A theological argument FOR abortion

[Betterave]

The indefatigable defender of the absurd. You assert:

On the contrary, you can “will” to want to do it. What you cannot do is to accomplish what you wanted. I could want to change my belief about astrology being a whole lot of nonsense, but no matter how strong my “want” might be, I would be unable to do it.

Now this seems to me to be patently false. You say that I can “will” to want to believe something. What does that even mean?? (Is it the same as wanting to “will” to believe something?) *What is it like *for you to “want to change your belief about astrology being a whole lot of nonsense”? (I know of no such experience.) You claim you can do this - how? What happens when you allegedly do this? Do you believe that some kind of ‘wanting’ force-field turns on in your brain whenever you “will” it to (whatever that means), but that it just isn’t strong enough to alter the belief-sector of your brain??

Now I don’t expect you to actually answer these questions, I know that’s not your forte, but hopefully you can try to think about them before replying with some irrelevant arrogant comeback.

Originally Posted by Betterave
The point is that you can make yourself believe something that you want to believe.

Ah, so you cannot do it, because you don’t want to do it? What a lame excuse. “Wanting” to do something is part of conscious process of the brain. The “belief” part is not. So, your feeble attempt of evasion is in vain. But I never expected anything better. Ave!

A lame excuse?? You are a strange duck. If you don’t want to, say, punch yourself as hard as you can in the nose (and trust me, you don’t), you cannot do it. Lame excuse?? And how is a “belief” not a “conscious process”? What are you trying to say? You are not conscious of what you believe? Your feeble attempt to pass off obviously absurd and hopelessly vague statements as obviously correct is in vain. But I never expected anything better. Ave!

 

[Areopagite]

My actual assertion was: “One cannot volitionally change what one believes is true (or false)”. (Observe, I said “believes”, not “knows”.)

So, am I to understand you actually DO believe you can volitionally believe what one knows is false … but that you don’t believe that one can volitionally change what one believes is true or false? Or do you think both of them are impossible? I’m still not quite sure what your position is on the first one.

I would say, if you think one CAN volitionally believe something they know is false, then they can also volitionally change their beliefs. Because if you know something to be true, I would also say that you can say that you believe it to be true as well. That’s how the term is used, it seems. While you can believe something and yet not necessarily know that something, you nonetheless necessarily believe something if you also know that something. Make sense?

This was disputed by you and others. So I am challenging you to posit something that you believe in, and attempt to change that belief to the opposite. There is no “lying” involved in this process.

Are you asking for us to change our belief regarding something we simply believe in but clearly don’t have certain knowledge of? Or are you asking us to change our belief regarding something we have some sense of certainty about? If it is the latter, then it is definitely sinful because we would be saying to ourselves “This proposition is true” when in fact we judged that we had a degree of certainty that “This proposition is false” … quite clearly, a lie to oneself (or at least going against your better judgment and hence against reason … and hence against your conscience). However, if you’re asking us to do the former … to change a belief that we have without any feeling of certainty or knowledge … gee … do I have any of those kinds of beliefs? I might. I’ll have to get back to you on that.

But just to clarify, in light of what I said, what exactly are you asking?

It is a simple mental exercise, to do what you asserted that I can do. Well, I cannot, and you cannot do it either.

I will still not do it. But I can nonetheless cite examples of doing it in the past.

I decided to believe that I liked country music in order to relate more to my girlfriend. It was obvious soon later on, that I simply didn’t like it, even though I had momentarily believed I did. I knew because while I was listening to it and thinking I liked it … I was in pain … pain that I only acknowledged later on. (by the way, I don’t think country music is evil … it’s just not my thing for some reason)

I, on numerous occasions, said I had been “too busy” to talk with certain people and even believed it myself while telling it. Later on, I realized that I had very obviously lied and lied to myself.

You see, we can tell ourselves lies in order to blind us from certain truth that we know and yet don’t want to be conscious of so that we can better go after a certain object that we really desire (and desire too much, hence the willingness for self-deception).

Don’t hide behind the ten commandments. They have nothing to do with this.

Clearly they do. Sorry for ruining the party. I’m going to cower in terror behind them until you convince me that the coast is clear.

Hopefully, the examples of my previous self-lies can be submitted into evidence.

Well, the Church “claims” many things. Claims are dime a dozen.

