We will look in this chapter at the following question: What happens to those who die in childhood? Would it be fair for someone to receive some privilege without any merit that would justify it?

Let us first make a small analogy to better understand the logic of the reasoning: Imagine a classroom with one hundred students, who would have to study throughout the school year and,  at the end of the period, they would undertake a test that would define their approval or disapproval.

​

However, early in the year, the school principal would randomly select two or three of these students who would receive approval in advance. They would not have to stay, like the other students, studying until the end of the period, nor would they have to undergo any evaluation. They would be removed from the classroom and taken directly to a "special room", where they would be waiting for the approved ones, who would join them at the end of the period.

 

Let us consider that: Has the criterion applied in this analogy been fair? Well, if we analyze the concept of Justice ("the virtue that consists in giving each one according to his merit"), we will obviously come to the conclusion that there was not a fair criterion, because if someone receives something they do not deserve, then there is no justice. In this way, we can say that this procedure was not fair because:

​

• There was no criterion that differed, in the group of students, which would be the "selected ones", thus justifying the receipt of such privilege

​

• The principle of equality was not observed, since at the beginning all students had the same degree of merit and, therefore, all would deserve to be automatically "approved", or else all would need to study until the end of the period, and pass rigorously by the same test that would define its approval or not.

​

Now, let us return to the main question of this chapter: "What happens to those who die in childhood?". Traditional Christian religions respond that, in such cases, the souls of such children would be automatically "saved" and would go directly to "heaven".

 

However, following the same line of reasoning used in the analogy of the students previously presented, we put the following question: Would it be right for some to receive this privilege, that is, to gain the “gift” of the "eternal salvation", without having done anything to deserve it, while all the others, that is, the vast majority of people, would have to go through a lifetime to live up to the same "salvation", even running the risk of losing it?

​

In this case, we could perfectly well say that those who die in childhood would be "fortunate", because they would get a "straight" way to paradise, doing nothing to do to receive such a privilege, while others would not be so lucky because, to achieve the same privilege, they would have to work hard until the end of their lives. Are we then simply subjected to a law of "luck" or "chance"? Where would the criteria of Divine Justice stand?

​

If that were the case, then it would be possible for a father who, wishing his son to go to "paradise", would kill him as a child. Then, before dying, such a father could repent and, this way, he would be forgiven, and also go to paradise, where he would meet his son. Such a situation is obviously completely illogical, and may even seem utterly absurd but, according to the theory that traditional Christian doctrines hold, based on the literal interpretation of the Bible, it would be exactly what would happen once, according to such doctrines, by repenting before death a person receives the total forgiveness of their sins.

​

Analyzing this question even more deeply, we observe, day by day, several situations that demonstrate how completely illogical it would be if there was only one life. For example, we see cases of children who are born with serious health problems, and go through terrible suffering still in the hospital, dying with only a few days or weeks of age. In this case then, according to the doctrine defended by the traditional Christian doctrines:

​

1. Children would have been born "in sin" (Original Sin), thus "justifying" their suffering even without deserving it.

​

2. Next, after dying, they would go straight to "paradise" and thus they would be  receiving a privilege, once again, without deserving it.

 

In this way, we observe in this theory a double illogicity and we find no coherent criterion that could offer a consistent explanation within the principles of logic and justice.

 

 Principle of equality

​

By the principle of equality, individuals with the same degree of merit should receive in an equally rigorous way. On the assumption that there was only one life, and that all of us were created at the moment of conception or birth, we would all then have the same degree of merit.

 

In this case, if God "randomly" selected some children who, through their premature death, would go straight to heaven and receive their "eternal salvation", He would be practicing a criterion of absolute inequality in relation to others who would need to go through a lifetime to achieve their salvation. God would then, by failing to practice the criterion of equality, being unfair.

​

 

Logical argument analysis: