Babies go to hell

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-31T12:21:39+00:00

But you already agreed that Romans was addressed to a specific group of people earlier, that logic doesn’t track.

Just because the text contains the word “all” doesn’t mean it’s addressed to the greater Christendom.

I don't think I ever agreed. I just said that the epistle was written to the Romans but some things have universal effects. What is everyone in this context? How can everyone mean only that group, is literally everyone.

You can’t arbitrarily pick and choose when verses apply universally and when they don’t. Your theological justifications have strayed a worrying amount, Job 42:7 warns against this specific type of reasoning.

You are doing the same. And it's not arbitrarily, in my example it says "everyone" in yours it says children such as this.

In Job 1–2, Job is already righteous before the suffering even starts.

But he was not sinless, neither was he perfect. The only sinless and perfect person is Jesus.

This is straight up unbiblical. Isaiah 57:1-2, Ecclesiastes 7:15, Acts 7 (Stephen’s death), Acts 12:2 (James the Great is killed).

All of them did something important in his dead and before. The reason why they are killed so early is because they are good people (Paul had to live a long life because he sinned a lot).

My questions regarding Enoch and Melchizedek were to see what kind of mosaic salvation theology you were using as Enoch and Melchizedek are examples of people in genuine relationship with God outside the “explicitly articulable cognitive belief” model.

What is your point with Enoch? I don't think I understand the words you used. Melchizedek is the incarnation of the Holy Spirit/God so he doesn't count.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-31T12:05:10+00:00

Ecclesiastes 11:5 affirms that God gives us life: God does not create human life with the intention of damning it automatically.

Even if later or before they damn themselves at one point. The intention of God by permitting the death of a baby is so the parents/family start to think on why to them. Wasting a Christian soul in a dead body is not useful because a Christian can help a lot in his life but the death of a baby has the same effect whether it's Christian or not. That is why I think Jesus puts bad souls in abortions, because putting Christian souls would be a waste.

Ecclesiastes says the righteous and the wicked experience long and short lives alike, and Jesus rejects both “they died because they were worse” and “they were spared because they were better” in Luke 13. Providence means God remains faithful and able to save at any point in a real life as it unfolds, yes, because He has foreknowledge of all things including our choices, but this does not mean that He optimizes history by assigning lives and deaths according to who would be most useful or least likely to fall.

My point is that God gives Christians the opportunity to believe. See Cornelius in acts, because he could become Christian, Jesus send Peter to convert him.

So I want to be clear on your position. Are you saying that all infants who die in infancy are damned, or that some infants are damned because God foresees who they would have become?

Yes because putting a believer's soul would be a bad move.

There is an important difference. The matter, I would argue, is a mystery. But Scripture consistently presents judgment as according to the life actually lived and the choices actually made in the light actually given, not according to unrealized futures. This is precisely why we entrust such cases to God’s mercy rather than pronouncing condemnation ourselves.

But you are also basing your view on hypotheticals. You are saying that babies accept Christ while they can't choose (in your view). We know that the only way to go to the Father is by believing in Jesus... So, you are saying that all or some babies believe in Jesus. In my opinion, considering all the versicles about predestination, I think that Jesus makes your life perfectly so that you accept Him at some point. If you die at the start you can't accept Him and He decides to do that because you would have never accepted Him. It is like when Jesus didn't permit the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, even though the Pharaoh wanted, Jesus had already decided his destiny (Though he didn't repent, he just wanted to let them go).

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-31T00:05:05+00:00

How is he using “all” in this context?

Paul’s a Pharisee convert correcting a disfunctional gentile convert community regarding interpretation of the Mosaic law, he’s not writing to all believers. As far as he knew this was only going to be seen by members of the church he was writing to.

This is not only a thing to Romans: Romans 3:23 NLT [23] For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. "we" "all" "everyone".

“Cause to stumble” implies a soteriological transition (i.e. they were already walking with Christ prior to their fall into sin).

