Check out the Existence of God tab to see how it's logical to believe in such a higher power within the realms of science.  Skeptics like to say that the Big Bang and evolutionary theory disprove the existence of God. First off, the Big Bang theory does not disprove the existence of a God, it affirms some key characteristics of God by suggesting that the universe had a beginning and therefore an uncaused first cause. The Big Bang theory shows how time, space, and matter all came into existence at one point, which is what's described in the first line of the bible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The beginning is time, the heavens are space and matter, and the earth is more matter. Keep in mind that Genesis was written thousands of years ago, and scientists used to believe that the universe was eternal with no beginning until the Big Bang theory suggested otherwise. While both the Big Bang theory and the theory of God's creation are not observable occurrences (we weren't around for them), the evidence for each theory compliments each other, showing that science and God can co-exist in our beliefs. We have scientific evidence to reasonably assume (not definitively prove) that the universe had a beginning, but there is still no observable naturalistic law that explains how the universe started from nothing. If the universe (which includes nature's laws) had a beginning, then something outside of nature had to create the universe, and that "something" could be God because natural laws couldn’t have created themselves. Of course, when concluding God, you need to also include the intelligent design argument which points to the uncaused first cause as being an intelligent mind, because other “non-God” theories meet the powerful, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial criteria that are established by the big bang. 

Evolutionary theory does not disprove the existence of God, if evolution is completely true then there still has to be an uncaused first cause that created the natural process of evolution. Personally, I think microevolution is true given that testing natural selection for subspecies is observable, repeatable, and therefore falsifiable for the scientific method. Macroevolution on the other hand is unrepeatable and therefore unfalsifiable, meaning that it is not a scientific fact like microevolution. This doesn't mean that macroevolution is not a scientific hypothesis that's based on scientific principles, it just can't be dogmatically accepted as fact and it requires faith. There are also some problems with the macroevolution inference. Read here and here. 

Also check out this website for in-depth answers to questions about God, the Bible, and science. 

Open this hyperlink to see a chart that analyzes the 120 most popular "bible contradictions"

Critics will often point to supposed contradictions in the bible and claim that those contradictions refute the bible and therefore the Christian faith. There are a few different types of “contradictions” that these critics point out. Admittedly, there are some actual contradictions in the bible, but they are usually due to translation errors, are of minimal importance, or are blown out of proportion. This usually includes verses with numbers and names, which don't hurt the central theology of the bible. I’m not claiming that the bible sitting on your shelf is completely divine and perfect, I think it's divinely inspired. Fallible humans still translated that text from ancient Hebrew and wrote down many copies. A simple translation issue in the text doesn't hurt the existence of God and the theology his eyewitness/reliable authors present But let's look at the other types of contradictions, the ones that relate to the central theme or stories in the bible. 

 A lot of these alleged “contradictions'' aren't even contradictions because they can be plausibly harmonized. Some people think that varying eyewitness accounts of the same event resemble a contradiction, which is not the case if those differences can be harmonized by a reasonable depiction of the reported event. Harmonization of alleged contradictions is not special pleading for the Christian case; harmonization has had its use in secular history for analyzing past events that contain potential “contradictions” from two or more reliable eyewitness accounts. 

For example, from July 18th, 1776, we have multiple contemporary sources that describe the reading of the Declaration of Independence at the Boston State House. Some sources say that William Greenleaf read aloud the declaration, while other sources say that Thomas Crafts read aloud the declaration. This looks like a clear contradiction surrounding a historical event, so one source must be unreliable and false right? Both sources were reported correctly. It turns out that Greanleaf had a weak voice while Thomas Crafts had a stronger voice to project, so Thomas Crafts would simply repeat every sentence that Greanleaf read to the crowd so that everyone could hear. What appeared to be a clear contradiction was harmonized to give us the facts. There are many examples of this plausible harmonization in the gospel accounts, which gives us strong evidence for the reliability of their eyewitness testimony. 

Some people point to biblical “contradictions” that involve concepts or teachings. Oftentimes these verses are taken out of context and there's a misunderstanding of its meaning, so they must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Here are some videos and sources that harmonize these popular contradictions (both theological and story line): 

• Busting Holy Kool-Aid's Bible Contradictions 

• Deflating Over A Dozen Gospel Contradictions (Holy Kool Aid Response) 

• The Resurrection Stories Aren't Hopelessly Contradictory 

• Ehrman EXPOSED: A Deceptive Gospel "Contradiction"

•  Did John Contradict Mark on the Day Jesus Died? | Useful Charts Response

• Sheik Uthman's SILLY "Bible Contradiction"

• Viral TikTok Muslim Finds Bible Contradiction?

• Paul's Conversion: Does Luke Contradict Himself?

• Does Luke Contradict Himself About the Ascension?

• Let's Talk About the Ascension | @MatthewHartke Response

• The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction? | Is Jesus Alive? 

• A look at an alleged contradiction in the gospels: Did the centurion ask Jesus directly to heal his servant, or did he send others to ask? | Is Jesus Alive?

