Your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and why?

[Menassa]

By 'religion' you mean Christianity?
You will find Judaism has an alternative opinion of Satan.

yup...

And you are a Tanna!! Very nice.
I'm just your average Jew... Cohen.

And from what I learnt in Judaism, if a non-Jew follows the ten commandments, then they are considered a "good" person and will go to heaven.
While a Jew needs to perform all the commandments. This definitely makes more sense than saying that if we do not believe in Jesus we are condemmed to eternal torture.

It's not the ten commandments, but you definitely got the gist of the idea, one does not need to be Jewish to be right with God.

[Rhodevus]

yup...

And you are a Tanna!! Very nice.
I'm just your average Jew... Cohen.

And from what I learnt in Judaism, if a non-Jew follows the ten commandments, then they are considered a "good" person and will go to heaven.
While a Jew needs to perform all the commandments. This definitely makes more sense than saying that if we do not believe in Jesus we are condemmed to eternal torture.

It's not the ten commandments, but you definitely got the gist of the idea, one does not need to be Jewish to be right with God.

the rules are pretty much the same as the commandments... but I think there are 7 of them if my memory holds true

[Great Kleomentia]

Hardly. Being a Deist I personally don't believe such things. And why does suddenly getting bathed in 'holy' water grant you salvation? I mean does that mean if a serial rapist and murderer right before say he's put to death get baptized he should automatically go to Heaven -if there is such a thing- hmmm? Personally if anything if there is a god I think it'd be more interested in seeing if one led a virtuous life over getting dunked...

Did I say baptism automatically leads to Heaven? No. In point of fact, I said it is necessary for salvation. You made the faulty conclusion that, it being necessary for salvation, it leads automatically to Heaven. So do not take your theological incompetence out on me.

How is salvation different than a free ticket to Heaven?

[Menassa]

It's not the ten commandments, but you definitely got the gist of the idea, one does not need to be Jewish to be right with God.

the rules are pretty much the same as the commandments... but I think there are 7 of them if my memory holds true

Yeah, less not coveting and Sabbath observing... more universal morality.

[Bari]

Did I say baptism automatically leads to Heaven? No. In point of fact, I said it is necessary for salvation. You made the faulty conclusion that, it being necessary for salvation, it leads automatically to Heaven. So do not take your theological incompetence out on me.

How is salvation different than a free ticket to Heaven?

It is necessary for salvation. What about that says you automatically go to Heaven? Nothing. It says baptism is necessary. It could be necessary among several items. It does not say baptism is necessary alone. You are perceiving a false implication.

[Aetur]

Jeremiah 31:29-30. I'm having problems with my mouse, so it's hard to copy/paste, but to summarize, people are condemned for sin they themselves have committed. Sin cannot be inherited, although a sin nature can. The age of accountability is similar to the Jewish Bar Mitzvah/Bat Mitzvah. At the age of accountability, in the eyes of God, a individual is at the point where they can be held morally responsible for their sin.

So then as Ezekiel 18 says if people suffer for their own sin and not the sins of others, then why do we need the Blood of Jesus? How can he be accountable for our sins, when we are supposed to be?

Additionally while the age of accountability makes sense, it still doesn't seem to be in Scripture.

Ezekiel 18: 14-21 :Now suppose he has a son who sees all the sins his father has committed, and though he sees them, he does not do likewise. . . . He practices My ordinances and follows My statutes. Such a person will not die for his father’s iniquity. He will certainly live. . . . But you may ask: Why doesn’t the son suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity? Since the son has done what is just and right, carefully observing all My statutes, he will certainly live. The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him. Now if the wicked person turns from all the sins he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is just and right, he will certainly live; he will not die. In those days, it will never again be said: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. Rather, each will die for his own wrongdoing. Anyone who eats sour grapes-his own teeth will be set on edge” Got it to work! Admittedly, the arguments for age of accountability are relatively weak compared to arguments on other issues. There are very strong Christians who believe there is no age of accountability. It's more of a personal belief than a Bible-based one. As for the necessity of Jesus' crucifixion, the apostle Paul teaches that the person you were before salvation was crucified (spiritually) on the cross with Jesus. After salvation, you are a new person, and not accountable for sins your unsaved self committed. This is the limit of my knowledge, to be honest. If you would like to know more, I encourage you to talk with a pastor of a Bible believing church.