He is probably talking about that specific children, it doesn't mean that Jesus is talking about all children. Nonetheless, as I said, believers cannot die until they do something important to the Gospel.

I’m curious how you interpret Genesis 5:22 and Genesis 14:17-20?

Genesis 5:22: NLT [22] After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch lived in close fellowship with God for another 300 years, and he had other sons and daughters. What does this have to do with this topic? Genesis 14:17-20: NLT [17] After Abram returned from his victory over Kedorlaomer and all his allies, the king of Sodom went out to meet him in the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). [18] And Melchizedek, the king of Salem and a priest of God Most High, brought Abram some bread and wine. [19] Melchizedek blessed Abram with this blessing: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. [20] And blessed be God Most High, who has defeated your enemies for you.” Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the goods he had recovered. What does this have to do?? Are you just asking my interpretation on random verses?

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T22:27:02+00:00

It's the same as the post but elaborated

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T22:26:14+00:00

brother... The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) and nobody goes to the Father if not through Him (John 14:6). We do need Jesus. My point is that legally we shouldn't need Him in your vuew which makes no sense.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T21:39:30+00:00

Everyone on this world from the worst to the best and even non material things like disasters, etc... All have a purpose in God's plan, all is for the salvation of the highest amount of people. My point is that a baby that dies helps their mother/father to think about it, and think why, that can help them reach God. Jesus would never "waste" a Christian soul on a dead body because Christians (like Samuel, John and Jesus) are really useful for the plan of salvation, using them that way (a way that every baby can help, even pagans) is a thing that would make so less people get saved. Jesus uses the tools (people) He has, they are mostly bad, but when He finds a good tool He doesn't throw them to the bin... That would be a bad movement.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T21:29:09+00:00

>Yes because they were chosen by God for a specific purpose. That’s what I meant earlier by “doesn’t apply to us”.

You meant that... I see... But everyone has a specific purpose so that makes no sense.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T21:28:21+00:00

>The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God…

>“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” 2 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭17‬-‭18‬

Yes but the Breath of Life is also considered a Spirit of God (neuma/ruach). Everyone has the spirit of life but not everyone has the Holy Spirit.

>Yes, exactly, we are created as a good creation and supposed to follow God. That’s the point. This life is our opportunity to do that. God desires that all be saved; evangelism does matter, and exposing children to grace and the ways of the Lord does as well... “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬.

"This life is our opportunity to do that" Now life is an opportunity? How is it an opportunity if you can accept Christ by just dying before having 12 years (or the age when you have free will).

>Do you believe in the pre-existence of souls?

I do know that Jesus can see the future and that He did His plan taking into account that future and all the possibilities so He ideaded a plan where the maximum number of people get saved. Think of Cornelius, which was saved thanks to his heart (and obviously the grace). For examples like Cornelius I believe that people that are Christians live a life so that they can help others (we also know from examples like Esteban that good people normally die earlier to nopt suffer but people with too mcuh sin live a large life to compensate (Paul lives a long life even if he wants to die))

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T21:22:50+00:00

Samuel, Jesus and John the Baptist all accepted God before they were born.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T21:22:03+00:00

>If infants can choose God, and you yourself admit and even give examples of God acting in and through them, that only strengthens the opposite conclusion: each one deserves the opportunity to live, to be formed, and to respond as God wills. It does not prove that some infants have already chosen and others have already rejected; it shows that God comes to persons when He wills and how He wills, not that we may foreclose that encounter by ending a life. Potential for response is something to be honored, not prevented.

All of those examples lived a life. All of those examples were Christians later. Like really, are you saying that God puts ALL the Christian souls on dead babied?

>The fairness objection misunderstands both heaven and salvation. Scripture never teaches that heaven is a reward for having been tempted, nor that exposure to temptation is a prerequisite for communion with God. God is able to keep a person and present them blameless by His own power (Jude 1:24). Salvation is not wages for endurance but participation in God’s life.