Right. And you don’t have to believe in them. However, if you think the claims are self-contradictory, then I challenge you to demonstrate that. However, in your response here, you did not.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m not sure this is in keeping with your atheism- I cannot help but notice how you turned this into a negative question. You are asking me for evidence that our senses are not correct.

Well, it was your positive assertion that “maybe” the senses are deficient. And I was asking for your reasons to believe that.

That would be like me asking you for evidence that God does not exist. You are making a positive claim about empiricism, so you need to provide positive evidence for that claim. Do you have any?

I already did, several times. The overwhelming evidence is our own survival. Animals do the same thing, without all that philosophical claptrap. If they correctly interpret the message of their senses, they survive, if not, they die. If you are asking for a “philosophical” justification, there is none. If you wish to say that there is a need for a philosophical justification, then I will ask you back, and ask you what is your philosophical justification for asking a philosophical justification. There are basic principles (like the relability of the senses), which need no philosophical justification. That is all.

It has everything to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition. That’s why Europe rose to dominate the world through technology.

This is a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. The Judeo-Christian tradition was vehemently against the temporal endeavors. Highly developed civilizations were created by the Aztecs and Majas, without Christian tradition. In China there was a very well developed civilization over 5 thousand years. The technological advancement we enjoy in the West, was developed despite the Christian tradition, not because of it.

Scientism is not a buzzword. It refers to the philosophy that science is the only unquestionable way to know truth.

Since no one has ever presented a different, verifyable way to arrive to truth in the physical world, this is pretty obvious. If you wish to stipulate a non-physical existence (and I am NOT talking about concepts), then you present evidence that such existence is meaningful, present an epistemological method to examine this this existence, and then we can talk.

In my original post, I clearly noted arrangements: "Nothing beyond the particles themselves and their arrangements. Particles are not good, do not have virtue, and cannot lead a “good life.”

Correct. And the reductionism is that the combination of inanimate particles is just a “lump” of inanimate particles - which is sheer nonsense.

So you still haven’t answered my question- how can anything beyond mere existence arise from particles and arrangements of particles? How can an atom be good, or a molecule be good, or a triangle be good?

The new attributes emerging from the higher levels of existence make the concepts of “good”, “useful”, “beneficial”, etc… meaningful. Nothing is good for an “atom”, or a molecule - as themselves. They simply exist, and that is all. The “special” combination of molecules, which we call “life”, has an attribute of maintaining its own homeostasis in varying circumstances. For an existing life, the maintenance of its homeostasis is “good”. That is what life is.

This ties in to the most important question on this thread:

Why is existence better than nonexistence?

The question is much too vague. Good for what? Good for whom?

Now, existence is not “good” or preferable to nonexistence - in and by itself. Inanimate objects do not “care”. Simple life forms do not care, consciously. We care. We create our own goals.

 

[R_Daneel]

So, am I to understand you actually DO believe you can volitionally believe what one knows is false … but that you don’t believe that one can volitionally change what one believes is true or false? Or do you think both of them are impossible? I’m still not quite sure what your position is on the first one.

No, this is not what I am saying. To **believe **something and to **know **something are mutually exclusive - that is obvious. The only valid question can be about the veracity of a belief without Cartesian certainty. Such a belief may or may not change, depending on the evidence presented, and on the acceptance or rejection of the evidence. Of course, one must be willing to contemplate the evidence - and that part is volitional. But the mere willingness to contemplate the evidence is not sufficient. The evidence is weighed, which is also a conscious process. At the end of this process one either accepts the evidence or rejects it. But either way, it is a lot more than just a hypothetical “Up until now I did not believe it, but from now on I will believe it”.

I would say, if you think one CAN volitionally believe something they know is false, then they can also volitionally change their beliefs.

But I don’t say that. As a matter of fact the proposition: “I beleive X is true, even though I know it is false” is a meaningless, nonsensical propostion.

Are you asking for us to change our belief regarding something we simply believe in but clearly don’t have certain knowledge of? Or are you asking us to change our belief regarding something we have some sense of certainty about?

Either one, your choice. I am trying to come up with a question, which you do not find “sinful” to demonstrate my point. What is your belief about acupuncture? Do you think it is a legitimate method, or a whole lot of nonsense? Whichever it might be, just try to change it - voluntarily.

