In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says about his deceased infant son: >*"But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (ESV)* Many Christians interpret this as David expressing confidence that he would see his child again in the afterlife. This is often cited as evidence that infants who die are in God’s care and go to heaven. - Does it imply that children who die before reaching an age of moral accountability are saved? - Is David speaking about the afterlife or merely about joining his son in the grave? I'd appreciate perspectives from different theological traditions, especially Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox interpretations.

By conditionalist doctrine, I mean the belief that hell is the destruction of those souls that go there, rather than the everlasting torment or eventual purification of said souls.

I figured in heaven it’s a totally different reality than the life we have here on earth. So, I believe in heaven race, color, creed, nationality, and ethnicity will not exist in heaven. Plus, it’s heaven—-paradise—-a place of bliss for believers of Christ. Plus, we get new heavenly, immortal bodies. I don’t want them to be subject to race and color or nationality again in heaven. God forbid. So I am hoping that in heaven I will not be black ever again. Don’t ask why I just want this. I know marriage isn’t in heaven, but if romantic love or divine love for people in heaven which includes romantic love is in heaven then I am all for it. I want to see my crush in heaven with me even if he did marry in this earth. I know in heaven he will love me too. I just hope heaven won’t be disappointing lol. Other than that I hope I won’t be black in heaven, because it just doesn’t define me as a soul or person.

Have you ever thought why you live? And the Bible says you have the free will to choose life or death (that can mean being with God or separated from Him) But have you ever thought of “did I ever choose to live?” Of course before you are made, you have no “yes, I want to live” or “no, I don’t want to live”. But let’s say that this world is a “testing ground” for the true life to come as it is held in traditional belief (that is having eternal life in heaven or hell). My question is, why can’t I choose death? And by that, I mean non-existence. Like not in heaven, nor hell. Just nothing. If I have free will, why do I not have that option?

John Stott argued against the eternal punishment of unbelievers whereas J I Packer argued for the view that Jesus Christ warned of the eternal punishment of those who reject himself and his gospel. What is the current view of Reformed Baptist Protestantism on this matter ?

Quoting from [this site](https://carm.org/annihilationism/what-is-soul-sleep/) : > Soul sleep is the teaching that when a person dies that his soul "sleeps" until the time of the future resurrection. In this condition, the person is not aware or conscious. What are the biblical arguments against soul sleep?

Let's say that a Christian serial killer has murdered many people who happened to not be Christians. Would God be just by sending the Christian serial killer to Heaven, while sending his victims to Hell? I am looking for answers from the perspective of Christians who believe that Hell exists (non-universalists).

A popular (Eastern Orthodox) view of afterlife proclaims that God's presence is akin to torture for an unbeliever (Hell) and akin to bliss for a believer (Heaven). It claims that Heaven and Hell are different responses to presence of God, rather than 2 different places. This brings me to my question. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective can unbelievers change their attitude towards God in the afterlife, and thus turn their Hell into Heaven?

Let's say that someone with DID (dissociative identity disorder) has 2 alters: an atheist and a faithful Christian. Where would that person go? To Heaven? To Hell? To some third place? This question is pretty important as it is estimated that 1.5% of the global population (or 121 million people) suffer from DID, many of whom are faithful Christians.

I realized today that when I used the word "demons" I was thinking of evil spirits of all varieties, including human beings that work evil from the spirit world. But others believe the word "demon" only applies to non-human spirits such as fallen angels or perhaps evil deities of some sort. In the Bible, Jesus refers to the "unclean spirit" [or spirits] that possessed the man who called himself Legion because he was tormented by so many evil spirits. > [Jesus said] “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” And Jesus > asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion; for we > are many.” And he begged him eagerly not to send them out of the > country. Now a great herd of swine was feeding there on the > hillside; and they [the spirits] begged him, “Send us to the swine, let us enter > them.” So he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and > entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed > down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea. (Mark > 5:9-13) But elsewhere, Jesus heals various people possessed by "demons." > That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; > and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. I'd like to know more about how various Christian denominations and other religions view those who do evil in the spiritual realm, and especially: do they believe that the term "demons" includes evil spirits who were once human beings. Rather than personal opinions, a good answer will provide the perspectives of several religions or experts. I would not rule out spiritualists in the latter category.