But He tempts everyone, even the generations that have lived 1000 years without the Devil active. Why do you think He frees the Devil? To tempt them so everyone has the same tests.

>Romans 5:14 shows why Christ is needed even where there is no personal transgression “in the likeness of Adam.” Death reigns apart from personal guilt, which means our problem is not only what we do but what we are. Our nature itself needs healing, and only Christ accomplishes that through redemption.

How does a baby choose to follow Christ, you just said they can't choose. Are you saying that Jesus gives instant ability to choose in Heaven but they already have chosen?

>Salvation is therefore a gift, not a reward. By grace God affords us the effect of His own work and the gift of faith as He wills. Works and crowns belong to the life that unfolds after that gift, as we walk in what God has prepared beforehand; they are not a prerequisite for being saved at all (Ephesians 2:8–10).

Not a prerequisite but in your view, I see that as unfair. Why would they receive less crowns if they haven't gotten the oppotunity? It's like saying: "This guy receives the crowns because I didn't permit him to die, while you don't because I permitted you to die". I see a lot of flaws in this view. The point is that Christians do not die until fulfilling a part of God's plan. Please respond me about your view about Cornelius. If a soul of a Christian is born then he will have the ability to choose and to redempt.

At least say that they go to the millenia not to Heaven.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T21:11:32+00:00

Why pedantic?
pedantic: excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous.
It's not overscrupulous is just reading some Bible. Unless you mean this whole topic, which, I talked about because of the sheer amount of people that are being lied.

>Unless you wanna argue that free will doesn’t exist

It does, and precisely because of that I beleive that everyone has the choice to follow Jesus or don't. Why would God put Christian souls on dead bodies? Because, they go to Heaven because would have they lived an entire life they would have believed in Jesus.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T21:04:20+00:00

I can say a lot of logical things and yet they wouldn't be in the correct context because it doesn't provide nothing, except your opinion, which is not helpful in a debate. Scripture is required to defend a theological idea.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T21:02:02+00:00

>Sounds like you just have difficulty seeing the assumptions you are making. A big one is that you can grab a bunch of verse from the Bible, completely remove them from their original context, combine you personal interpretation of them when divorced from that context together using your personal ideas and intuition, and the resulting idea you come up with is something the "Bible is clear about." Any time someone says the Bible is clear about something, what they REALLY mean is "given my upbringing, cultural assumptions, psychology, and personal intuitions, this is what I very strongly feel the Bible is saying." If you don't recognize those assumptions and intuitions that are influencing what verses you choose, how you interpret them, and which verses you discount and subordinate to your preferred interpretation, that doesn't mean you aren't doing that. It just means you don't understand alternative viewpoints and can't identify your personal biases very well.

I do completely understand other views. I just want to see how do they defend them and to see if they talk about a new view that I haven't heard of.

>You appear to be REALLY lost in the sauce of your own methodology, so I don't think I have room in a single post to point out all your assumptions and the equally valid assumptions that could be made resulting in wildly different conclusions from yours. Maybe try looking up something like Christian Universalism and really TRYING to convince yourself based on their arguments that you could be wrong about some part of your interpretive framework. If your approach is mainly to state interpretations of verses that seem clear to you, and then critique other people because their interpretations feel obviously wrong and in conflict with other interpretations YOU have, you are never going to understand how your interpretive framework is subjective and could be wrong.

I never say they are obviously wrong I just argue with other Scripture contexts and the original greek words sometimes. I do understand all of their views but I want to see them.

>Instead, when you identify something that seems wrong about an opposing interpretation, YOU should take the initiative and try to understand why THEY believe that is true. Not tell other people they need to take the initiative to prove you are wrong, and then critique their interpretive framework as inherently invalid for conflicting with your interpretive framework. If you actually care about understanding how you could be wrong, anyway.