I decided to believe that I liked country music in order to relate more to my girlfriend. It was obvious soon later on, that I simply didn’t like it, even though I had momentarily believed I did. I knew because while I was listening to it and thinking I liked it … I was in pain … pain that I only acknowledged later on. (by the way, I don’t think country music is evil … it’s just not my thing for some reason)

That is interesting, though I am not sure it is pertinent. Definitely humans are able to perform self-deception and able to rationalize it.

Right. And you don’t have to believe in them. However, if you think the claims are self-contradictory, then I challenge you to demonstrate that. However, in your response here, you did not.

True. It would derail the thread even further, and we are already miles away from the intended purpose.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, it was your positive assertion that “maybe” the senses are deficient. And I was asking for your reasons to believe that.

No, because I did not venture a position on the matter- rather, I asked you to justify your own position. I am not arguing for the illusory nature of our experiences. I am not arguing for anything, even though you keep ignoring my question and shifting it back to me. You make the positive assertion that our senses are reliable, and do you have any positive evidence for that position?

I already did, several times. The overwhelming evidence is our own survival. Animals do the same thing, without all that philosophical claptrap. If they correctly interpret the message of their senses, they survive, if not, they die. If you are asking for a “philosophical” justification, there is none. If you wish to say that there is a need for a philosophical justification, then I will ask you back, and ask you what is your philosophical justification for asking a philosophical justification. There are basic principles (like the relability of the senses), which need no philosophical justification. That is all.

Survival is just another “experience.” That’s obviously incapable of validating experiences themselves.

There is an easy philosophical justification- since philosophy occurs within our own internal intellect, rather than our outside experiences, philosophy is necessarily prior to our own experiences and our understanding of them. We are thinking creatures before we are perceiving creatures.

So, would you be comfortable saying that atheists are those who refuse to question empiricism?

This is a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. The Judeo-Christian tradition was vehemently against the temporal endeavors. Highly developed civilizations were created by the Aztecs and Majas, without Christian tradition. In China there was a very well developed civilization over 5 thousand years. The technological advancement we enjoy in the West, was developed despite the Christian tradition, not because of it.

I see no evidence for your claim that the Judeo-Christian tradition was against temporal endeavors- look at the architecture, the weaponry, the maps, the fleets, the exploration of a new world, and the scientific works of people like Albert the Great. You really think that technological Europe just suddenly sprang out of a vacuum?

Other societies did create highly developed technologies, but this does not disprove my point- my point was that certain philosophical understandings need to be in place for the development of science and technology. No one wants to devote their lives to studying some arbitrary natural thing that will change as the will of the gods changes. Positing a rational, consistent material world is a necessary precursor to science, and that’s exactly what the scholastics posited. Other societies got this right to, certainly, and they are to be commended for that- but to pretend that such philosophical underpinnings are irrelevant is patently false.

Since no one has ever presented a different, verifyable way to arrive to truth in the physical world, this is pretty obvious. If you wish to stipulate a non-physical existence (and I am NOT talking about concepts), then you present evidence that such existence is meaningful, present an epistemological method to examine this this existence, and then we can talk.

In terms of epistemology, easy- philosophy. This was the subject of our whole last debate. There is no way to conclude that science is a valid method by using science. Therefore, we must use some other method, and we should use the most fundamental method. This can only be philosophy since it occurs in our internal intellect. Could we perceive science if we did not think first? Once you accept that philosophy is necessary for and necessarily independent of science, that allows us to deduce many things we could not do so if we jumped the gun and only looked at the specific philosophy of science.

The new attributes emerging from the higher levels of existence make the concepts of “good”, “useful”, “beneficial”, etc… meaningful. Nothing is good for an “atom”, or a molecule - as themselves. They simply exist, and that is all. The “special” combination of molecules, which we call “life”, has an attribute of maintaining its own homeostasis in varying circumstances. For an existing life, the maintenance of its homeostasis is “good”. That is what life is.

Unless you can show that existence is better than nonexistence, this is moot- just because certain chemicals promote certain processes does not allow us to rise above the level of those processes. Under your system, human “good” is just obeying chemically induced processes- and that’s a far cry from anything we normally call “good.”

Now, existence is not “good” or preferable to nonexistence - in and by itself. Inanimate objects do not “care”. Simple life forms do not care, consciously. We care. We create our own goals.

Exactly- “good” in atheism is a made up idea, which is wholly subject to our own personal desires. That’s what I said initially. Under atheism, “good” is what we want it to be. This in turn makes virtue irrelevant- it is not hard to live a virtuous life if you write all the rules.

