Having attended Baptist Churches for years, I've often heard the term "age of accountability" bandied about. The idea is that if a child dies at a young age - before reaching the "age of accountability", that child will go to Heaven, because he or she is not yet responsible for his or her sins. He or she is "too young to understand the Gospel". This age is not a specific age, but is understood to be different for everyone. I'm ***not*** asking what this age is. ***What I am asking, is where is the Scriptural evidence to support such a doctrine?*** Quite frankly, one of the reasons I stick to Baptist Churches is not because I consider myself a Baptist, but because it's the one denomination where in my (admittedly limited) experience, Pastors consistently say "If I ever preach anything that's not in the Word, or contrary to the Word, don't believe me." Yet, I can find no Scriptural evidence for such a doctrine. Am I missing it? If so, where is it in Scripture? If it exists, please point me to the verses. Or is it a doctrine based on supposition, attempting to reconcile the idea that a loving God, and the horrific idea that child could go to Hell simply for not being old enough to understand their lost state, repent, and put their faith in Christ?

Why would an all-powerful God allow young children to have terminal diseases like cancer? Why would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity allow innocent younglings to experience such profound pain and early death? This question is different from any general questions concerning the Problem of Evil, because it focuses on a particular kind of evil that doesn't seem to lead to any greater good, doesn't seem to be necessary for free will and doesn't seem to be covered by any classical theodicies. There is a distinction between General Problem of Evil ("why would God allow evil in general") and Special Problem of Evil ("why would God allow this particular evil").

1 Cor 7:8 (ESV): > "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am" 1 Cor 7:32-34 (ESV): > "... The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband." 1 Cor 7:38 (ESV): > "So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better" **Here is the antinatalist implication of these verses.** If we follow Paul's advice and stay single and childless, then humanity would go extinct (because nobody will replenish the population). But the doctrine that argues for human extinction (antinatalism) is widely regarded by Christians to be a false one. The implication that the "ideal" scenario is the one where humans die out is an incredibly repugnant one. So my question is, **how can Christians interpret 1 Corinthians 7 to avoid all of these 3 implications below?** 1. it is better for humanity to go extinct 2. it is better to be single 3. it is better to be childless **Edit**: My question is different from [the proposed duplicate](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74782/would-god-allow-all-of-humanity-to-be-celibate) , because the duplicate asks a general philosophical question, while my post asks a specific question about the interpretation specific Bible verses by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:8; 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 and 1 Corinthians 7:38).

How did God command the killing of children and woman when the commandments command us not to kill. I understand that God has right to kill who He pleases but why did he command the Israelites (humans) to kill others when thou shalt not kill

Are children's prayers more efficacious? It would seem so, because they are purer and more innocent. Matt 18:10 : >See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. What did Fathers, Doctors of the Church, or other saintly Catholic theologians have to say about the efficacy of children's prayers?

Deuteronomy 20:10-18 ESV > 10 “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, 14 but the women **and the little ones**, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. 16 **But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes**, 17 **but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded**, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God. Joshua 6:20-21 ESV > 20 So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they captured the city. 21 **Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword**. It's undeniable that a plain reading of these passages suggests that God commanded the complete annihilation not only of the adult inhabitants of Canaanite cities but also their children. Slaughtering children is universally recognized as a profound moral evil. If a group of soldiers were to invade our city, break into our homes, and kill and slaughter everyone, including babies and children, our fundamental moral instincts would undoubtedly recognize it as an egregious atrocity. In light of this, how can such actions be reconciled with the concept of a loving God? If under any other circumstances, our moral compass would unequivocally condemn the slaughter of children as profoundly wrong—arguably the epitome of wrongdoing—why should the slaughter of Canaanite children be viewed as an exception? How could such a command be considered the most loving, just, and benevolent action that God could have taken? To encourage objective answers, I'm primarily interested in exploring theodicies found in Christian literature (please provide references where applicable). --- **Note**: My question has been prompted by recent discussions on YouTube, namely, [William Lane Craig Defends the Canaanite Slaughter](https://youtu.be/WjsSHd23e0Q) and ["It's Horrific" | Reviewing WLC's Defense of the Slaughter of the Canaanites w/ Akin and Rauser](https://youtu.be/lhZtIvgbi9M) . --- **A related passage from Psalm 137** > 8 O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! 9 **Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!** I thank @NigelJ for the suggestion.