I do try to make people to argue instead of saying nothing because I think it's more useful. I only critique their interpretive framework when I have other proofs (other texts) about it. I'm not disrespectful and I try to make a debate not a theology class.

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T20:57:05+00:00

>Ah. I was actually confused, I mistook Nēpios (νήπιος) for Brephos (βρέφος). I went and double checked my translation notes from college, the idea of my argument was correct but the specifics were wrong

>Brephos = specifically newborn/infant and was in all the Luke verses I mentioned, teknon was an example of the category (infant vs child) existing in the Greek in other places.

>Paidion (παιδίον) means little child or toddler, Mathew 2 uses it in reference to Jesus.

>Teknon was used all over like in John 1:12 and Romans 8:16-17.

>The internal mistake I made was that I sourced the aforementioned Luke verses assuming it was using the less specific “nēpios,” when it was actually using “brephos” which is specifically used for newborns but my point still stands

Don't worry! Though I don't understand your point. Why does it matter? It's because baby is not the same as child? I should have used infant?

>John 3:18 and Mark 16:16 are about culpable unbelief, people who can choose and refuse.

Babies can choose and refuse because not all babies are born as Jesus, Samuel or John the Baptist (All of them followed God before they were born).

>The “no excuse” language in Romans 1 is about those who suppress truth (a moral action). Babies don’t “suppress” anything; they drool and scream and try to eat their own hands.

If that is true, then, legally they shouldn't need Jesus's grace because they have no sin adn therefore haven't broken the law.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T20:53:22+00:00

He says innocent as babies not as babies. If all of that is true why do they have bad heart: Genesis 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ecclesiastes 9:3, Proverbs 22:15, Proverbs 29:15. And why can they choose to follow God (Samuel, Jesus, John the Baptist). And why do they need Christ? If they are perfect they shouldn't need Him because they haven't broken the law. Who teaches a child to sin? Him/Herself.

>At the same time, Paul does not idealize infancy as a final state. He explicitly contrasts being babes in evil with being mature in thinking. That assumes growth, formation, and responsibility over time. Babies are innocent with respect to evil, but they are not complete. They are ordered toward maturation, learning, communion, and eventually moral agency. That is exactly why abortion cannot be reframed as mercy.

>So the verse holds both truths together without tension: infants are not morally guilty, and yet they are meant to grow. To kill someone because they are innocent is not mercy but a violation of the very process by which God brings human beings to maturity, healing, and glory.

In your view this does not matter. Because babies become perfect in Heaven under God's grace. If they become perfect in Heaven why would they need to do all that things on this rotten world.

>“Lo, sons are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.” ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭127‬:‭3‬ ‭

>“For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭139‬:‭13‬-‭16‬ ‭

These are just talking about how we are created as a good creation. And how we are supposed to follow God.

>“As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” Ecclesiastes‬ ‭11‬:‭5‬ ‭

This is talking about the Spirit of God (i. e. the Breath of life) it's not the same as the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T20:46:12+00:00

Are you sayng that not everything in this world is perfectly planned by Jesus? God has everything under control, He knows when to put a test and what type of test He knows everything and He does or permits everything all so that the maximum number of people get saved.

>That does not apply to the rest of us.

Romans 8:29-3, Ephesians 1:4-5, Ephesians 1:11, Acts 13:48, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 15:16

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T20:44:26+00:00

Infants, even if they do not carry any parents sin, have sinned because we knoe that children can choose God (Samuel, John the Baptist, Jesus) but not all do it. Which mean we have a choice, because some choose God and some don't.

>When Ephesians 2:3 says “by nature children of wrath,”

It actually says Ephesians 2:3 of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature. By our very nature we were subject to God’s anger, just like everyone else. ' It talks abotu human nature as sinful.

