Gandhi

Ahanu

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,088
Reaction score
514
Points
108
Hey, this is my first thread!

I enjoy having conversations about him. For I am fascinated by his life! Well, I consider Mahandas Gandhi to be a follower of Christ, yet the majority of the Christians that I discuss him with say that he was not, and that he rejected Christ, because he was a Hindu. Later the discussion usually ends by labeling him away as a false teacher and prophet, because he did not proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord. However I see that claim in the way he lived his life.

In your opinion, was Gandhi a follower of Christ? Well, this is if you consider Christ to be God. If you do not, I would like to hear your opinion on him anyway.

Anybody have any thoughts?
 
He was a follower of Jesus' philosophy, and demonstrated the power and efficacy of non violent resistance. He wasn't a Christian. You don't have to be a Christian to follow Jesus philosophy.


Chris
 
Hi, Thabrownbaptist---

signs046.gif


However I see that claim in the way he lived his life.

I do, too.

I have a Baptist background, and I am still technically a member of a Baptist congregation, which I love very much. But as you may know, there are many different kinds of Baptists, and if the conventions tell us anything, there are certainly many differences of opinion! I have decided that, since there is so much bickering about what is correct between and among religions and their respective denominations and schools of philosophy, that one must ultimately decide, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just what is true and what may not be. I see no better way.

Interesting that many Christians also condemn Mother Teresa. If Gandhi and Teresa are not examples of practical and spiritual devotion to God; if they were not working according to the teachings of Christ and the will of the Father, then I guess we are just supposed to talk a great deal, but not follow up with our actions. Makes no sense to me.

InPeace,
InLove
 
Agreed. I think Gandhi understood Christianity better than most Christians. Remember when in England he was asked "What are your impressions of a Christian country?" he replied "I think it would be a good idea".

Gandhi read the bible all through and debated with clerics and scholars. It seems that his interest was genuine, but in the end he was put off by the rampant hypocrisy.

I think he embodied the teachings of Christ. I see this also in the present Dalai Lama. IMHO it's the embidiment that counts - not the blathering.

-cliff
 
No, Gandhi was not a Christian. As we all know, he chose not to accept Jesus as his personal savior. As a result, according to Christian teachings, Gandhi is now burning in Hell.

Such belief is the very reason I am not a Christian.
 
Was Gandhi a follower of Christ??

I think they both danced to the same drummer...peace, non-violence, unconditional love...tis all the same Father...
 
I have decided that, since there is so much bickering about what is correct between and among religions and their respective denominations and schools of philosophy, that one must ultimately decide, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just what is true and what may not be. I see no better way.

Interesting that many Christians also condemn Mother Teresa. If Gandhi and Teresa are not examples of practical and spiritual devotion to God; if they were not working according to the teachings of Christ and the will of the Father, then I guess we are just supposed to talk a great deal, but not follow up with our actions. Makes no sense to me.

InPeace,
InLove

I totally agree!! I am scared to even discuss Gandhi with other Christians, because some do not accept him as a brother.

But, did Gandhi read the whole bible? I have his book "The Story Of My Experiments With Truth," in which he said that the book of Numbers bored him. . .maybe he skipped over some chapters, lol.

Wow, I can not believe everybody agrees and this is not even a Christian forum. Nobody on here disagrees, I suppose. Thanks for the responses.
 
I think that Gandhi was a follower of his conscience, and that's enough.

Good enough for me too!!!

Was Gandhi a follower of Christ??

I think they both danced to the same drummer...peace, non-violence, unconditional love...tis all the same Father...

To be a follower of Christ is . . . to believe in, stand for, represent and devote oneself to the same things as Christ did. That is what it means to "believe in him." IMHO, if Gandhi did all those things, then Gandhi was a Christian!!!

No, Gandhi was not a Christian. As we all know, he chose not to accept Jesus as his personal savior. As a result, according to Christian teachings, Gandhi is now burning in Hell.

Such belief is the very reason I am not a Christian.

Christianity started off as the idea that you didn't have to follow rules to be accepted by God. That seems to me to be what Jesus stood for, believed in and represented. 2,000 years down the track, we've made a lot of rules for people to follow to be Christian (ie. the attitude that you must see him as personal saviour). People who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. lol

I don't see the idea itself (that there are no rules, or even the "personal saviour" thing) as the problem. There is no rule that says we can't follow rules, and with regards to the so-called "personal saviour" concept Jesus may simply be a symbol, paradigm, metaphor or example to follow. There is no rule saying we must always uphold a symbol or paradigm, just as there is no rule saying you have to be nice to people and love them all the time. It is just helpful to do it. It is often helpful to stray from time-honoured rules, or to keep in mind symbols and paradigms that we see as important in our lives.