• How many signs did Jesus perform in Galilee? How Bart Ehrman turns passages into contradictions by taking verses out of context | Is Jesus Alive?

• Answering Ehrman: Did the Temple Curtain Rip Before or After Jesus Died? | Is Jesus Alive?

• Busting One of Bart Ehrman's Favorite Bible Contradictions | Is Jesus Alive?

• Does Acts Contradict 1 Thessalonians?

• Paul's Conversion: Does Acts 9 Contradict Galatians 1?

• Did Luke Fabricate a Census to Get Jesus to Bethlehem? | Is Jesus Alive? 

• Jesus' Birth Stories Aren't "Irreconcilably Different" (Holy Koolaid Response)    

• No, Jesus Didn't Ride Two Donkeys In Matthew's Gospel   

• Open this hyperlink to see a chart that analyzes the 120 most popular "bible contradictions"

Overall, most “contradictions” that skeptics point out aren't even contradictions. Even if there are a few that are caused by translation errors or are of minimal importance, it doesn't hurt the central claim,teachings, and eyewitness plausibility of the Bible. We can still have confidence in the reliability of the bible that tells us Jesus is the son of God, that he died for our sins, and that he raised himself up three days later. 

The Bible has been translated many times, but translations are not normally made by copying earlier English translations. Modern New Testament translations go back to the Greek manuscripts. We do not possess the original handwritten pages, the “autographs”, so no one can honestly claim to own the originals. What we have instead is a large body of manuscripts, early translations, and quotations that can be compared to identify the earliest recoverable wording.

Yes, New Testament manuscripts contain hundreds of thousands of textual differences. But that number is high partly because there are thousands of manuscripts to compare. Most differences are minor: spelling, word order, skipped or repeated words, and other copying slips that do not change the message. Some later manuscripts do include passages or expansions missing from the earliest copies, which is why responsible modern Bibles flag them in brackets or footnotes rather than pretending no uncertainty exists.

The earliest complete New Testament manuscripts are from the fourth century roughly 300 years after the originals, but that does not mean Christians waited 300 years to copy the books. Earlier fragments exist, and early Christian writers quoted the Gospels and letters extensively long before our earliest complete Bibles survive. Athiest New Testament scholars Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman concluded in The Text of the New Testament that these quotations are so extensive that, even if every Greek manuscript disappeared, they would be sufficient to reconstruct “practically the entire New Testament.”

For perspective, this gap is comparatively short by ancient-history standards. The earliest surviving manuscripts of the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius are generally about 800 years after they wrote; Josephus’s earliest surviving manuscripts are roughly 1,000 years later; and the oldest surviving copies of Herodotus and Thucydides are separated from their originals by around 500 years. Historians still use these writings as basically reliable witnesses to what their authors wrote. The New Testament also has a much larger and earlier stream of manuscript evidence, which gives scholars more material to compare and evaluate.

We do not have the original pages, and a few passages remain genuinely disputed, but the evidence strongly supports that the New Testament we read today preserves what its authors originally wrote.

No, if “all religions lead to heaven” means that every religion gives a true and equally valid account of God, salvation, and the afterlife, they cannot all be right at the same time. Christianity says people are reconciled to God through Jesus. Islam teaches submission to God and rejects central Christian claims about Jesus. Hindu traditions include diverse ideas such as rebirth and liberation. Buddhism generally focuses on escaping suffering and rebirth rather than being forgiven by a personal Creator. These are not merely different routes saying the same thing. They make conflicting claims about who God is, what is wrong with humanity, and what happens after death.

Think of it like entering an address into your GPS. One person says the destination is 10 miles north, while another says it is 10 miles south. Both people may be sincere, but sincerity does not make opposite directions equally true. There is an objective answer: the destination is in one actual location. In the same way, truth about God and eternity is not decided by what feels most comfortable or meaningful to us. Christians should still treat people of every faith with kindness and respect, but respect does not require pretending that contradictory claims can all be true.

For example, Jesus cannot both be the divine Savior whose death brings people to God and merely a human prophet whose crucifixion does not provide salvation. The biographies about Jesus are also rooted in reliable eyewitness accounts while the other major religious texts/traditions aren't as reliable. The Qur’an is rooted in Muhammad’s claimed revelation, not in a group of people and converted skeptics who publicly witnessed the events like we see in the gospels with Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection. Hinduism’s sacred traditions developed over long periods rather than from eyewitness testimony to one public saving event. Buddhism is not rooted in eyewitness testimony in the same way Christianity claims to be. The earliest Buddhist material was passed down orally for generations, and the traditional Pali collection was first written down around the first century BC, which was centuries after the Buddha likely lived, where as the biographies of Jesus were written in the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. The Buddhist writings are records of a long oral tradition about what the Buddha taught, not four independent biographies written by people presenting themselves as witnesses to a public death and resurrection. Scholars note that early Buddhist texts were shaped for memorization and communal recitation and changed, both intentionally and unintentionally, through their long transmission. Some scholars also describe the traditional biographies of the Buddha as containing legendary or mythical elements, while still distinguishing those stories from the likely historical fact that a real Buddha lived and taught and Buddhism rests on the teachings of the Buddha rather than testimony that he defeated sin and death for others.