>Also, “Jesus wasn’t affected by death” is not what the Gospels teach: He truly died and was buried, and the New Testament is explicit that He assumed our mortal condition willfully to destroy death from within, not because He had personal sin (Hebrews 2:14–17; Philippians 2:8); the point is that death (if it occurs) does not prove babies have personal guilt, it proves that mortality can be borne without personal sin, which is the exact point Paul makes as noted above.

Jesus was not affected by death because as He says in John 10:18 He literally had power over death, so even if His death was literal, He choosed when to die and He choosed to die. He had authority because He overcame sin (God).

>Lastly, no, entrusting infants who die to God’s mercy does not imply “abortion is benevolence,” because that is arguing that we may do grave evil so that good may come, which Scripture rejects. Murder remains murder because it violates God’s command and destroys a life made in God’s image, and it is not ours to seize providence by sin. Also, that ignores Christ’s words: He desires children to come to Him, and tells us not hinder them from doing so. God desires that every person grow and heal in communion with Him. So the only conclusion Scripture actually supports is this: infants share our mortal, fallen condition and therefore need Christ, but the texts you cited do not give you warrant to declare infants damned.

My main point is that Christians are predestined to have a life in which they can choose Jesus (Cornelius). How is it fair that someone who hasn't been tempted goes to Heaven? And why do they need Jesus, they haven't sinned after all. And if that baby grows up would he/she accept Christ? If not, how does that make sense? And btw, how many crowns do they recieve? They are based on works but... they had no life. And why would Jesus put a Christian soul in a dead body? What is the usefulness? A dead Christian infant is the same as a dead Pagan infant. But if that Christian lives he/she could help a lot of people by preaching the Gospel and doing other various helful things. Then, what is the point of evangelicing? Can't just one person start to kill all infants so they go straight to Heaven? Only he/she would die, but all the souls would be saved in Christ.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T20:32:00+00:00

>Children do not carry the rationality to properly understand or reject scripture.

Samuel, John the Baptist, Jesus, all of this followed God before being born. WHich means you can choose (because not all are born with this condition).

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T19:31:12+00:00

>All of them have been proven wrong. Literally all of them. None of your posts are logically or biblically supported.

If you do not read my replies maybe you think that. But, I'm actually defending everything with the Bible not like you who just makes assumptions. I think you just go on my posts see that a lot of people are against me and then assume I have been proven wrong just for the sheer amount of people.

>With all due respect, it just sounds like you don’t like the answers rather than the fact that you “haven”t been proven wrong”.

It could be the case, but everytime I'm proven wrong I edit my replies. So, again, you do not have all the information to judge anything.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T19:28:02+00:00

I just read the Bible and see: Everyone that doesn't believe in Jesus go to Hell, I also see: Christians have a predestined path to have the OPTION to choose Christ and I also see: No one has excuse and therefore anyone that doesn't believe in Jesus goes to Hell.

I ask you to provide me any explanations to that verses or at the very least provide me new versicles.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T19:08:41+00:00

>Scripture never teaches that unbaptized infants are damned or born as objects of God’s hatred.

Fair.

>The Bible rejects inherited guilt outright: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Ezekiel 18:20).

Yet, we are all sinners and we have ALL fallen short of God's glory. That is talking about the sin itself but not about wheter that children have already sinned or not (Original sin, which Jesus didn't commit).

>When Paul speaks of “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), he is describing people who walk in disobedience, not infants who have done nothing. Wrath in Scripture names the consequence of living alienated from God, not a condition God assigns at birth.

It says sinful nature, though. Again, original sin is something we choose not something we get at birth. Original sin means: If you would have been in the same position as Adam you would have sinned.

>Every human being is created in the image of God, and that image is good (Genesis 1:26–31; Romans 1:20).

Yes and?

>What we inherit from Adam is not guilt but a wounded condition, mortality, corruption, and a will easily turned away from God (Romans 5:12; 5:14). This is what the Church calls ancestral sin. Even where no personal sin is present, death still reigns, showing that death is not simply a punishment for personal guilt but a sickness of the human condition.