[Ublia]

Hardly. Being a Deist I personally don't believe such things. And why does suddenly getting bathed in 'holy' water grant you salvation? I mean does that mean if a serial rapist and murderer right before say he's put to death get baptized he should automatically go to Heaven -if there is such a thing- hmmm? Personally if anything if there is a god I think it'd be more interested in seeing if one led a virtuous life over getting dunked...

Did I say baptism automatically leads to Heaven? No. In point of fact, I said it is necessary for salvation. You made the faulty conclusion that, it being necessary for salvation, it leads automatically to Heaven. So do not take your theological incompetence out on me.

*shrugs* note you said necessary though. Why does it have to be necessary? Again I hardly find the idea of getting dunked by a priest is some holy water as a lead up to allowing you salvation. Also buddy not as theologically incompetent as you think...just prefer to read eastern religious ideas over Christian ones (much more loose and realistic if the idea of god is valid I find).

Anywho back on track again in your post you said it was necessary hence implying without it the prospect of a non-baptized person like myself (got to love bastardy) is unable to achieve such a thing. And while I would've been able to accept that I may have misinterpreted you had you said so politely your insult to me is hardly professional. Just saying....so please do so clarify on how baptism in your mind enters the whole opening of the pearly gates equation....

[Great Kleomentia]

How is salvation different than a free ticket to Heaven?

It is necessary for salvation. What about that says you automatically go to Heaven? Nothing. It says baptism is necessary. It could be necessary among several items. It does not say baptism is necessary alone. You are perceiving a false implication.

There is literally no difference from salvation and going to heaven.

[Menassa]

So then as Ezekiel 18 says if people suffer for their own sin and not the sins of others, then why do we need the Blood of Jesus? How can he be accountable for our sins, when we are supposed to be?

Additionally while the age of accountability makes sense, it still doesn't seem to be in Scripture.

Ezekiel 18: 14-21 :Now suppose he has a son who sees all the sins his father has committed, and though he sees them, he does not do likewise. . . . He practices My ordinances and follows My statutes. Such a person will not die for his father’s iniquity. He will certainly live. . . . But you may ask: Why doesn’t the son suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity? Since the son has done what is just and right, carefully observing all My statutes, he will certainly live. The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him. Now if the wicked person turns from all the sins he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is just and right, he will certainly live; he will not die. In those days, it will never again be said: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. Rather, each will die for his own wrongdoing. Anyone who eats sour grapes-his own teeth will be set on edge” Got it to work! Admittedly, the arguments for age of accountability are relatively weak compared to arguments on other issues. There are very strong Christians who believe there is no age of accountability. It's more of a personal belief than a Bible-based one. As for the necessity of Jesus' crucifixion, the apostle Paul teaches that the person you were before salvation was crucified (spiritually) on the cross with Jesus. After salvation, you are a new person, and not accountable for sins your unsaved self committed. This is the limit of my knowledge, to be honest. If you would like to know more, I encourage you to talk with a pastor of a Bible believing church.

Right it would appear the Scripture negates the need for a Jesus as each man can absolve himself of their own sin.

[Nargodia]

Hahaha! Yeah... It's not just that though. But I'm not part of some baby eating blood drink monster cult from the bat cave, like the media tries getting people to think. I generally just believe Satan to be a thoughtform and an adverserial force representing the outcasts of society as well as independent thinking and indulgence instead of submission to doctrine and abstinence like religion these days promotes. I also embrace a few pagan beliefs, so I'm rather eclectic.

By 'religion' you mean Christianity?
You will find Judaism has an alternative opinion of Satan.

I'm aware. Many Jews view Satan more as Yahweh's policeman than his enemy who tries to tempt humanity to sin. I think I recall him being referred to as Samael. There was also the word ha-satan used to describe a person who is rebellious and does not acknowledge religious authority, I believe. Forgive me if I'm incorrect.

Do you identify with LaVeyan Satanism?

I used to, but I found it in some ways incompatible with my philosophy and I see Satan rather differently, sort of more than a mere symbol. Ayn Rand seems to have quite a bit of influence over the philosophy, with the advocacy of social darwinism here and there, and you have the view that the physical is all that exists in the universe. Plus I don't feel like I generally belong in the Laveyan Satanist community very much.

