Yeah... no

thats speculation completely there

The bible says children who cannot decide will be saved out of mercy

thus kids who die durring birth are saved

In Romans 1:20 Paul describes recipients of general revelation as being “without excuse.” They can’t blame their unbelief on a lack of evidence. There is sufficient revelation of God’s existence in the natural order to establish the moral accountability of all who witness it. Might this imply that those who are not recipients of general revelation (i.e., infants) are therefore not accountable to God or subject to wrath? In other words, wouldn’t those who die in infancy have an “excuse” in that they neither receive general revelation nor have the capacity to respond to it?

I wasn't attacking any though

You were talking about how it's not valid

How the pope was worshipped and stuff

All i said for any one to read beware what teaching you hear thats all

From the moment of conception, the soul is infused into the body. That soul is immortal and belongs to God. It is possible for a person who has never known the public revelation of Christ to fall into sin: that is by breaking what is called the Natural Law. The normal conscience (right/wrong) that all people possess. So I guess I’m trying to say the same thing a different way. Yes, they have an excuse. But they still would have to come to God with that stain of Original Sin to account for if they were not baptized.

But we hope and trust in His Divine Mercy that he would take pity on them

That quote is also interesting— it can be taken at face value, but Jesus was speaking with just his disciples at that point, and not to the crowd. So what he means is that there will be a very bad place to go for the shepherd who forbids “the little ones”, the sheep to come to Him.

It’s a strong warning for all those who have authority in the church.

Do babies go to heaven?...the verse says that heaven belongs to children. So it's an *ipso facto* conclusion as babies fall under the category of the "little ones" (children).

i'd assume so

Not arguing, just saying that the Bible is read from multiple layers: there is the first layer which is face value, but then there layers underneath that are very fascinating and beautiful.

I’ve learned a lot from listening to Francis Hoggan, this little old lady in Ireland who is like a sage. There is one for free on youboob Shalom Network “Voyage” she dissects the Gospel of Matthew. It’s brilliant.

*Frances

A general rule of thumb is that in the Bible is clear that those who are not fully capable of making "moral choices" are declared to be innocent, and, therefore, worthy of heaven. Although the Bible doesn't mention any kind of "age of accountability," but bases accountability on the basis of the ability/capability to make moral choices.  Basically hell is reseved for people who willfully (ability) and purposely (capable) reject (choice) the Trinity (God).

i tend to agree, that's why, for example, i like to read the apostles letters in one setting trying to read it as a letter rather then a colection of verses taken out of context :p

My dad is a pastor, was a missionary to every single continent but australia, my grandpa was a church leader, I go through the entire bible at least once every year, my brother is an apologetix enthusiast and I am a natural born debater. I have far to much knowledge on subjects I have contention with as well from all the religious debates my family has had. I am not some newcomer. I am a philosopher. When I say "The bible says this" trust me, I may not be 100% accurate off the top of my head but I know the general principle.

You will know them by their fruits

Context?

You can know if a person is a follower of Christ, if he displays the Christian virtues.

Here is a talk about another philosopher.

https://youtu.be/LqyHBiALpXY

Alright let’s get this started.

Is homosexuality a sin and why and what your reasoning and source

The act is. I have to get a few vers anti prove my point though

Okay I’ll be waiting

That man is still waiting

I’ve been waiting for 40 minutes. He better have a paragraph

Or more

for starters it is a sin and is wrong, I have yet to find any animals that are gay. for me if the animals know not to be gay then it must be wrong.

Yet to find an animal that’s gay

Oh lord

This is going to be the counter claim of the century

let me rephrase that lol, *There are no gay animals*

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/44464-bonobo-homosexuality-natural.html

Yeah there are

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh-HqCzEZT4

Read the article and watch the video