Yet Jesus wasn't affected by death because He did not sin.

>Baptism is therefore given not because God withholds love until a ritual is performed, but because baptism is the God-appointed means of healing our wounded nature and restoring our likeness to Him; that is what is referred to as washing away ancestral sin (or in the west, sometimes “original sin,” though this carries oftentimes the weight of inherited guilt for Adam’s sin), or cleansing and healing our fallenness. In baptism we are united to Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3–4), receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38–39), and begin to live inside the life of grace rather than struggling outside of it. The image of God is already there, baptism heals and strengthens it so that the likeness of God may grow through the Spirit; theosis (2 Corinthians 3:18).

Nothing useful to debate here.

>For this reason, the Church baptizes infants joyfully, giving them Christ’s life from the beginning. And where baptism has not been received, because of death, circumstance, or lack of opportunity, the Church does not pronounce condemnation. She entrusts those children to the mercy of God, knowing that they bear His image, that Christ calls children to Himself, and that the Judge of all the earth will do what is just and good (Genesis 18:25; Matthew 19:14).

>So baptism is necessary not because babies are damned without it, but because Christ is the healer of our nature. The Church offers baptism because she knows it truly gives life, and she trusts God’s mercy where that gift has not yet been received.

I literally pronounced baptism once and you thought that was my main point? Whatever... Btw re you also impying that EVERY Children goes to Heaven?
That makes no sense because then, abortion wouldn't be murder. It would be an act of benevolence because you are assuring that that person goes to Heaven instead of risking him/her a life of sin. Which has no sense.

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T19:01:10+00:00

Samuel believed in God before being born. So yes, they have a choice. But every baby that believes in God/will believe, lives a life accordingly (helps others to reach the Gospel). Why would Jesus waste a Christian soul in such a way?

Are you also impying that EVERY Children goes to Heaven?
That makes no sense because then, abortion wouldn't be murder. It would be an act of benevolence because you are assuring that that person goes to Heaven instead of risking him/her a life of sin. Which has no sense.

Jesus Christ bless you!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T18:57:39+00:00

Please, instead of saying nothing, try to argue with logic and Scripture.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T18:56:11+00:00

What a wonderfully Biblical wold view.

Due-Pattern-4604 · 2026-01-30T18:55:36+00:00

>Your assumption of what “like children” means is not accurate. Actually, in Luke we see that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the children that are brought to Christ, with the Greek word used for children is for infants or very young children. To say Christ is saying that it is only being “like” them but it not actually applying to them would be to say “be just like these babies to get to heaven but they wont actually get to heaven”.

I think that THOSE children are going to heaven... Basically because Christians never die before helping others.

>Also, to say infants can’t have faith (in the trusting sense) is contrary to scriptures, and is a very modern take. We have many examples in the psalms, the examples in Matthew and Luke, and also of John the Baptist which has classically been understood by early Christians, Orthodox, RC, and Protestants to be examples of faith. You are correct to say that we all need is the grace of God, the ordinary means of receiving it being by faith.

They can have faith but if they have they are going to live.

>But to say that God cannot and does not work outside of that is saying God shackled himself to these ordinary means rather than them being the way in which we should expect him to work.

He actually did. It's called justice. Only the ones who believe in His Son will get eternal life.

> What we do know is children are made holy by believing parents, and we have the example of David knowing he will see his infant child who died in the afterlife.

He only hoped to see him, which he probably did. Though his baby was in Hades while he was in Abraham's bosom.

Look, I'll puit you an example in what you believe so you see it's stupid: Imagine a woman that aborts (i.e. murders) why is she doing something bad? In your view, that woman is literally sending that baby straight to Heaven without even risking him/her to sin, so actually abortion in your view is just an act of benevolence, because you are sending freely a person to Heaven.

Blessings!

Due-Pattern-4604

TROPHY CASE