[Menassa]

By 'religion' you mean Christianity?
You will find Judaism has an alternative opinion of Satan.

I'm aware. Many Jews view Satan more as Yahweh's policeman than his enemy who tries to tempt humanity to sin. I think I recall him being referred to as Samael. There was also the word ha-satan used to describe a person who is rebellious and does not acknowledge religious authority, I believe. Forgive me if I'm incorrect.

According to the Jewish Bible Satan is just as much a servant of God as Gabriel or Michael.
http://outreachjudaism.org/who-is-satan/
Samael is a different angel entirely.
Ha-Satan means 'the Satan' 'the prosecutor'

[Bari]

Did I say baptism automatically leads to Heaven? No. In point of fact, I said it is necessary for salvation. You made the faulty conclusion that, it being necessary for salvation, it leads automatically to Heaven. So do not take your theological incompetence out on me.

*shrugs* note you said necessary though. Why does it have to be necessary? Again I hardly find the idea of getting dunked by a priest is some holy water as a lead up to allowing you salvation. Also buddy not as theologically incompetent as you think...just prefer to read eastern religious ideas over Christian ones (much more loose and realistic if the idea of god is valid I find).

Anywho back on track again in your post you said it was necessary hence implying without it the prospect of a non-baptized person like myself (got to love bastardy) is unable to achieve such a thing. And while I would've been able to accept that I may have misinterpreted you had you said so politely your insult to me is hardly professional. Just saying....so please do so clarify on how baptism in your mind enters the whole opening of the pearly gates equation....

It is necessary, but necessary does not mean "a free ticket." It means it is required for Heaven but not necessarily direct access alone to Heaven. It's necessary because washes away sin.

It is necessary. An unbaptized like you is not capable of reaching Heaven, unless you first become baptized. You can be baptized and still be an evil person, and you will not go to Heaven. You have to be baptized AND faithful AND good.

Baptism is ONE requirement of MULTIPLE requirements. Simply being baptized does not equate access to Heaven.

It is necessary for salvation. What about that says you automatically go to Heaven? Nothing. It says baptism is necessary. It could be necessary among several items. It does not say baptism is necessary alone. You are perceiving a false implication.

There is literally no difference from salvation and going to heaven.

You do not seem to understand.

If you are baptized, you do not automatically go to Heaven. The conclusion otherwise is irrelevant. Yes, baptism is necessary, but that does not mean one baptized will necessarily go to Heaven. If the baptized one, for example, blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, chances are he will not go to Heaven.

It is an item, an individual article, among several. You may think of it as a list of prerequisites, but I don't encourage that line of thinking.

[Great Kleomentia]

By 'religion' you mean Christianity?
You will find Judaism has an alternative opinion of Satan.

I'm aware. Many Jews view Satan more as Yahweh's policeman than his enemy who tries to tempt humanity to sin. I think I recall him being referred to as Samael. There was also the word ha-satan used to describe a person who is rebellious and does not acknowledge religious authority, I believe. Forgive me if I'm incorrect.

Do you identify with LaVeyan Satanism?

I used to, but I found it in some ways incompatible with my philosophy and I see Satan rather differently, sort of more than a mere symbol. Ayn Rand seems to have quite a bit of influence over the philosophy, with the advocacy of social darwinism here and there, and you have the view that the physical is all that exists in the universe. Plus I don't feel like I generally belong in the Laveyan Satanist community very much.

That's a rather interesting opinion. I'm a Pantheist Christian, and am fairly new to LaVeyan philosophy, but so far it's pretty much reflecting my philosophy. Who knows, i might even join their community.

[Aetur]

Ezekiel 18: 14-21 :Now suppose he has a son who sees all the sins his father has committed, and though he sees them, he does not do likewise. . . . He practices My ordinances and follows My statutes. Such a person will not die for his father’s iniquity. He will certainly live. . . . But you may ask: Why doesn’t the son suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity? Since the son has done what is just and right, carefully observing all My statutes, he will certainly live. The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him. Now if the wicked person turns from all the sins he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is just and right, he will certainly live; he will not die. In those days, it will never again be said: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. Rather, each will die for his own wrongdoing. Anyone who eats sour grapes-his own teeth will be set on edge” Got it to work! Admittedly, the arguments for age of accountability are relatively weak compared to arguments on other issues. There are very strong Christians who believe there is no age of accountability. It's more of a personal belief than a Bible-based one. As for the necessity of Jesus' crucifixion, the apostle Paul teaches that the person you were before salvation was crucified (spiritually) on the cross with Jesus. After salvation, you are a new person, and not accountable for sins your unsaved self committed. This is the limit of my knowledge, to be honest. If you would like to know more, I encourage you to talk with a pastor of a Bible believing church.

