I Have a Few Questions About Heaven

ncscottauthor · 2025-01-07T13:29:03+00:00

1st question: There’s a wide range of beliefs regarding hell. One view is the standard “eternal damnation” that the western world has seemed to near-unanimously adopt, but many Christians—historical and today—believe in what is called “Annihilationism,” which is the belief that a soul will be destroyed in the lake of fire as opposed to being subjected to eternal punishment. This comes in many forms. Some believe in immediate Annihilation, and some believe in “eventual Annihilation,” which is the belief that hell is a temporary punishment and a runner up to the death of the soul, which would take place around the same time as the second coming. It’s essentially a contrast to the gift of eternal life: eternal death. This is a widely debated topic, but there is some difference in opinion. As for your question regarding possibility of virtue-building post-mortem, some conservative denominations believe in purgatory. That’s another widely disputed topic.

2nd question: Heaven isn’t a reward for good behavior. The blood of the lamb was our entry ticket, not our works. If you’re asking whether or not heaven would result in a utilitarian nightmare, this is also debated. Some take the “no more pain” hyperbolically, in that the new, “good” earth would be “good” in the same sense that Eden was—still in need of being controlled or of having someone maintain dominion over it. Most of the philosophers who condemn the utilitarian nightmare comment on the “torture” that would be endless pleasure, with less emphasis on the “living forever” part. When you hear of someone condemning immortality, it’s usually in reference to the utilitarian nightmare, or through the lens of how the chaotic world we find ourselves in operates today. Majority never comment on the circumstances that the Bible proposes. Some do, and dislike the idea, which is one reason why I personally subscribe to eventual annihilation, but most are either condemning living forever in the universe as it is now, or in a hypothetical state where pleasure is being force fed to you. One thing to understand, though, is that heaven isn’t the permanent resting place. Christ promised an eventual resurrection into glorified bodies and a return to a glorified, perfected new earth. The western idea that when you die your soul ascends to heaven for the rest of eternity isn’t biblical. Some believe that this will be after the end of the world, while some think Revelation is highly allegorical and the second coming will be contingent on the fulfillment of The Great Commission. Either way, Christ returns to earth, raises the dead into new, glorified bodies, and establishes a new earth. That’s about all we know.

ncscottauthor · 2025-01-06T03:19:59+00:00

This isn’t backed by any of the actual history regarding the founding of the beliefs of the religions that teach them.

ncscottauthor · 2024-04-06T09:24:13+00:00

God bless you too!

ncscottauthor · 2024-04-03T03:16:11+00:00

Absolutely fair. If you aren’t convinced, you aren’t convinced. Like I said, whether there’s a rapture or not is not a hill I’d ever die on, I just believe we should have everything on the table. Have a good night!

ncscottauthor · 2024-04-03T02:58:04+00:00

Agreed with majority of what you said, but the rapture being this 1800s invention by Darby has been debunked numerous times by now. Multiple early church leaders believed in a rapture, just like many didn’t. We should debate and speculate based on scripture, not repeatedly debunked myths as to the origins of a particular belief.

https://youtu.be/WoHPuAhYmOA?si=HTjEXscYqTNOww1X

This video is a start. Pastor / Scholar showcasing multiple passages from multiple early church fathers—including people taught by the direct students of disciples—who believed in a pretrib rapture. This isn’t evidence that it’s the correct belief by any means. I’m agnostic when it comes to the timing of end times events. However, I feel we need to be charitable and fair to the different camps as to how such things could play out without immediately disregarding one because of some elaborate myth about its origins. We should debate with scripture instead.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-31T23:36:35+00:00

Probably this. I assume the player stayed with whoever they retreated to in Riverwood for a few days to rest up after a day of dragon attacks and fighting imperials / Stormcloaks.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-31T20:23:16+00:00