Christianity is exclusive at its center. It says we cannot make ourselves right with a holy God by being good enough, doing enough religious work, or earning our way into heaven. Instead, God came down to us in human flesh. The Gospel says Jesus lived without sin, willingly took the punishment sin deserves on the cross, and rose again, offering forgiveness and eternal life as a gift received through faith, not a reward we achieve. That is why Jesus did not simply claim to show one possible path. He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Other religions may offer moral guidance or a path of human effort, but Christianity uniquely proclaims that God came to rescue sinners through Jesus, and that the way to the Father is not earned by us, but provided by him. Such a claim is unlike any other world religion out there. If you need more evidence to see how Jesus really is the truth, then visit the resurrection section of this website to see how we can know without a doubt that he rose from the dead. 

Watch this short and simple video for a direct answer to this question: 

Why doesn't God just show Himself? 

This is a fair question that I'm sure many believers or skeptics, including myself, have asked. What if each one of us could receive undeniable proof of God's existence? The first question we should ask is, is that God's goal? I mean, the creator of the universe knows that he already exists, so what’s the purpose of trying to constantly prove that fact to his creation? Well, God's goal is a little different, he wants to bring us into a loving relationship with him, and that's why he created us, except we have gone astray.

 Sure, God could show signs and wonders every day or reveal his true form to everyone at an individual experience, but would this bring everyone into a loving relationship? I'm sure many hardcore atheists could just disregard the signs as hallucinations or some new cosmic explanations that don't even point to God. Someone could merely claim that powerful aliens or the multiverse could be the cause of such wonders. Or people would just be annoyed with the constant “proofs”  of God and not feel compelled to choose and love him. If God wants to lead his own people into a loving relationship with him, then it seems like the best way to reveal himself would be through a loving sacrifice at a relatable level. The truth is that God already revealed himself to mankind. He came down to earth to be incarnated as a human that we could relate to, then he performed miraculous signs, and he sacrificed himself to save us from our sins. He then performed another miraculous sign (the resurrection) to prove that through him we can conquer death. 

People may object and say “Well that happened 2,000 years ago, why can't he do it for every generation?” Given the weight of this sacrifice and the idea that paying the price for sin was a one-and-done deal, wouldn't it seem kind of tedious to have a new Jesus for every century in history? Doing this once already proves God's existence and his loving sacrifice; the choice to enter a relationship with God is still ours to make after the sacrifice was done once. God creating multiple Jesus’ would be like if you repeatedly proposed to your soulmate after already getting down on one knee. If the person says no then move on, and respect their free will, if the person says yes then congratulations, there's no need to keep asking for their hand in marriage, you already got it!

 In fact, a repeating Jesus with supernatural resurrections could hurt the significance of such an event. If it occurred so often then maybe people would accept bodily resurrections or healings as a natural occurrence. The reason the resurrection is so significant in the case of the one Jesus is that it's impossible for such an event to happen from natural causes, only something supernatural like God could cause such a thing. And who's to say that repeated Jesus’ would further accomplish God's main goal? Many people (most notably the Pharisees and Jewish leaders) rejected Jesus even after seeing his miracles. A lot of people have internal problems with the idea of God and his authority, the issue isn't always centered around his existence. I understand that the concern may lie with the idea that we can't know for certain that the original resurrection happened, but in the Resurrection section, I show how we can believe in the resurrection beyond reasonable doubt. 

Overall, it's important to realize that if God is all wise and powerful then whatever way he chooses to reveal himself is probably the best way to accomplish his goal of getting his creation into a loving relationship. This objection doesn't dismiss any of the historical evidence that leads us to believe that God revealed himself through the death and resurrection of his only son, nor does it dismiss our individual experiences of being born again through the holy spirit once we show true faith. God can still reveal himself to you at an individual level if you ask him, just don't be mad when it's done in a way you didn't want or expect. 

This question is probably the most popular objection to God from unbelievers and the most popular prayer from believers. There's no doubt that we live in a broken world and that we continue to suffer. So it can be hard for people to accept God when he allows us to go through such suffering while having the power to stop it. As I mentioned before, this objection does not disprove God’s existence. If we consider something to be so evil and bad, then it must be compared to an equal standard of good in order to conclude its moral measure, and that good standard is God. It is for this reason that some crime detectives and lawyers believe in God because they inherently know that the pure evil they have witnessed must be met by an equal and opposite force of good, which to them can only be explained by an all-powerful God. 

As a mere human living in the same broken world as you, I can't fully understand why our creator allows suffering nor can I give you the correct answer, only God knows. However, I know that God is all wise and just, so whichever way he works is probably the best way to lead his creation into a loving relationship and perfect kingdom. As part of the creation, I have no right to judge the creator, but it doesn't hurt to investigate questions. I can still offer my interpretation to this issue based on my understanding of scripture. So, if we want to tackle this moral issue, then we have to go back to the beginning when God granted free will to the first humans. 