Right it would appear the Scripture negates the need for a Jesus as each man can absolve himself of their own sin.

Without Jesus' crucifixion it is impossible to be saved. Absolving oneself of sin is impossible to begin with. I don't have the answers to all the questions. Heck, I don't have the answers to most questions. If you really must have an answer, a good pastor will be able to answer. They have time, resources, and knowledge that I don't.

[Menassa]

Right it would appear the Scripture negates the need for a Jesus as each man can absolve himself of their own sin.

Without Jesus' crucifixion it is impossible to be saved. Absolving oneself of sin is impossible to begin with.

That seems to be the exact opposite of what Ezekiel says.

I don't have the answers to all the questions. Heck, I don't have the answers to most questions. If you really must have an answer, a good pastor will be able to answer. They have time, resources, and knowledge that I don't.

That's understandable, not everyone can be a pastor.

[Ublia]

*shrugs* note you said necessary though. Why does it have to be necessary? Again I hardly find the idea of getting dunked by a priest is some holy water as a lead up to allowing you salvation. Also buddy not as theologically incompetent as you think...just prefer to read eastern religious ideas over Christian ones (much more loose and realistic if the idea of god is valid I find).

Anywho back on track again in your post you said it was necessary hence implying without it the prospect of a non-baptized person like myself (got to love bastardy) is unable to achieve such a thing. And while I would've been able to accept that I may have misinterpreted you had you said so politely your insult to me is hardly professional. Just saying....so please do so clarify on how baptism in your mind enters the whole opening of the pearly gates equation....

It is necessary, but necessary does not mean "a free ticket." It means it is required for Heaven but not necessarily direct access alone to Heaven. It's necessary because washes away sin.

It is necessary. An unbaptized like you is not capable of reaching Heaven, unless you first become baptized. You can be baptized and still be an evil person, and you will not go to Heaven. You have to be baptized AND faithful AND good.

Baptism is ONE requirement of MULTIPLE requirements. Simply being baptized does not equate access to Heaven.

There is literally no difference from salvation and going to heaven.

You do not seem to understand.

If you are baptized, you do not automatically go to Heaven. The conclusion otherwise is irrelevant. Yes, baptism is necessary, but that does not mean one baptized will necessarily go to Heaven. If the baptized one, for example, blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, chances are he will not go to Heaven.

It is an item, an individual article, among several. You may think of it as a list of prerequisites, but I don't encourage that line of thinking.

Thank you for the clarification now may we discuss this in a further civilized manner. Firstly I have no intention of being baptized, I've no interest in Christianity due to it's denial of people such as myself as being more or less 'impure' and thus damned to the flames of hell or whatever simply because we disagree with their tenants, among other reasons... Furthermore again I realize you have your opinion on the whole 'entrance to heaven' thing, but I now I'm going to ask you a question, do you believe god is all omnipotent controlling everything, knowing the future and so forth? Hmmm? (If your curious why I'm asking this its to lead to further discussion regarding the whole baptism thing).

[Bari]

It is necessary, but necessary does not mean "a free ticket." It means it is required for Heaven but not necessarily direct access alone to Heaven. It's necessary because washes away sin.

It is necessary. An unbaptized like you is not capable of reaching Heaven, unless you first become baptized. You can be baptized and still be an evil person, and you will not go to Heaven. You have to be baptized AND faithful AND good.

Baptism is ONE requirement of MULTIPLE requirements. Simply being baptized does not equate access to Heaven.


You do not seem to understand.

If you are baptized, you do not automatically go to Heaven. The conclusion otherwise is irrelevant. Yes, baptism is necessary, but that does not mean one baptized will necessarily go to Heaven. If the baptized one, for example, blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, chances are he will not go to Heaven.