The actual concept may really just be a natural, spontaneous yearning that we have. The problem is making rules on how to approach the concept. Rules set limits and boundaries on things. That is what you see happening in many churches today -- they have made rules, set limits and boundaries on the whole idea -- they have built whole philosophies around it. I see this as wrong as rules don't always reflect people's true attitudes. A person may fall outside the boundaries of those rules but still be true to the purpose of a religion.

Whoever believes in following rules is a slave to rules, so if you are a rule-follower you are not truly liberated. I can't help then, but think that maybe all those "non-Christians" who reject traditional/conventional Christianity and believe God accepts them as they are have probably come closer to "the truth" than conventional/traditional Christians. It's like to be "truly Christian" you have to go against everything you are taught about Christianity.

If you think about it, it's really supposed to be a simple idea. We've just piled heaps of rubbish around it to turn it into trash. Jesus turns up 2,000 years ago to tell people that they don't have to follow the rules taught by their religious leaders, that God can accept them even if they can't.

Now, 2,000 years later, we have the same thing happening with churches telling people they can't be accepted by God if they don't follow their rules or see things their way, that we have to approach the very same idea their way.

Sounds like a case of deja vu. Traditional/conventional Christianity often operates and functions as the same kind of thing Jesus himself opposed.

This of course will probably sound ironic. The same people saying they are "saved" and "liberated" are probably those who are least "saved" and "liberated" -- and what's worse, Jesus is not really their "personal saviour" even though they claim that they see him that way.:eek: It's a world turned upside down. The situation here is where a concept that is meant to liberate people actually enslaves them. Reverse psychology.
 
Your post, Saltmeister, reminds me of an excerpt from On Eastern Crossroads:
THE QUESTIONER OF CINEDRIONhttp://agniyoga.org/ay_crossroads_ft.html#a24
a.gif
MEMBER of Cinedrion asked Christ:
“Would you come to us if we should ask you?”
Christ answered:
“Better would I go to the cemetery for there is no lie.”
A member of Cinedrion asked Christ, “Why dost thou not acknowledge us if even Thy father was married by one of our members?”
“Wait until your house crumbles; then shall We come.”
“Wherefore shalt thou come—to destroy or to erect?”
“Neither for destruction nor erection but for purification. Because I shall not return to the old hearth.”
“How then, not to respect your forefathers!”
“New cups are given for the feast. Respecting a grandfather, one need not drink out of his cup.”

 
Did he actually say that all religions were the same? I know he believed that they all had errors in them, but considered none to be higher than the other.
 
Good enough for me too!!!



To be a follower of Christ is . . . to believe in, stand for, represent and devote oneself to the same things as Christ did. That is what it means to "believe in him." IMHO, if Gandhi did all those things, then Gandhi was a Christian!!!



Christianity started off as the idea that you didn't have to follow rules to be accepted by God. That seems to me to be what Jesus stood for, believed in and represented. 2,000 years down the track, we've made a lot of rules for people to follow to be Christian (ie. the attitude that you must see him as personal saviour). People who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. lol

I don't see the idea itself (that there are no rules, or even the "personal saviour" thing) as the problem. There is no rule that says we can't follow rules, and with regards to the so-called "personal saviour" concept Jesus may simply be a symbol, paradigm, metaphor or example to follow. There is no rule saying we must always uphold a symbol or paradigm, just as there is no rule saying you have to be nice to people and love them all the time. It is just helpful to do it. It is often helpful to stray from time-honoured rules, or to keep in mind symbols and paradigms that we see as important in our lives.

The actual concept may really just be a natural, spontaneous yearning that we have. The problem is making rules on how to approach the concept. Rules set limits and boundaries on things. That is what you see happening in many churches today -- they have made rules, set limits and boundaries on the whole idea -- they have built whole philosophies around it. I see this as wrong as rules don't always reflect people's true attitudes. A person may fall outside the boundaries of those rules but still be true to the purpose of a religion.

Whoever believes in following rules is a slave to rules, so if you are a rule-follower you are not truly liberated. I can't help then, but think that maybe all those "non-Christians" who reject traditional/conventional Christianity and believe God accepts them as they are have probably come closer to "the truth" than conventional/traditional Christians. It's like to be "truly Christian" you have to go against everything you are taught about Christianity.

If you think about it, it's really supposed to be a simple idea. We've just piled heaps of rubbish around it to turn it into trash. Jesus turns up 2,000 years ago to tell people that they don't have to follow the rules taught by their religious leaders, that God can accept them even if they can't.

Now, 2,000 years later, we have the same thing happening with churches telling people they can't be accepted by God if they don't follow their rules or see things their way, that we have to approach the very same idea their way.

Sounds like a case of deja vu. Traditional/conventional Christianity often operates and functions as the same kind of thing Jesus himself opposed.

This of course will probably sound ironic. The same people saying they are "saved" and "liberated" are probably those who are least "saved" and "liberated" -- and what's worse, Jesus is not really their "personal saviour" even though they claim that they see him that way.:eek: It's a world turned upside down. The situation here is where a concept that is meant to liberate people actually enslaves them. Reverse psychology.