Long story short, we (Adam and Eve) once lived in a perfect world that God created. However, the fallen angel Satan started evil by rejecting God; God is the standard of good so the opposition of him is evil. Satan then convinced Adam and Eve to also participate in this evil by disobeying God (the original sin). The once-perfect world then became corrupted by that evil through sin. God and his perfect nature could no longer dwell with us, he had warned Adam and Eve that if they disobeyed him then it would result in death. So once they first sinned, God had to banish them from his perfection, resulting in an imperfect world that contains death, disease, and suffering. Death, disease, suffering, and other things we deem to be bad are not a creation of God since he can only be good. When God finished creating everything, he declared that the creation was good. Satan and the first humans abused their free will, and evil started such suffering by staining God’s perfection, which meant God had to withdraw his perfect presence from us, thereby producing a broken world. 

Since our lineage goes all the way back to the first humans, we still have to suffer the consequences of the original sin as we are born into the broken world (Romans 5:12). Being born into this environment also gives us the inevitable tendency to sin, which is why everyone falls short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Side note, you may be wondering if babies still go to heaven even though they are born into sin, check out this source for a clear interpretation on the age of accountability. Given the original sin and our birth into a broken world, we still have to face suffering, but it is only temporary. 

The good news is that God is on a mission to bring his people back out of evil and suffering. The reason God does not stop these bad things yet is because he respects our free will. God wants a loving relationship, not a forced robotic relationship. Therefore, he gives you the choice to accept and love him or to reject and deny him (choosing sin and this corrupt world over him). Unfortunately, this means that people who abuse their free will can resort to sin and evil which hurts others. On top of that, we have to stay in this corrupt and imperfect world until we die and pass into the afterlife, which can be perfect and free of death and disease if we choose God's kingdom. God will eventually defeat evil by restoring his kingdom on earth with the people who willingly choose God (good) over evil. Here's a Video explaining the restoration of God's kingdom.  We just have to learn to trust him until our journey on Earth is over. When God came down to earth through Jesus, he bore the evil of this world and then conquered it by rising from the dead. Through Jesus evil is defeated, we just have to be patient for his kingdom to be fully restored. 

This is a tough question for many believers, not because it's hard to answer, but because we can't bear to think of generally good people (by our standard) as deserving eternal torment. Before I answer this question, I think it's important to highlight that God does not want any of us to go to hell. “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:3-4). 

God didn't intend on hell as being a place for his beloved creation, God prepared hell for the devil and his angels (Mathew 25:41). Nevertheless, hell is the eternal destination for sin. Our bodies may die but our souls live on, and if we don't choose to enter a loving relationship with God, then we have destined ourselves to be eternally separated from him. God will not force you into his kingdom, if you choose to reject his kingdom and relationship while on earth, then God will respect your free will. God is looking for the ones that want to be in a loving relationship with him. It just so happens to be that God is the only source of good in this universe, so if hell is the opposite choice of God (rejecting his kingdom), then hell must also contain the only source of evil, having no good since God is not there. This is why hell is so bad, it doesn't seem appealing to us because we are God's creation and are naturally drawn to his goodness. Anything good that we experience in this life is a direct attribute of God. 

People have two choices in their lives, to stay in a corrupt world and its sins, or to enter a loving relationship with God. This world's sin leads to hell since the devil and his angels rule the world and its sin, but if you choose a loving relationship with God, then you are saved from sin (through Jesus’ sacrifice) and he will let you into his kingdom. It doesn't matter if you do good acts in this world or if you try to be a “good person”, you have free will to choose God or to reject him, a decision which dictates your eternal destination. 

It's also important to emphasize that none of us are “good” when judged by God's law. All of us have broken some of God's laws and commandments, so we are guilty of sin and thereby deserving of the punishment, which is death. Let's say that you were being convicted of murder in a court of law, in your defense, you say to the judge “But I’m a good person, I have done many good things in my life”. Do you think the judge would let you go based on this statement? Even if you were generally a good person and did good actions, it doesn't override the weight of the crime you committed, therefore you must be convicted according to the law. The judge says “guilty as charged” and sentences you to death, all hope is lost. 

But wait, your father walks into the courtroom as you are being sentenced to death. Your father then says to the judge “Let me pay the death penalty for the defendant”. Even though your dad is innocent, he says to you “I’ll take your punishment and die in your place because I love you, all I ask is that you accept this gift and use the freedom to turn your life around”. The judge then gives you the choice to accept this replacement or reject it. The father in this example resembles Jesus. We are all guilty of sin and deserving of punishment, yet God our Father came down to earth as an innocent being through Jesus and paid the death penalty for all our sins. All that we have to do now is to recognize our guilt and then accept Jesus’ sacrifice (through belief) in order to be set free from death. Then we can honor that sacrifice by turning our life away from sin. 