How could a loving and just God condemn people to eternal conscious torment, a punishment that seems disproportionate to any finite sins committed in a limited human lifetime? If God desires all to be saved, why would He create souls knowing they would end up suffering forever, and why make salvation dependent on beliefs that many people never have a fair chance to accept? How can eternal damnation be reconciled with perfect divine justice when humans have such limited knowledge, varied cultural contexts, and finite lifespans to make the right choices? What kind of loving parent would allow their children to suffer eternally when they have the power to save them, and how could any finite sins warrant infinite punishment?

In [this short background information](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/book-of-mormon) of The Book of Mormon, we learn that Moroni was the son of the American prophet Mormon, who must have died as a human being. But then the article said: > Latter-day Saints believe that it was to this hillside, today called the Hill Cumorah, near Palmyra, New York, that **Moroni returned in 1823 as an angel to lead the teenage boy Joseph Smith to the hidden plates**. Joseph Smith later founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In mainstream Christianity, a human being will be given a glorified body after the general resurrection, retaining his/her bodily nature, never becoming an angel who is always 100% spirit. Before general resurrection, for denominations that believe in the conscious intermediate state, the souls of those who passed away would NOT have a body and God would not have permitted these body-less souls to appear to the living. God would have sent an angel instead who has always been spiritual, only that God would give this angel a temporary bodily appearance so humans can see this angel. **How does human being Moroni re-appearing as an angel explained by LDS in light of the normal progression of the human being's journey after death?** 1. Was Moroni's human nature changed into an angel? 1. Was the term "angel" to describe Moroni not precise, i.e. it was Moroni in his glorified body (like Jesus after resurrection) appearing to Joseph Smith as like an angel? 1. Or was it a special act of God that Moroni's consciousness (which God maintains prior to his eventual resurrection along with everyone else) was given a temporary angelic nature for the purpose of his mission in 1823? That once that mission was completed God change him back into a non-resurrected human being after his mission? Pardon my ignorance: - I know very little of the LDS "anthropology" of post-mortem nature of human being and of how LDS understand the angelic nature. For example, do we become angels? What IS an angel; is an angel 100% spiritual like what mainstream Christianity teaches? - And I don't know the "standard timeline" either (i.e. whether a human being is resurrected right after dying rather than waiting along with the rest of humanity). My question is primarily about whether the Moroni's case is unique or typical when compared to the normal progression of a human being's life after death.

If you look at historical records, the concept of a soul has existed long before it was ever "revealed" by any ancient prophet, with tribes and ancient civilizations already coming up with an ethereal substance that connects them together as a species, probably to feel important with respect to animals or to create a connection with their pre-existing deities. In fact, the Jews formally recorded the idea of the soul in their religious texts based on traditional beliefs which had not come from divine inspiration. So, if souls as described in the Bible and prophetic texts are a human invention derived from reason and other social beliefs, then how could this possibly coincide with what is actually true? The "system" for our connection with God and the supernatural world could literally be anything outside our wildest imaginations, and it just so happens that it's exactly the same as how humans had originally believed it to be? Do souls really exist? But then, if souls don't exist, can heaven or hell even exist either? In fact, those have also existed as concepts since ancient times, and it's clear how their creation by a society could positively benefit it (e.g. an elder telling kids they will suffer eternally if they disobey, lie, steal, etc. and this evolving into widespread belief)... Without these principles, everything about Christianity falls apart, so where does the reasoning go wrong? Sorry if this seems a bit anti-religious, but they're genuine doubts of mine.

What does the afterlife look like for an aborted baby? What happens to their consciousness (if any)? What happens to their spirit/soul? Since these are presumably controversial questions, I'm interested in an **overview of Christian viewpoints**. ____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81207/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422

Just about every branch of Christianity teaches the human soul becomes implanted in the embryo somewhere before birth. Many branches also believe the human soul is immortal. At the same time, I've read reports that as many as 60% of pregnancies end in miscarriage . This is in the context of our very developed medical system, historically speaking, so stands to reason the miscarriage rate was even higher in the past. Altogether, does this imply that most of the immortal souls in the afterlife are the souls of embryos, at least according to the views of most Christians?