Now thats what I call truth!!
 
I read a quote regarding Gandhi that:

"among politicians he was a saint, and among saints he was a politician"

In one of his books I've vaugely remember Gandhi saying that he saw Jesus's Sermon on the Mount as essentially delivering the same message as that given by Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita, only that the Bhagavad-Gita was (for him) somewhat clearer? He certainly wasn't a Christian in the exclusive use of the term (i.e following Only Jesus), but maybe in the inclusive (following Jesus as well as others).

... Neemai :)
 
Your post, Saltmeister, reminds me of an excerpt from On Eastern Crossroads:
a.gif
MEMBER of Cinedrion asked Christ:​
“Would you come to us if we should ask you?”​
Christ answered:​
“Better would I go to the cemetery for there is no lie.”​
A member of Cinedrion asked Christ, “Why dost thou not acknowledge us if even Thy father was married by one of our members?”​
“Wait until your house crumbles; then shall We come.”​
“Wherefore shalt thou come—to destroy or to erect?”​
“Neither for destruction nor erection but for purification. Because I shall not return to the old hearth.”​
“How then, not to respect your forefathers!”​
“New cups are given for the feast. Respecting a grandfather, one need not drink out of his cup.”​
Hello and greetings, AndrewX.....

I don't have any background into this literature, so I was sort of lost when it came to understanding what it all meant. I did a search for Cinedrion but only found 4 references!!! There was only one other passage after the Questioner of Cinedrion, which was pretty short. The context isn't clear to me. I was thinking at first that a lot of it might be metaphor or paradigms that I needed to identify . . . the trouble it's really short which makes it hard for me to see the pattern. Could you point me in the right direction? This is kind of new to me....:confused:
 
He certainly wasn't a Christian in the exclusive use of the term (i.e following Only Jesus), but maybe in the inclusive (following Jesus as well as others).

This is why Christians debate against him so much. Because he did not follow Jesus only. . .
 
Hello and greetings, AndrewX.....

I don't have any background into this literature, so I was sort of lost when it came to understanding what it all meant. I did a search for Cinedrion but only found 4 references!!! There was only one other passage after the Questioner of Cinedrion, which was pretty short. The context isn't clear to me. I was thinking at first that a lot of it might be metaphor or paradigms that I needed to identify . . . the trouble it's really short which makes it hard for me to see the pattern. Could you point me in the right direction? This is kind of new to me....:confused:
No prob, Saltmeister. Try saying the word out loud. ;)

The book I quote from was first published in 1930. I've never seen the spelling quite this way anywhere else, but if you reference the Wikipedia article, you will find it `synedrion' - so phonetically it is the same, and closer than `sanhedrin,' which is how most people know it today.

If you read the section on Traditions of Origin (at Wiki), you can gain further insight into why Christ Jesus would have stated what he did about tradition ... and how important it is to make sure we honor the correct one(s). In some esoteric teachings, it is pointed out that Jesus simply was Joshua son of Nun in one of THREE former incarnations bearing this same name (Joshua twice, and also Jeshua, all of these being cognate with `Jesus').

So, although this will be lost on the majority of Christian believers (although many I know DO accept reincarnation) ... Christ's words to the Sanhedrin take on a deeper meaning, significant because he himself, Jesus of Nazareth, had everything to do with instituting, guiding, nurturing and providing these TRADITIONS - in the first place (literally, since his time with Moses!).

The great irony to me, is that with all the fuss about tradition, and the rules that you mentioned in your post, especially all the pomp and glory that has been pasted on top of Christ's simple Ways and words ... it has become rare indeed to see those who make loud claims actually walking the walk!

Gandhiji said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” And this echoes one of G.K. Chesterton's remarks quite clearly ... that the Christian Way has not failed, but has simply never been tried! :eek:

Fortunately, it is not too late ... for any of us! :)
 
No prob, Saltmeister. Try saying the word out loud. ;)

The book I quote from was first published in 1930. I've never seen the spelling quite this way anywhere else, but if you reference the Wikipedia article, you will find it `synedrion' - so phonetically it is the same, and closer than `sanhedrin,' which is how most people know it today.

I knew about the "sanhedrin," the more common spelling, but not the "synedrion"!!! It all starts to make more sense now. It seems that the Sanhedrin are asking Jesus why he doesn't adhere to their traditions, or if he is going to destroy them. Jesus says yes he does, but not in the way they think.
 
I knew about the "sanhedrin," the more common spelling, but not the "synedrion"!!! It all starts to make more sense now. It seems that the Sanhedrin are asking Jesus why he doesn't adhere to their traditions, or if he is going to destroy them. Jesus says yes he does, but not in the way they think.
You got it! :)
 
Back
Top