelled accurately as anyone.

Richard

re .148

But the text does reveal that Gandhi's study of Christianity suffers from a
major (if not uncommon) "misconception."

/john

.153

>re .148

>But the text does reveal that Gandhi's study of Christianity suffers from a
>major (if not uncommon) "misconception."

Not uncommon at all, even among those who should know better from what I hear.

Richard

    RE: (Mike)
    
    > I only take Ghandi at his own word when it comes to his thoughts
    >  on Christ's nature.
    
    Gandhi suggested that words are not a good vehicle to judge a man's
    beliefs.  Rather, he suggested you take a look at the way he conducts
    his life.  Given that, what would you say Gandhi's thoughts of Christ
    were?
    
    > He loved "Ram."  I don't know any such god.
    
    "That which is a rose...."
    
    
    > It is obvious that he was a role model to many.
    
    Perhaps, but that sort of thing was certainly not his desire.  But he
    did recommend to Christians that they follow the teachings of Jesus. 
    Gandhi did not consider himself worthy of being followed.  He was a man
    on a personal quest to God.  But, I have no doubt that some followed
    him and may continue to do so to this day.  They missed the point.
    
    
    
    Re .153 (John)
    
    >But the text does reveal that Gandhi's study of Christianity suffers
    >from a major (if not uncommon) "misconception."
    
    Who's to say it was a misconception?   I quoted Gandhi in .136 on
    perceiving truth in the Bible. It might be worth (re)reading.
    
    
    -dave

>    Who's to say it was a misconception?

Ghandi's own words, unless you misquoted him.  There is no Christian doctrine
called (as Ghandi is quoted as having said) "The Immaculate Conception of
Jesus".

Jesus's conception was virginal, not immaculate.  The "Immaculate Conception"
refers to an event which occurred approximately 15 years before the birth of
Jesus.  Look it up in a good encyclop�dia, such as the Britannica.

/john

    John, I thought you were talking about something else.  Sorry for the
    misunderstanding.
    
    With regard to the where and how of Jesus' birth, the miracles he was
    said to have performed, his death, etc...  were not see by Gandhi as
    being important.  He latched onto the spirit of the man as best he
    could from what he read and that's what he focussed on. Or so goes my
    estimate of what Gandhi thought.
    
    -dave

    Is no one paying attention?  Is the continued misspelling of Gandhi's
    name deliberate or a product of careless ignorance?
    
    Richard
    

    I don't think Gandhi would have taken offense, even if his name was
    intentionally misspelled and especially if violence would errupt as a
    result of it.  If it is intentional, well, one may want to take that 
    into consideration when judging the maturity of the one who is in effect
    resorting to name calling.