The Bible does contain difficult passages about slavery, especially Leviticus 25:44–46, which allows Israelites to acquire male and female slaves from surrounding nations and pass them on as an inheritance. We should not pretend those verses are easy or that every form of biblical servitude was the same as a modern employment contract. Still, “slavery” in the ancient world covered several situations: debt service, household labor, people born into a household, war-related captivity, and long-term foreign servitude. It was not identical to the race-based, kidnapping-driven, lifelong chattel slavery imposed on Black people in the United States. 

The clearest definition of oppressive slavery is taking a person by force, treating them as property because of race or power, selling them, abusing them, and denying their basic human dignity and freedom. The Bible directly condemns the heart of that system: Exodus 21:16 says a person who kidnaps someone and sells or keeps them must be put to death. The New Testament likewise condemns slave traders or kidnappers in 1 Timothy 1:10. Israel’s laws also required Sabbath rest for servants, protection from physical injury, and freedom when a master caused certain serious injuries. Foreigners living among Israel were commanded to be treated with love, “as yourself” in Leviticus 19:33–34. So when Leviticus speaks of acquiring people from surrounding nations, it cannot honestly be equated one-for-one with the Atlantic slave trade, which depended on violent abduction and racial dehumanization that Scripture explicitly condemns. 

That does not mean the Bible gives a simple, modern abolitionist law code. It means God regulated an existing ancient institution while placing limits and moral principles around it that challenged abuse: no kidnapping, no ruthless rule, rest for workers, protection from injury, and equal standing before God. The New Testament pushes the principle even further by saying that in Christ there is “neither slave nor free” and by calling enslaved believers brothers and sisters rather than lesser people. These teachings are why the Bible cannot fairly be called a book designed to keep people in oppressive slavery. In fact, British missionaries and slaveholders produced an edited “Slave Bible” in 1807 for enslaved Africans in the Caribbean, cutting out large portions of Scripture, including Exodus’s liberation story, Exodus 21:16, and Galatians 3:28, because the full Bible could fuel hope for freedom and equality.

Using the Bible to defend American race-based slavery was a serious abuse of the Bible, not proof that its message was created for oppression. It is like using a kitchen knife to murder someone: the misuse is real and evil, but it does not change the fact that the knife was designed to cut food, nor does it suggest that the inventor of the kitchen knife intended it for murder. The Bible records and regulates flawed systems in an ancient world, but its laws and central message oppose kidnapping, racial dehumanization, and the idea that one human being has the right to treat another as less than fully human.

The Bible contains several passages where God commands the Israelites to kill entire populations, explicitly including children and infants.

Deuteronomy 20:16–17 (ESV): “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, 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.”

1 Samuel 15:3 (ESV): “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

These are difficult passages, and the question of why God would command such a thing deserves a serious answer. Why would God order the deaths of women and children, particularly those who might not have personally committed the sins for which their people were judged?

First, the biblical context matters. The Canaanite nations are repeatedly described as engaging in practices God condemned, including child sacrifice and sexual immorality. Deuteronomy 12:31 describes people burning their sons and daughters as sacrifices to their gods, while Leviticus 18 and 20 describe practices that God considered deeply evil. The conquest is presented as God's judgment on these nations for their wickedness, not as racial hatred or a declaration that foreigners were inherently less valuable. Israel itself was warned that it would face judgment and be expelled from the land if it practiced the same evils.

However, this raises an important question: even if adults were guilty of terrible things, why would children have to die?

One part of the answer is that God is the author of life. If God created life, he possesses authority over life and death in a way human beings do not. Every person eventually dies, and death itself is not necessarily an injustice simply because it occurs at a particular time. From this perspective, God's taking of life is not automatically equivalent to a human being unjustly murdering someone. God has complete knowledge of every person's circumstances, motives, and future, whereas human beings have limited knowledge and cannot exercise God's authority.

Another important consideration is the question of moral accountability and what happens to children who die before they are capable of understanding and choosing between right and wrong.

The Bible does not give a specific age at which every person becomes morally accountable to God. The concept commonly called the age of accountability is a theological understanding based on passages that distinguish between children and those capable of making morally informed decisions.

For example, Deuteronomy 1:39 refers to children who, at the time, had “no knowledge of good or evil.” Isaiah 7:16 similarly speaks of a child not yet knowing how to refuse evil and choose good. These passages recognize that children develop the ability to understand moral choices rather than possessing the same understanding as mature adults.

This distinction matters because there is a difference between a person knowingly choosing rebellion against God and a young child who has not yet developed the capacity to understand and make that choice. Psalm 51:5 acknowledges humanity's sinful nature, but being born with a sinful nature is not necessarily the same thing as knowingly committing deliberate sins or consciously rejecting God.

The question, then, is whether God would condemn an infant who died before having the capacity to understand sin, repent, or consciously respond to him. Several passages provide reasons to trust in God's mercy toward such children.