This may be the wrong place for this question, but the gaming crowd may be the wrong place for the answer. I'm happy to delete it if necessary. We became Christians as a family together over 20 years ago, and had a Christian card game called "Kingdom". I know it was an uncommon game when we bought it in the late 1990s or early 2000s, and now I've tried several searches for it, and have come up dry. I think it has the word "Kingdom" written on the left edge of each card. I don't think there was any kind of a board associated with it. Anyone have any ideas? I've searched Google, eBay, Google images, and more, to no avail. Thanks!

Did any theologians think that the limbo for children (*limbus puerorum*) is part of purgatory?

The following question has been motivated by the post https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94736/what-teachings-do-all-catholic-schools-share I recall having read something many years ago specifying that parents have the responsibility to provide their children with a Catholic education (i.e., enroll them in a Catholic school for years ago, home school was not legally an option); and, if for some reason they were not able to, and were intending to send them to a public school, a special dispensation needed to be obtained from their bishop. As far as I can recollect, the above is the gist of what I read; though, I have often tried to find this again in writing and have been unable to. Question: **Does anyone know if such a promulgation has ever been made? Since it refers to *all* Catholic parents, I imagine that what I had read was referring to something included in a papal decree.**

I simply can't reason about it. When let's say 1 month old child gets killed and dies in horrible pain, there was nothing for him to learn from this "lesson". He also had no possibility to commit any sin to be punished with pain for his sins. This is plain not right. If there's an omnipotent, all knowing , good being, then that being should intervene. In the end most of us - sinful humans - would try to help as much as we can in such situation.

In its discussion of marriage, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (*CCC*) states, "The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element"(*CCC* __1626__) that seals the covenant of matrimony. "If this freedom is lacking, the marriage is invalid." (*CCC* __1628__) The *CCC* goes on to say, "For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void), the Church ... can declare a nullity of marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed." (*CCC* __1629__) In consideration of this, it lends to question what the nature of the sexual relations were if the marriage never existed. However, that's an aside; it's the children of such a union I'm asking about. Presumptively, these are children baptized in the Church with godparents. __Is there a term for children born from what was thought to be a valid Catholic marriage whose parents then go through legal divorce and the Church delclares the marriage null__? Please no derogatory answers, but if there's something "you've heard somewhere," feel free to add as a comment with some context.

The so-called "right to privacy" is a hot-button issue in many modern societies, and within that discussion, the question of a *child's* right to privacy is often raised. Christians take positions in the debate, and at least sometimes point to the Bible to make their case. Evangelical author Edward T. Welch writes: > Scripture seems to lean in the direction of rejecting the concept of privacy in the parent-child relationship. ([*Addictions*](https://books.google.com/books?id=racGAAAACAAJ) , 95) Welch doesn't provide any explicit biblical support for this claim, so my question is: **what is the biblical basis against the idea of a child's right to privacy in relation to their parents?** Here I am talking about children who are legal minors living with their parents, and I'm specifically asking about their privacy within the parent-child relationship. The question of a child's privacy within the church or society at large is a separate issue. I'm also focusing on the question of a *right* to privacy, not whether it is biblical for parents to *give* their child privacy in certain situations.