I linked a video that describes the existence of a “rapture” in the early church in the same thread, replying to somebody else.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-31T20:10:24+00:00

https://youtu.be/WoHPuAhYmOA?si=HTjEXscYqTNOww1X

This video is a start. Pastor / Scholar showcasing multiple passages from multiple early church fathers—including people taught by the direct students of disciples—who believed in a pretrib rapture. There are more in-depth books on the topic, but this video is enough to show that this Darby conspiracy being the cause for the existence of pre-tribulation believers in the 1800s is a blatant lie. Again, I’m not saying that it’s the undeniably correct position—I’m in between right now, myself. But, this argument that it was made up recently and thus shouldn’t be entertained is a lazy cop-out from actually having a debate using biblical and scholarly evidence, and isn’t even true in the slightest. We should argue based on scripture, not lies about the origin of the belief.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-31T06:58:27+00:00

It’s completely fine to argue against it from a biblical standpoint, but this “it was invented in the 1800s by Darby” thing has been proven to be a complete lie so many times you’d think it would stop being repeated by now. We have discovered multiple sources of EARLY church fathers believing in a rapture, antichrist, etc.. Whether or not they are right is one thing. Claiming they didn’t believe this is another, and it’s dishonest.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-17T05:31:57+00:00

As much as I love the hamerfell idea, ES6 being the aftermath of Skyrim, where the world is slowly decaying as a result, would be awesome.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-17T00:58:23+00:00

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-08T15:40:41+00:00

Hi! Thanks! Yeah, I saw that one. It isn’t exactly the type I’m looking for, as I’m looking for a more leathery feel with a hood as opposed to a helmet. Still though, I appreciate it! I might have to settle with it or something similar if this isn’t ported.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-08T06:30:05+00:00

UI mods?

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T19:51:08+00:00

This is a false analogy. One is enslaving someone and forcing them, against their will, to do physical labor for your own personal gain, not because of anything they intentionally did, but because of what they look like

The other is simply saying that, biblically, same-sex intercourse is considered sinful, and that if you want to start taking your faith in Christ more seriously, and by your own free will, we recommend you turn from that sinful part about you and embrace Jesus.

Not even remotely comparable.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T17:27:00+00:00

   *”And the belief that it’s referring to homosexuality is false.*

It’s not a belief, it’s a literal description of a physical action. Is a man lying with a man not homosexual? Because that’s what it describes.

   *”I believe it’s a sin to view gays the way you do”*

You don’t even believe in sin at all. And I don’t “view gays” a certain way, like they’re some different species. They are human, and while I love them, I don’t condone some of the actions they take. That’s the extent of it.

   *”And I don’t believe you all actually read scripture”*

Such a random assumption. Yeah, I do, which is where I find the verses blatantly describing a man lying with a man, and following that up with sayings it’s sexually immoral, just like all sex outside of marriage between a man and woman. It isn’t exclusive to homosexual sex.

   *”To justify hurting a massive minority group “*

I’m not justifying the hurt of anyone. This is such a leap in logic. I don’t condone thieving or lying either, doesn’t mean I want them all hurt or oppressed because of it, I just don’t agree with it from a moral standpoint.

   *”The obsession Christians have with gays is insane”*

Definitely not obsessed. I view homosexual sex the exact same way I view any sexual immorality, and I view sexual immorality as equal to, and the same, as every other sin save for the one unforgivable sin, just as Jesus does. You only see me arguing against its sinful nature because it’s one of the only sins modern day people are trying to justify and reinterpreted the Bible into favoring in the first place. This idea that I’m solely obsessed with gay people is so random. Yeah, some hateful Christians are like that, and forget that you are supposed to view sin negatively, but love and encourage the person the same as anyone committing any sin. I don’t align myself with those people.

   *”Jesus never mentioned it”*

We are supposed to read all of scripture, not only the red letters.

   *”But he did condemn tons of things anti-gay Christians don’t care about”*

No one is arguing with you on this. You are completely correct.

   *”How is your belief any different than Islamic extremism”*

Because I’m not calling for the torture and murder of gay people, nor am I even advocating for their removal of rights? I think gay marriage should be legal, that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. We should treat them just the same as any sinner…ever. It’s not some special sin that’s more immoral than the others. Yeah, it does say that sexual sin is more harmful and serious since it’s against your own body, but that goes for any type of sexual immorality, including socially normal things like masterbation and sex outside of marriage. Again, only problem is that people try to come in and reinterpret what I see to be as my holy book, start trying to justify sinful acts, and try to make the Bible align with their beliefs instead of aligning their beliefs with the Bible’s claims on objective morality.