It is an item, an individual article, among several. You may think of it as a list of prerequisites, but I don't encourage that line of thinking.

Thank you for the clarification now may we discuss this in a further civilized manner. Firstly I have no intention of being baptized, I've no interest in Christianity due to it's denial of people such as myself as being more or less 'impure' and thus damned to the flames of hell or whatever simply because we disagree with their tenants, among other reasons... Furthermore again I realize you have your opinion on the whole 'entrance to heaven' thing, but I now I'm going to ask you a question, do you believe god is all omnipotent controlling everything, knowing the future and so forth? Hmmm? (If your curious why I'm asking this its to lead to further discussion regarding the whole baptism thing).

This entire discussion has been civil since its inception.

Yes, I do.

[Allector]

Agnostic.

I was raised in a Catholic household and a religious town. As I grew older I started to look at the religion, bible and the concept of there being a deity more critically. Right around 16 or so I decided there just wasn't anything there for me and that there were too many things that didn't make sense. However, I can't really prove or disprove that there is a god/deity. I highly doubt that there is, but I can't prove it beyond the shadow of my own doubt. I can provide evidence, but it is mostly philosophical and intangible and is not supported by any physical evidence (I know that evolution is a proven fact, but just that is not enough for me to make an objective decision as evolution could be explained by any number of things, supernatural or not).

tl;dr I heavily doubt that there is a god, but I cannot prove this and am thus indifferent to religion and deities.

[Ublia]

Thank you for the clarification now may we discuss this in a further civilized manner. Firstly I have no intention of being baptized, I've no interest in Christianity due to it's denial of people such as myself as being more or less 'impure' and thus damned to the flames of hell or whatever simply because we disagree with their tenants, among other reasons... Furthermore again I realize you have your opinion on the whole 'entrance to heaven' thing, but I now I'm going to ask you a question, do you believe god is all omnipotent controlling everything, knowing the future and so forth? Hmmm? (If your curious why I'm asking this its to lead to further discussion regarding the whole baptism thing).

This entire discussion has been civil since its inception.

Yes, I do.

Very good. Now you say god is all omnipotent, yes? Now if god is thoroughly aware of all events and controls them and what not; why then does he allow people to be damned to hell or banned from heaven if he loves all his children by allowing them not to be baptized? And other 'sinful' acts and so on? I'm curious, seeing as that means one of several things, firstly that he's not as all powerful as you say. He's a giant sadomasochist is another option....or is there some over bible related clause I'm unaware of. So please explain.

[Great Kleomentia]

There is literally no difference from salvation and going to heaven.

You do not seem to understand.

If you are baptized, you do not automatically go to Heaven. The conclusion otherwise is irrelevant. Yes, baptism is necessary, but that does not mean one baptized will necessarily go to Heaven. If the baptized one, for example, blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, chances are he will not go to Heaven.

It is an item, an individual article, among several. You may think of it as a list of prerequisites, but I don't encourage that line of thinking.

I understand very well that a baptized person doesn't automatically go to Heaven after death. However you claimed that baptized people are automatically given salvation. And there is no real difference from salvation and going to heaven. Since one who receives salvation is ridden of their sins, hence going to heaven.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Agnostic Buddhist, although for me it's really more of a philosophy rather than a religion. Especially since I just take a lot of Buddhism that I like and try to apply it in my life; if a part of it seems immoral, I just disregard it. I don't subscribe to the idea of religious dogma and infallibility.

[Ublia]

Agnostic Buddhist, although for me it's really more of a philosophy rather than a religion. Especially since I just take a lot of Buddhism that I like and try to apply it in my life; if a part of it seems immoral, I just disregard it. I don't subscribe to the idea of religious dogma and infallibility.

Nice. I personally find Buddhism rather attractive. Although I'm not a vegetarian (I love meat)...mind if I ask some questions?

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Agnostic Buddhist, although for me it's really more of a philosophy rather than a religion. Especially since I just take a lot of Buddhism that I like and try to apply it in my life; if a part of it seems immoral, I just disregard it. I don't subscribe to the idea of religious dogma and infallibility.

Nice. I personally find Buddhism rather attractive. Although I'm not a vegetarian (I love meat)...mind if I ask some questions?

Heh, sure. Ask away, but it's not like I'm a professor of Buddhism or anything, so my answers will largely just be opinions.

