Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote:Serious question: How many people will end up in heaven? Less than in hell? More than? Equal parts? And would others from other sects agree with your estimation? I'd prefer serious religious scholars to answer this, if they would.

Here's an example opinion of what I'm searching for in an answer. Right or wrong, it's thought out.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/billions ... o_hell.htm

Currently all will go to Heaven according to new version of chrisitanity, but in the middle ages like only 1% would go to Heaven directly, while others would end up in Purgatory for some time.

Dalek Prime wrote:Serious question: How many people will end up in heaven? Less than in hell? More than? Equal parts? And would others from other sects agree with your estimation? I'd prefer serious religious scholars to answer this, if they would. Thanks.

I'll state it again. We really are being very SIMPLE if we believe heaven or hell exists beyond existence of a material world here on Earth. (from years of experience of much more of the latter than the former.)

attofishpi wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Serious question: How many people will end up in heaven? Less than in hell? More than? Equal parts? And would others from other sects agree with your estimation? I'd prefer serious religious scholars to answer this, if they would. Thanks.

I'll state it again. We really are being very SIMPLE if we believe heaven or hell exists beyond existence of a material world here on Earth. (from years of experience of much more of the latter than the former.)

I don't have to believe something in order to discuss it, do I? Is that a new requirement?

Dalek Prime wrote:I don't have to believe something in order to discuss it, do I? Is that a new requirement?

Sorry Dalek - my reiteration was reiterated moreso for HexHammers post.

attofishpi wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I don't have to believe something in order to discuss it, do I? Is that a new requirement?

Sorry Dalek - my reiteration was reiterated moreso for HexHammers post.

No problem.

Dalek Prime wrote:I'll have to look up Universalists. I don't know of them. I'm assuming that the "everyone" refers to the believers amongst them, and not truly everyone, yes?

Update: Seems to be very different types of Universalists.

If I may. I am a Gnostic Christian and a Universalist. All are saved. No exception. It is quite logical if there is a creator God and quite logical if you believe in a God at all. I do not believe in a creator God but do believe in spirituality and an afterlife.

To see as I do, just think of yourself as God watching us all interact with each other and all contribute to what we all are.

Even a Hitler did not create himself to be such a vile human. Hew was created by all who interacted with him and from a God POV, all those people are guilty along with Hitler.

If you take the God POV, you would either have to condemn us all, or none.

If we have all emanated from a God who was all there was in the beginning, then to condemn any of us would be his condemning what he himself created. Can't have God doing that now can we.

I just put this up elsewhere and it speaks to what I see as the afterlife.

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

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

If there is an afterlife, then where does consciousness fit in (or not fit in)? I'm well aware of the difficulties with the concept of consciousness and I don't see a resolution on the horizon anytime soon.

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

My reply:

I predict that your thread will be quite short as few know anything about the afterlife and most of what you read will be speculative at best and nonsense at worse.

But I have the truth.

Have a look at this clip and if you give that science any veracity then you might believe as I do, since I claim apotheosis and going there just the one time, that that cosmic consciousness is our final evolutionary step.

Like all such claims, I have no proof to offer and only offer this as a true anecdotal rendering.

https://vimeo.com/26318064

Regards
DL

You are aware that the Gnostics of old where dystheists and antinatalists, yes? So how can you believe in salvation from a malevolent God, let alone universal salvation? Gnostics also believed in a creator God, btw! Though to them, it was more a demiurge. So I think you are cherry picking your beliefs. And if you don't agree, that's okay. But don't call yourself a Gnostic then, or a Christian, and I'll be satisfied.

For myself, I'm very much akin to the Gnostics, being both a dystheist and an antinatalist, but I wouldn't call myself a Gnostic, or a Christian, either.

Note that I'm not debating your views, just your self-definitions.

Dalek Prime wrote:You are aware that the Gnostics of old where dystheists and antinatalists, yes? So how can you believe in salvation from a malevolent God, let alone universal salvation? Gnostics also believed in a creator God, btw! Though to them, it was more a demiurge. So I think you are cherry picking your beliefs. And if you don't agree, that's okay. But don't call yourself a Gnostic then, or a Christian, and I'll be satisfied.

You seem to forget the number of various mystery schools that all had different belief.

You seem to think we believed our own myths. Not so, they were just useful tools to seek God with.

Listen at about the 16 min. mark to what this author says and you will learn more of what a Gnostic Christian was in two minutes than the poor information that you wrote of what you think a Gnostic Christian is.

As a thinking persons religion, Gnostic Christianity has evolved somewhat so you have some catching up to do.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Just so you know. Our myths had Yahweh as a demiurge for sure and the creator of this earth but he was not the creator of all. That creator we called Good. But it is/was all myth and not to be taken literally.

Here is a bit of how we are pushing spirituality nowadays much as we did before Christianity decimated us. I include a bit of history for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Regards
DL

I'm refreshing my memory and doing some research on the topic. I'll get back to you and revise, if necessary. I'm fallible, and will try not to give you short shrift, DL.