One particularly relevant example is David's response after his infant son died in 2 Samuel 12:22–23. David had fasted and prayed while the child was alive, hoping God would spare him. After the child died, David stopped fasting and explained:

2 Samuel 12:23 (ESV): “But now 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.”

David's words are significant. Rather than expressing hopelessness, he appears to find comfort in the knowledge that he would one day go to his son. Many understand this as David expressing hope that he would be reunited with his child after death. Although the verse does not explicitly say that the child went to heaven, it provides a meaningful biblical basis for the belief that death did not necessarily mean the child was lost to David forever.

Jesus also demonstrates a special concern for children. In Matthew 19:14, he says, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” In Matthew 18:14, he says that it is not the Father's will that one of these little ones should perish. These passages do not establish a detailed doctrine about the eternal destiny of every infant, but they reinforce the picture of God as merciful toward children rather than indifferent to their fate.

Taken together, these passages provide grounds for believing that children who die before they can knowingly reject God are received by him through his mercy and grace. Salvation is not earned by reaching a certain age or accumulating good deeds. It ultimately depends on God's grace and the work of Christ, not on a child's ability to understand theology.

This leads to another part of the argument: if God knew that these children would otherwise grow up in deeply corrupt societies, would their early deaths have spared them from a future of sin and condemnation in hell?

Within this theological framework, it is possible to argue that God, knowing the entire course of a person's life, could take a child's life before that child grew up and became deeply involved in the evils of the surrounding culture. If that child was received into heaven through God's grace, then the child would be spared a future of sin and its consequences and would instead experience eternal life with God.

From that perspective, an early death would not necessarily mean the child suffered the ultimate loss. If the alternative were a life of persistent rebellion that ended in condemnation in hell, being received into heaven would be infinitely better than that outcome.

The broader point is that God's knowledge and authority differ fundamentally from human knowledge and authority. Human beings cannot know with certainty how a child will develop, what choices that child will make, or what their eternal destiny will be. God, by contrast, is understood to possess complete knowledge and perfect justice. The argument depends on that distinction, not on the idea that human beings can determine whose life is worth preserving.

So does this mean people today can kill innocent women and children if they believe God is telling them to do so?
Absolutely not.

The commands given to ancient Israel were tied to a specific period in biblical history and a particular role Israel was given in God's purposes. They were not a general rule authorizing people to kill those they consider evil. A command given to Israel in a unique historical circumstance cannot simply be transferred to individuals or governments today.

The New Testament presents a different mission for God's people. Rather than establishing and preserving a nation by driving out surrounding peoples, Jesus commissions his followers to make disciples of all nations. The emphasis is on redemption, forgiveness, and bringing people out of evil, rather than destroying entire populations to preserve the separation of God's people from the surrounding world.

So does this loving command from Jesus contradict God's character in the Old Testament? 

No, consider the analogy of a parent and their baby eating grapes. A parent might immediately take a whole grape away from their baby because the baby could choke. That intervention is intended to protect the child, even if the child does not understand why it is necessary. When the child grows up, the parent can allow them to eat grapes because they are better able to handle them safely. The parent's love has not changed, but the way the parent relates to the child changes as the child matures.

In a similar way, the Old and New Covenants represent different stages in God's plan. Under the Old Covenant, Israel was a distinct nation with specific laws and a particular role in God's purposes. They were the earliest version of Gods chosen people, so they needed strict care from God to maintain their purity as Gods people. God was loving his chosen people by dealing harshly with the evil people groups around them, and any evil that arose among his own chosen people.  Flash forward thousands of years later under the New Covenant, God's people are called to live among people of every nation and be a light in the darkness. Through the Holy Spirit, they are equipped to influence others through truth, love, and the gospel without being compromised spiritually themselves. The Israliests did not have this ability because they did not have the Holy Spirit. This shows that God can give different commands at different times but still be consistently loving in his character. 

Jesus makes this distinction clear when he commands his followers to love their enemies in Matthew 5:44 and rebukes a life of violence in Matthew 26:52. The New Testament also recognizes a role for civil authorities in restraining wrongdoing. Romans 13:4 says that the governing authority “does not bear the sword in vain” and describes that authority as an agent of justice against wrongdoing, not for an individual.  Whatever conclusions are drawn about the state's use of force or capital punishment, this passage does not authorize private individuals to kill people because they believe God has spoken to them.

In fact, a modern claim that God has commanded someone to kill an evil generation would contradict the instructions given to God's people under the New Covenant. Jesus commands his followers to love their enemies, and the Great Commission calls them to make disciples of all nations. The New Testament does not authorize Christians to execute divine judgment on entire populations. A claimed revelation cannot override God's revealed commands in scripture or establish an exception to them.

If someone today claimed that God had told them to kill children, women, or an entire group of people because they were evil, then they did NOT hear the voice of the one true God, so the claim would have to be rejected. It would not be enough for that person to insist that they had heard God's voice. The claim would contradict the mission and commands given by Jesus, and it would not grant that person God's unique authority over life and death. The conquest of Canaan is not permission for modern ethnic cleansing, terrorism, religious persecution, or murder.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether the deaths of women and children are unimportant. They are serious, and the passages describing their deaths should not be minimized. The distinction is between God's unique authority to judge, the grace He has to bring people to heaven (perhaps including children under the age of moral accountability), and the authority he has given to human beings. The biblical account presents these events as particular acts of divine judgment within a specific stage of its story, not as a moral model for humanity to follow.