Also, I'm not exactly a vegetarian either, but of course I object to actually killing or harming other living things.

[Nargodia]

I'm aware. Many Jews view Satan more as Yahweh's policeman than his enemy who tries to tempt humanity to sin. I think I recall him being referred to as Samael. There was also the word ha-satan used to describe a person who is rebellious and does not acknowledge religious authority, I believe. Forgive me if I'm incorrect.

According to the Jewish Bible Satan is just as much a servant of God as Gabriel or Michael.
http://outreachjudaism.org/who-is-satan/
Samael is a different angel entirely.
Ha-Satan means 'the Satan' 'the prosecutor'

Thanks for the info. Embarrassingly enough, I know not much about Judaism. I should do some further reading on it. Though I don't really think Judaism would be right for me.

Do you identify with LaVeyan Satanism?

I used to, but I found it in some ways incompatible with my philosophy and I see Satan rather differently, sort of more than a mere symbol. Ayn Rand seems to have quite a bit of influence over the philosophy, with the advocacy of social darwinism here and there, and you have the view that the physical is all that exists in the universe. Plus I don't feel like I generally belong in the Laveyan Satanist community very much.[/quote]
That's a rather interesting opinion. I'm a Pantheist Christian, and am fairly new to LaVeyan philosophy, but so far it's pretty much reflecting my philosophy. Who knows, i might even join their community.[/quote]

You could perhaps talk to a few of them in their many forums and websites that inhabit the internet in comparison to those on the theistic side. Not sure if they'll take you seriously or give you respect, though. There's one theistic sect that I used to be interested in, called Joy of Satan. They have pretty interesting and useful information on magick, astral projection, and demon invocation, which are parts of my belief system that I try to gain skill in. Problem is, that group seems to have an anti-semitic root in it's beliefs and much of its claims about Satan and the demons, such as them being originally Sumerian gods who are really extraterrestrials who inhabit the planet Nibiru (a theory based on Zecharia Sitchin's writings. The connection to Sumerian/pagan deities might be valid, as some say that demon names such as Astoroth and Beelzebub are derived from Ishtar and Baal. And the snake within the garden of Eden, which many consider Satan, has been linked to the god Enki, who was also depicted as a serpent, and occasionally a goat, which they believe is where the baphomet originates). But anyway, there's various forms of Satanism existing.

[Bari]

This entire discussion has been civil since its inception.

Yes, I do.

Very good. Now you say god is all omnipotent, yes? Now if god is thoroughly aware of all events and controls them and what not; why then does he allow people to be damned to hell or banned from heaven if he loves all his children by allowing them not to be baptized? And other 'sinful' acts and so on? I'm curious, seeing as that means one of several things, firstly that he's not as all powerful as you say. He's a giant sadomasochist is another option....or is there some over bible related clause I'm unaware of. So please explain.

He is aware of all possibilities, but He gives us the ability to freely exercise our wills as we want. There is, therefore, much pain and evil in the world because of us humans, not God. One cannot reasonably blame God for his fault.

There are, however, many interpretations. That is one of many. Another is that we must go through some pain to enjoy good, for example, a parent puts his child through some pain when the child is being vaccinated (the skin being pierced by the syringe), but the pain is done so that the child will be able to enjoy the benefit of a vaccination later on. So, there is pain now on Earth, so that we can enjoy a greater good later on in the hereafter.

However, God's plan and providence is intrinsically beyond the limited scope of human knowledge, so we cannot truly know.

You do not seem to understand.

If you are baptized, you do not automatically go to Heaven. The conclusion otherwise is irrelevant. Yes, baptism is necessary, but that does not mean one baptized will necessarily go to Heaven. If the baptized one, for example, blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, chances are he will not go to Heaven.

It is an item, an individual article, among several. You may think of it as a list of prerequisites, but I don't encourage that line of thinking.

I understand very well that a baptized person doesn't automatically go to Heaven after death. However you claimed that baptized people are automatically given salvation. And there is no real difference from salvation and going to heaven. Since one who receives salvation is ridden of their sins, hence going to heaven.

I never once claimed a baptized person is automatically given salvation, although you are free to go back and read my posts on this thread and elsewhere and prove me wrong. But you won't be able to do that, since I never did what you claimed.