I'm looking for a very specific illustrated children's Bible that I cannot remember the name of. It has very stylized illustrations (non-realistic bodies, skin colors, etc). I remember this illustrated Bible had stories on one page and full-page illustrations on the other (I don't remember there being both stories and illustrations on the same page together). One of the more specific illustrations I can remember is the death of Absalom which is drawn from the back (you don't see his face), his fingers are extremely outstretched, his hair is almost in dreads hooked around the tree branch, and his horse (I believe) is shown riding off into the distance. I don't believe this illustration has arrows in his body but I am not 100% sure. Another illustration I remember pretty clearly is the depiction of Elijah raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath. The dead son is colored mostly either grey or blue and Elijah is looking upward with extremely stylized expression of despair. Other illustrations I remember is Satan depicted as a man wearing all black robes during what I think was the Temptation of Christ (with Satan also having either grey or pitch black skin if I recall correctly) and another illustration from an unknown story of a humanoid angel with white skin, a shaved bald head, and white robes. Overall, this was definitely the most stylized illustrated Bible I ever read as a child and I would absolutely love to find it again. I've asked my parents and they do remember giving it to me and having it on the bookshelf (with clear memories of some of the illustrations frightening me due to their stylistic nature), but they have moved a few times since then and I tried searching for it in their boxes of books and have been unable to find it.

My daughter has only six months at best left on the Earth. A very happy time of her childhood was spent with the Salvation Army as a child. A part of her life we didn’t share. She is consumed by a song that she sung at a talent quest at Sunday school and would love to hear it again. She’s in her 20’s so I imagine it would be an 80’s or 90’s song. I’ve googled the lyrics and searched everywhere to no avail. Who sung it and where could I find a copy? This is as far as she can remember: > Dear god why is your book full of thous and thees Do you hear my prayer when I bend my knees Do you live in a steeple or with some other people These are things that I’ve been wondering > > Do you have to squeeze to get in my heart If you ever sneezed would I fall apart Is heaven full of money or just some milk and honey These are things that I’ve been wondering > > Can you answer all my questions Even if I’m not grown up Can you give me some suggestions How to get as smart as you are. > > Dear god. Sometimes I just wonder about stuff like this

Have any Catholic theologians, Doctors, or Fathers of the Church used >Mt. 18:5
he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. or especially >Mt. 19:14
Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such. to argue against contraception?

I don't trust the idea of original sin being inherited. However, that does raise another question: If children are innocent before they are able to differentiate between good and evil, is it possible that one can remain sinless until they die? How do Methodists deal with this?

In the Apostle's creed it states that "I believe in Jesus Christ God's only son our Lord" (ELCA). But many Christians say that we're all God's children, which is contradictory. What does the Bible have to say about this? Or are we God's grandchildren and Jesus' 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." (1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV) >"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Cor 7:14 NIV). Taking these two assumptions about Baptist theology: 1. that young children must either believe in the Gospel and are saved, or not believe in the Gospel and are not saved, without there being any 3rd option 2. that the belief of young children is 100% independent of the belief of their parents; it is entirely up to them whether they believe or not Therefore, 3. given a situation where a young child comes to believe in the gospel through a family friend, though his parents do not, how can this be reconciled with 1 Cor. 7:14? It is a contradiction of "salvation by faith alone" (made clear throughout the NT) to be "unholy" ("unclean," depending on translation) and a believer at the same time. One Baptist with whom I spoke said that Paul is using the word "holy" to mean "having been somehow influenced by someone who is holy." But as far as I know the word "holy" throughout the Bible always refers to "being of good standing with God" and not just "influenced." If Paul had meant that, I feel he would have used different wording. There are some answers here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/69028/does-christianity-allow-for-believing-on-someone-elses-behalf , but none of them are specifically from a Baptist perspective. I also already looked through these: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/7-14.htm

> For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. *(1 Cor 7:14, ESV)* If a child dies before being born or dies at a very young age, can we say that he or she is saved? What if one of the parents is a believer? And what if neither of the parents is a believer? What is an **overview** of what Evangelical Christians believe on this matter? Since the verse was not mainly addressing the state of children, what is an overview of how Evangelical Christians understand the thought that the children are holy? How do Calvinists, Arminians, and other Evangelical traditions approach this question?

In the Garden of Eden, God commands Adam and Eve to >"Be fruitful and increase in number" Genesis 1:28 (NIV) Later, after the Fall in Genesis 3, we're told that >"Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain" Genesis 4:1 (NIV) The Bible does not tell us the time difference between these two events, or even clearly state that Cain's birth happened after the fall (although it's _implied_ by the order it is recorded). Do any Christian denominations or beliefs teach that Adam and Eve produced children (Cain, Abel, or others) while they were in the Garden of Eden?