According to the author of this article who is from White Throne Ministries, he teaches that the spirits of the dead are not in heaven but sleep in the sands awaiting one of the two resurrections. He quotes the following verse which was written by Peter under the influence of The Holy Spirit. *Acts 2:29* >"2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. *Acts 2:34* >For David is not ascended into the heavens:" Jesus talked of a **separation of believers and non-believers at death** through the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and reinforced that teaching on the cross when He told him that he will be with him in paradise that same Friday. *Luke 23:43* >Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise He then says that a different meaning would be conveyed if that comma were to be removed and also that from other events that happened on that Friday we learn that Jesus did not go to paradise on that Friday because of the words Jesus said to Mary after rising from the dead. *John 20:17* >Jesus saith to her, Touch me not: for I have not yet ascended to my Father: According to that author, the words above prove that Jesus did not go to paradise on that Friday, hence justifying the need for a comma in the promise to thief verse. He backs it all up with all the verses from Acts that none of the Fathers have ascended to heaven but my question is, The Book of Revelation says there are martyrs under the altar who cry out to God for revenge against the inhabitants of the earth. These are the spirits of those martyrs that are spiritually in heaven. *Revelation 6:10* >the souls of martyrs who were killed for their faith in God cry out from under the altar, asking God when he will judge and avenge their deaths: The verse above is the first proof that the saints spiritually unite with God in paradise but their flesh await a re-union in the resurrection. The second proof is the presence of Elijah and Moses during the transfiguration for we know Moses died and the angels buried him, Elijah went to heaven with a chariot of fire. Where did their spirits come from during the transfiguration if the spirits of the righteous do not inherit paradise after death?

An associate wrote an open letter (email) of condolence to a friend who'd lost a child. The letter stated that that deceased was now an angel in heaven with wings. What is the ultimate source of this belief?

The Apostle Paul used to be a Pharisee at one point, and Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul [citationneeded], but then Paul became a Christian through a dramatic conversion, and I don't know to what extent his beliefs on the afterlife might have changed. Did the Apostle Paul believe in the immortality of the soul? Can this question be answered objectively to any extent (on the basis of objective evidence)? Is there consensus among scholars and historians on this topic? ______________ **Note**: Is this an "obvious" question? At first glance it might look so for many, but once you have garnered some experience exchanging thoughts with [Christian mortalists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) and [Annihilationists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism) (e.g. see [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/27088/38524) & [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/73790/38524)) , the answer to the question no longer looks so "obvious". _____ Related BHSE question: [What are the theological implications of Paul's continuing identifying himself as a Pharisee in Acts 23:6-10 despite being an Apostle of Christ?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74210/38524)

The text is from Luke 23:43, > And He/Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be > with Me in Paradise. The following are the words of Joseph Smith: > There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits. (Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, page 309) Under Gospel Topics on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' website the following summary is given: > When Jesus was on the cross, a thief who also was being crucified said, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The Lord replied, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits (source ). Notice the words, "The Prophet Joseph Smith "explained" that this is a mistranslation? How does he know it's a mistranslation? It's not a mistranslation according to Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson. Here is what he has to say on the matter. > "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Σημερον μετ' εμου εση εν τω > παραδεισω). However crude may have been the robber's Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven. Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it." I am not aware that Joseph Smith knows any Greek so maybe the LDS can explain how Smith came up with how Jesus should have said, "the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits?"

I have seen people resort to arguments such as "if there is no afterlife, why be good (or religious)?". Counterarguments to living in sin during this life include final judgment and the infinite duration of eternity (which also form the basis of Pascal's Wager ), which I find compelling, but are there more reasons to be good than these? What Christian denominations advance an argument that is persuasive in favor of doing good in this life even if one thinks there is no afterlife, and what are those arguments?