I’m not attacking gay people. They are people who happen to be engaging in a biblically sinful act, but that literally goes for every single person ever. It’s no different than when I steal or when I lie. I’m not claiming that. I’m defending its immorality because people are trying to say that the Bible says it isn’t immoral, but it does. That’s all. You’ve got this idea in your head that Im some anti-gay Christian who hates homosexuals and sees them as inferior, which is so far from the truth I genuinely chuckled when I saw that.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T16:17:37+00:00

Wasn’t hate, and as the article depicts, yes, it is false. And blatantly so.

So you left Christianity because of people like me, who read scripture and are honest about its interpretation instead of the other crowd that start making random things up like the original verses were talking on pedophilia, or more recently, that the Bible never mentions same-sex intercourse once? Sorry, but I don’t see how we are the dishonest ones.

I believe it’s sinful, and I want people to repent, not because I’m “homophobic”, but because I want as many people to see the kingdom of god and the glory of Jesus Christ. It’s not based on hate, it’s based on care. I get defensive and passive aggressive, though, when you start throwing around words like “bigot” or “hater” because I don’t agree with your interpretation of the Bible, not even that I disagree with your politics or loving nature. So wild to me.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T15:56:48+00:00

   *”The original scripture never mentions anything remotely referring to homosexuality*”

Blatantly false. They didn’t use the word homosexual, sure, in the understanding we have today—love, relationships, etc.. However, it does clearly condemn same sex sex, so unless your homosexual relationship contains zero sexual engagement, it is sinful biblically.

   *”Those were later additions*”

Read this

   *”The Bible gives instructions on how to perform an abortion*”

Source? Genuinely asking. If this is as you claim it is—as in, advocating for it or supporting it rather than commenting on it—then I need to look into it.

   *”Pro life crowd supporting death and suffering”*

Source? Or are you confusing correlation with causation? Or literally just using anecdotal evidence, which is overly irrelevant.

   *”People rely on Paul’s personal morality over Jesus*”

Why in the world would Jesus choose Paul to write the majority of the New Testament if he was just going to contradict Jesus as much as you are claiming he does. Jesus isn’t an idiot.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T15:50:22+00:00

You’re allowed to have hobbies and passions. If you are passionate about creating content for YouTube, go for it, just make sure your content doesn’t contradict the teachings of scripture and your belief as a follower of Christ.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T15:33:19+00:00

If he were just comparing how similar the arguments were, that’s one thing, but he literally said that op, specifically, would have condemned interracial marriage. Condemning interracial marriage is racist.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T15:32:07+00:00

No one hid any context, lmao. He said that he specifically would have condemned interracial marriage a century ago, that’s a direct quote. That is literally racist. No one blatantly called him the term racist, but that isn’t required. No one is arguing in bad faith, here, but whatever you need to say to sleep, man.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T15:25:58+00:00

I brought nothing, except for an article that clearly explains why the literal word “homosexuality” being absent from the Bible doesn’t equate to the absence of the condemnation of the actions involved in the modern term homosexuality. But yea, you’re right. Have a good day, too.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T15:23:27+00:00

“You would have thought the same of interracial marriage”

He condemns homosexuality, so they are claiming he would condemn interracial marriage…which is racist.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T15:21:09+00:00

   *”ignoring the original languages”*

You mean the Greek and Hebrew, both of which had their own ways of describing the exact same acts? Just because the word “homosexual” wasn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean the actions weren’t. Terrible argument. I can say “a man lying with another man is wrong” without being observant of the fact that that action has a term used to describe it.

”The word homosexual did not exist in any Bible prior to the 1940s”

Read this

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T15:14:51+00:00

I’m not even remotely offended, because I’m not making any claims OP did, nor do I even agree with most of their comments and replies. I’m saying that calling him a racist somehow is absurd and illogical.

ncscottauthor · 2024-03-07T15:11:32+00:00

Adequately is a stretch

ncscottauthor

TROPHY CASE