there is also this to account for children: ``For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.`` from 1 Corinthians 7:14

basically they get a lease so to speak until adulthood

The children are His

That’s one the reasons why “real ghost stories” (Real as in really demonic) In which the ghosts are depicted as children are outright blasphemy.

@Nutz So no one kept the commandments of God Romans 3:20 (Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.) and so the real purpose of the law is proving us all that we fall short of God's standard.

@Legalize , @yuma_8 , @DJ_Anuz, @A. Spader How can anyone discuss baptism without bring Mathew 28
"19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[b] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”"
Or the way is told in the long ending of Mark
Mark 16
"15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. "
So baptism is an order from Christ and by what I believe you should choose to do it instead of being done to you after you are made a disciple (One who learned about Christ). I know even in evangelical tradition there is a split Lutherans for instance baptize children.
I can get behind the idea that baptism wash away your sins. The same way I believe that a prayer asking for God forgiveness wash away my sins. Existence of sin at the moment of our death is no standard for salvation. Believing in the one who can take your place in the day of the judgement is.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation – The Biblical Evidence
It is interesting to note that Jesus did not baptize. "The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but His disciples" (John 4:1-2). If water baptism were necessary for salvation, wouldn't Jesus have baptized? Jesus presented Himself to the Jews as their Messiah with signs and Messianic miracles, but He did not baptize them.

The Apostle Paul only baptized a few. "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel -- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" (1 Corinthians 1:13-17).

https://www.allaboutgod.com/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation.htm

Source for further reading and consideration

good lord look at all this

@Nutz Jesus couldn't have told the thief on the cross that he was entering heaven.

Christ's words were "today you will be with me in paradise." Christ didn't enter heaven until after the resurrection, so it would be impossible for him to be in heaven with Christ that same day.

Also, we know that John the Baptist mentions that he would baptize by water, but later, one would come to baptize by fire. (That being Christ.) There would be several reasons why Christ wouldn't baptize people himself. (One being that people would argue their baptisms were more valid than if they were baptized by the disciples.)

Either way, I don't think Christ not performing baptisms himself have much baring on the requirement of baptism to enter heaven.

uhhh wat

that's.....absurd. Christ says the thief will be with him in paradise, he means it

Paradise doesn't have to mean heaven itself in this context.

It's still contradictory for Christ to tell the thief that he would, on that same day, be in heaven with Christ if Christ himself didn't enter heaven until several days later.

Except Christ is one of the three in one - The Father and Holy Spirit did not decend to hell

I don't buy the trinitarian view of God. It's too Pagan.

I need to study the exact use of 'paradise' in that verse more but it's not nessisarily contradictory

And it kind of invalidates Christ speaking to Mary after the resurrection.

Why does Christ need to ascend to the father if he already is the father and present with the father?

you're getting into theological questions you already completely reject the premise of

and questions I'm not really capable of arguing

That's because the trinitarian view is such a wormy way out of the fact that Christ (his physical body) didn't ascend to be with God until after the resurrection and therefore couldn't have entered heaven between death and resurrection.

okay so

You don't have to believe the scriptures (you already said you don't) but the fact that such an explanation is "wormy" doesn't make it inplausible

Then it makes Christ a liar when he speaks to Mary.

"Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my father in heaven."

And the idea of the Trinity wasn't canonized until 300 years after Christs death.

no it doesn't

There is very little biblical precedent for the Trinity. 0 in the OT, and some verses in the NT that can be used to support multiple enterpretations of the God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Also I never said I don't believe the scriptures. There are certain superstitious claims that I think are exhaggerated, but the scriptures are relatively decent historical documents.

Christ not acending to heaven and the thief being in heaven with God makes sense, within the framework of the trinity. And to suggest that the trinity is some invention is patently absurd

"None shall come to *the Father* except through me"

"I am sending you a helper, he will be with you when I am gone" (that a paraphrase, but Christ explicitly talks about senting the holy spirit to believers on earth)

So Christ says to the thief:

"Today you will be with me in heaven."

Then three days later when speaking to Mary:

"Touch me not, for I have yet to ascend to my father in heaven."

That's not contradictory? Right, because Christ is in two places at once according to the Trinity.

Neither of those quotations inherently support the Trinitarian view established in the Nicene Creed.

@DJ_Anuz so what is happaning is you assert a explanation that is not mainstream on Christendom and then you refute the NonVeryWidely Explanation that you gave to the Christendom and because it didn't stand to your scrutiny you don't get rid the explanation some how you find reasons to get rid of the concept of the trinity itself. I can assure you that the Christian concept of christianity didn't appear to solve the situation of the cross you are talking about.

i don't buy the trinitarian view either, since it basically has a part of god die.. like wtf, how can god die

there is also the mountain prayer, where he prays to god, is he begging himself to spare the pain???

@Avald Jesus is a strange case because He is 100% God and 100% Human (God's math not mine) and human always died. And Jesus is not death. So if it was the plan of God to redeem through his death that means that Christ human body was needed dead on a cross. while his soul and his divinity was doing the redeeming part.

So does God have a split personality?

Question

Answer

Is baptizing babies not standard across the christian denominations?

It varies