The Bible's overarching direction leads toward Jesus, who gives his life to save sinners and sends his followers to bring the good news to people of every nation. Questions about why God judged these ancient populations in the way the text describes may remain difficult, but those passages cannot be used to justify killing innocent people today. God's unique authority as Creator is not a license for human beings to take that authority into their own hands.

You may ask yourself, if I believe in Jesus to forgive my sins, then why can't I have a free pass to keep on sinning? While it's true that our actions don't get us into heaven and that we only receive salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, there is a difference between true faith and false faith. True faith in Jesus will reflect a change in your life that's supported by your actions. Jesus says that you must be born again of the spirit to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5). If you have true faith in Jesus then God will give you his holy spirit to change your heart's desires and to help you live for him (read the "How to know for sure that you are saved section"). If you don't recognize this born-again change in your life then it means that you don't have the spirit and therefore you do not have true faith in God. 

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God" - 1 John 4:15 

"No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God" - 1 John 3:9 

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come" - 2 Corinthians 5:17

"If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him" - 1 John 2:29

"Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: 'The Lord knows those who are his,' and, 'Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness'" - 2 Timothy 2:19. 

"Whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked" - 1 John 2:4-6

"For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead" - James 2:26

If you have true faith in Jesus Christ then you will naturally back up that faith by living for him. It's not the works you do for God that save you, but the spiritual desire to turn away from sin is a natural byproduct of having saving faith in Jesus. No one will be perfect after confessing true faith in Jesus, which is why we still need him to cover our past, present, and future sins. True believers will still struggle with sin because we have a battle between our fleshly nature and our spiritual nature. But there's a difference between accepting your sinful lifestyle and struggling with it. Born-again Christians who have confessed true faith will make an effort to turn away from their sin because their heart has been made new in God. If your heart is still with the world and you claim false faith in Jesus, then you need to take a moment to give your heart back to God. Faith in Jesus isn't just a confession of believing in his existence, it's a sincere belief in your heart that he is the Son of God and that you trust your eternity with him, because with the heart one believes and is justified (Romans 10:10). Repent from any mindset, self-desires, or false trusts that are blocking you from total belief in Jesus. Tell God that you want to be freed from your sin and believe in your heart that Jesus will save you from that sin through his sacrifice. Ask God to send you his holy spirit and start reading God's word so that you can recognize this spirit and walk in it. 

First off, I want to acknowledge that the hate the LGBTQ community gets from the church is wrong. Jesus calls us to love others, and there is no valid excuse for Christians who hate, condemn, and judge LGBTQ people, those actions are not Christ-like. If you are part of the LGBTQ community and reading this, I want you to know that God loves you and wants a relationship with you. Jesus does not hate you, and anything you've done in the past cannot separate you from the love of God (Romans 8:39). With that being said, let's look into this issue. The only thing that denies you entrance into heaven is when you reject Christ. 

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” - John 3:18

By the grace of God, you will enter heaven if you fully believe in Jesus, but true faith also comes with a change in heart. Your identity changes from being in this world to being in Jesus Christ. If you have true faith in Jesus then you are transformed into a new person by the spirit of God. 

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come" - 2 Corinthians 5:17

“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’” - John 3:5 

Once you confess true faith in Jesus you will receive the holy spirit, which makes you a born-again believer that can enter his kingdom. (Read the How to know for sure that you are saved section for more detail). The holy spirit will convict you of sin and change your heart's desires so that you can turn away from your old sinful lifestyle. If you are a true believer in Christ, then you are no longer part of the world and you should naturally aim to turn away from sin. This change of heart is evidence that you are saved and will go to heaven because it means that you have true faith and are born again. 

So, the real question should now be “Is homosexuality and LGBTQ pride a sin?”. If it is, then as true believers we should turn away from it and renounce it like any other sin. There are some clear verses in the New Testament that list practicing “homosexuality” as a sin. However, the translation for the word homosexuality wasn’t used in the bible until the 1950s, and the original Greek word has some ambiguity in its meaning. Nevertheless, there are still other verses in the bible that clearly show how engaging in homosexual acts is sinful. 

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” - Romans 1:26-28

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” - Genesis 2:24 

“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” - 1 Corinthians 7:2

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,  and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” - Mathew 19:4-6

In the first chapter of Romans, Paul talks about dishonorable passions in the eyes of God, which can be classified as sin. He then goes on to show that these dishonorable passions included men and women giving up their “natural relations” with the opposite sex to participate in passionate acts with the same sex. This is a pretty clear indication that engaging in homosexuality is sinful before God, all without using the ambiguous Greek word for homosexuality that the Christian LGBTQ community likes to defend. 