Dalek Prime wrote:I'm refreshing my memory and doing some research on the topic. I'll get back to you and revise, if necessary. I'm fallible, and will try not to give you short shrift.

Sound good but remember that most of what was written was written by those who decimated us and burned most of our scriptures.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I'm refreshing my memory and doing some research on the topic. I'll get back to you and revise, if necessary. I'm fallible, and will try not to give you short shrift.

Sound good but remember that most of what was written was written by those who decimated us and burned most of our scriptures.

Regards
DL

May I ask what your ancestors' faith was? Were they all Gnostics? I ask because I'm trying to distinguish between Gnosticism in the modern age, and older Gnostics, some who predate Christianity. As you say, Gnosticism was considered a heresy, and was all but wiped out. Thus there doesn't seem to be a linear path to present day, and I, admittedly, did not know there was a resurgence of Gnosticism. I am sincerely interested, DL, and trying to expand my knowledge. Bear with me.

I think where I'm having an issue with your top post is that you say you do not believe in a creator God. But if God did not create, he also did not create the problems ie. no demiurge. As classic Gnosticism assumes he did both, you leave me a little dumbfounded. Can you help with this? Does modern Gnosticism differ from classical? And if most of the literature has been destroyed and/or lost to time, how do we know the modern Gnosticism is based on Gnosticism of old ie. its true successor?

(We may want to open a new thread on this. It's going way off my OP. Unless no one has any objection.)

Dalek Prime wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I'm refreshing my memory and doing some research on the topic. I'll get back to you and revise, if necessary. I'm fallible, and will try not to give you short shrift.

Sound good but remember that most of what was written was written by those who decimated us and burned most of our scriptures.

Regards
DL

May I ask what your ancestors' faith was? Were they all Gnostics? I ask because I'm trying to distinguish between Gnosticism in the modern age, and older Gnostics, some who predate Christianity. As you say, Gnosticism was considered a heresy, and was all but wiped out. Thus there doesn't seem to be a linear path to present day, and I, admittedly, did not know there was a resurgence of Gnosticism. I am sincerely interested, DL, and trying to expand my knowledge. Bear with me.

No problem buddy.

I don't know it I would call Gnostic Christianity a resurging tradition. We have yet to form a church and may never because of the reputation Christianity and Islam have given to all religions. Just having a more moral and inclusive theology may not be enough to have Gnostic Christianity re-immerge. Time will tell. We are a thinking man's religion but most free thinkers are far from the usual hive or tribal mentality that is the root of all religions.

I was born into Catholicism but never really believed any of it and dropped out of all religions in my teens till my late 30s. That is when I did some reading on some of the older religions as a part of my atheist apologetics and was basically forced by my apotheosis to rethink and that is when I decided on Gnostic Christianity being the only worthy religion to follow.

Apotheosis should be seen as just finding out that Jacobs ladder is a good analogy for the seeking of God and finding out that what we see is not all that there is. There is no miracle working God but there is a cosmic consciousness awaiting us as the final evolution of our conscious minds.

If you are going to study modern scholarship on this, I recommend Elaine Pagels. I blame her for turning me on to Gnosticism.

Gnostics, as free thinkers, have always been around in every tradition. It has just been underground, so to speak. It is hard for the average Joe to become a black sheep or goat to his tribe of sheeple.

As you read you will note that we have weird and complicated myths, but know that we know they are myths and only there to help us open our third eye or higher minds.

Regards
DL

I was looking up Elaine Pagels. Seems she's done a fair amount of work on Gnosticism, and sees eastern influences eg. Buddhism, in it's development. Whilst I'm not looking for a new faith, I am interested to learn more of its history, seeing many similarities between my views and theirs, though not its conclusions, and thank you for pointing me to these works, which I will look into. (I'm happily dystheist without the baggage of others interpretations, having always thought for myself.)

As for the OP, I thank you for pointing out they were universalists. On that topic though, I am dropping it as fruitless for my purposes, and consider it closed, though others are, of course, free to continue the discussion as they choose.

Dalek Prime wrote:I was looking up Elaine Pagels. Seems she's done a fair amount of work on Gnosticism, and sees eastern influences eg. Buddhism, in it's development. Whilst I'm not looking for a new faith, I am interested to learn more of its history, seeing many similarities between my views and theirs, though not its conclusions, and thank you for pointing me to these works, which I will look into. (I'm happily dystheist without the baggage of others interpretations, having always thought for myself.)

As for the OP, I thank you for pointing out they were universalists. On that topic though, I am dropping it as fruitless for my purposes, and consider it closed, though others are, of course, free to continue the discussion as they choose.

"I'm happily dystheist"

Start the link at about the 14 min. mark although you should listen to all of it.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

If seeking God, God as the best set of rules and laws to live life well with, which is what the seeking for a God always was, and you do not try to force the theology you want to always be good or end good for God, then you are coping out on thinking things through to their best rules and laws.

Regards
DL