Furthermore, God created sex within the confines of marriage as he declared that a man shall become one flesh with his wife. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians states that marriage between a man and a woman would help prevent us from falling to sexual immorality. This means that any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful, which would include homosexual acts since the same sex cannot be married to each other in God's design. Jesus also affirms this by saying that God made male and female and that the marriage between the two of them should not be separated. Showing pride in a worldly identity is also a sin before God. 

"For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world." - 1 John 2:16 

“What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” -  Mark 7:20-23

So if having pride in your worldly desires is a sin, then proudly professing LGBTQ is also sinful. Being an LGBTQ person who struggles with their gender identity is not sinful, but being proud of it is. You are putting your trust and heart into a worldly identity instead of putting your trust and heart into a born-again identity through Jesus Christ. Being gay and having homosexual temptations is not a sin, but entertaining those attractions and engaging in homosexuality is a sin. Being gay just means that you struggle with same-sex attractions, and everyone who follows God will have sexual attractions that they ought not to act on, regardless of their sexual orientation. Homosexual acts are just as sinful as heterosexual acts done outside of marriage, because all sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, whether or not it's hetero or homo. This is another reason why it is unfair for the LGBTQ community to receive hate from the church, it's hypocritical for Christians to hate and target the LGBTQ community but not act the same way towards sexually immoral people who are heterosexual. As broken humans, we are all in the same boat of struggling with sin, and that sin may look different for other people. But that difference does not undermine everyone's need for Jesus to save us from our sins. 

God loves us but he doesn't love our sin, because our sin separates us from him. If you are on the edge of choosing Jesus, I want you to know that Jesus didn't call us to have everything together before we follow him, he told us to come as we are. So just focus on seeking the love of God and believing in his son with your whole heart. If you do this, then God will give you his holy spirit, which will convict you of the sin of homosexual acts and pride. After confessing true faith, you won't be perfect and free of temptation, you may still struggle with same-sex attraction and slip up in sin. If you have true faith in Jesus then you are still saved when this happens, because Jesus’ sacrifice forgives our sins. However, struggling with sin is different than accepting it and practicing it as a lifestyle. Being born again will naturally change your heart's desires, so the effort to turn away from this sin and other sins will become a natural byproduct of your saving faith. If you are already a believer and think that an LGBTQ lifestyle is acceptable to God, then you need to change your mind (repent) about this topic and recognize that engaging in sexual LGBTQ acts and pride is sinful. Confess your guilt before God and ask for forgiveness so that your relationship with him can be restored and then commit to removing this sin from your life. 

So to give a straightforward answer to the question at hand, if someone fully believes in Jesus and is born again, but they happen to struggle with LGBTQ temptations (like any other sin), then they will go to heaven by Gods grace. The answer gets trickier if that person professes faith in Jesus but also claims that an LGTBQ lifestyle is justified. Such a contradiction could be evidence that the person is not born again since they appear unconvicted about their sin, which could mean they don't have the Holy Spirit and are not saved. However, in such a unique case, only God would know the eternal status of that person. It's not my job to determine 100% whether or not you are saved, it is my job to share the truth, and then its between you and God to know if you're truly saved (1 John 5:13). 

Remember, your identity with the world and its pleasures will eventually fade away. When we die the only thing that matters is our identity with Christ. Let go of your prideful rebellion towards God. Make the eternal choice to join Jesus and experience the love of our creator. The love we experience on earth with other humans does not even compare to the greater love we can find in God. If you are an LGBTQ person reading this, you may think it's unfair for a straight Christian male like me to speak on this issue. But as I said earlier, all sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin regardless of one's sexual orientation. As a born-again believer, I still have to sacrifice sex before marriage by staying abstinent before I marry my future wife. Due to temptation, this decision can be hard at times, but it is a natural desire in my heart to stay pure for God because I have been born again of the spirit after putting my faith in Christ. The love that God offers is far better than any short-term pleasure I could experience in this short life on earth. 

You are not alone in this battle either, and there is hope. Check out these testimonies from other LGBTQ members who were transformed after believing in Jesus: 

• What Does “Deliverance” TRULY Look like for a Christian? 

• From Homosexuality/LGBTQ to Jesus Christ! | Rashad Vermes Testimony

God loves you and wants a relationship with you, turn your heart to him and I promise you won't regret it. 

First off, I never want to force a belief, I just want to tell others about it and then what they do with that information is completely up to them. You have the ability to ignore this. The only reason I tell people is because I care, I don't want anyone to be eternally separated from God. It doesn't feel great to be made fun of for your belief or to see people get offended; I wouldn't share this information if I really didn't believe in it. Let's say you were on a public road, and you knew that just after a hill there was a massive hole in the ground that would lead people to their deaths, wouldn't you want to warn everyone and steer them away from the hole they can't see? Spreading the good news of the gospel isn't about winning an argument and being right, it's about saving people from eternal death. I just want the people I care about to be saved, and if you don't want anything to do with my beliefs, then I can respect your boundaries and freedoms.