 

[R_Daneel]

There is an easy philosophical justification- since philosophy occurs within our own internal intellect, rather than our outside experiences, philosophy is necessarily prior to our own experiences and our understanding of them. We are thinking creatures before we are perceiving creatures.

Philosophy does not justify anything. It is a self-contained endeavor. Metaphysics is merely speculation. Epistemology is pondering about acquiring knowledge - and this is where empiricism comes into the picture. Ethics deals with about “what should be done, if…”, not what is. Etc.

And I definitely disagree that “first” we are thinking creatures, and “then” we are perceiving ones. Perception came first, way back, when we were “only” animals. Much later did we become thinking ones.

So, would you be comfortable saying that atheists are those who refuse to question empiricism?

The word “refuse” is much too strong. I don’t “refuse” to ponder anything if a rational argument is presented for it. It would be much better to say that atheists see no need of looking beyond empiricism, when the physical reality is considered. Of course, when the abstract science (mathematics) comes into the picture, empiricism is out, and pure logic is in. And since no one has ever presented a non-physical and not-abstract reality, atheists see no need to ponder that. But if you can present a good, logical and rational argument for it, I am all ears, and ready yo study it. Especially, if you can tell me how. But intuition (for example) just does not cut it.

I see no evidence for your claim that the Judeo-Christian tradition was against temporal endeavors- look at the architecture, the weaponry, the maps, the fleets, the exploration of a new world, and the scientific works of people like Albert the Great. You really think that technological Europe just suddenly sprang out of a vacuum?

How about the Biblical quotation: “the wisdom of the world is folly with God”? Just to name one.

In terms of epistemology, easy- philosophy. This was the subject of our whole last debate. There is no way to conclude that science is a valid method by using science. Therefore, we must use some other method, and we should use the most fundamental method.

And that most fundamental method is observation. There is a saying that genius is 10% insight and 90% preseverence. Down to Earth, dirty trial-and-error, testing, discarding and starting all over. Do you know how many usless chemical compounds are tried and discarded before a new drug is developed?

Unless you can show that existence is better than nonexistence, this is moot- just because certain chemicals promote certain processes does not allow us to rise above the level of those processes. Under your system, human “good” is just obeying chemically induced processes- and that’s a far cry from anything we normally call “good.”

In this case I have no idea what you call “good”. I really don’t.

Exactly- “good” in atheism is a made up idea, which is wholly subject to our own personal desires. That’s what I said initially. Under atheism, “good” is what we want it to be.

Not true at all. No matter how hard you “want” that pebbles would be nutritious, they will not be. What is “good” for us, is objectively good, despite what we think about it. What is “good” for us is determined by the objectively existing laws of nature, and we discover those “goods” using physics, chemistry, biology, sociology. economics, etc… There is nothing subjective or arbitrary about it. No atheist is as stupid to deny that fire burns his skin if he keeps exposing himself to it. If he is, he will die (part of reality) and removes himself from the gene-pool - to the greater glory of human stupidity. Just look at the web-site of darwinawards.com/

 

[Areopagite]

I thought I was understanding your arguments in your last post, until I came across this:

That is interesting, though I am not sure it is pertinent. Definitely humans are able to perform self-deception and able to rationalize it.

So … if we are able to deceive ourselves … then … what does that mean? I believe self-deception is believing something you know is false. So … what do you think it is?

My apologies, I feel like I might be missing something obvious, so it might not be your fault.

 

[R_Daneel]

So … if we are able to deceive ourselves … then … what does that mean? I believe self-deception is believing something you know is false. So … what do you think it is?

My apologies, I feel like I might be missing something obvious, so it might not be your fault.

I think that self-deception is to believe something that is contradicted by evidence. The person performing the self-deception is aware of the evidence, but - for whatever reason - does not accept it as evidence.

An example would be to believe that God is “good”. When we speak of a good person, we set up certain criteria which must be met. The ones which must be there are helpfulness in the time of need, to feed the hungry, to heal the sick, to prevent a disaster, if one is able to do so, etc. If a person does not do that, he cannot be called “good”. Manifestly, God does not do any of these, and yet, Christians are unwilling to look at this evidence. That is self-deception. It is not lying to oneself, of couse. The person performing the self-deception is totally convinced of his reasoning - except it is not accepted by anyone coming from a different background.

The evidence is rationalized out of existence, by bringing up bogus arguments, for example: “if God would do all that, we would be ‘robbed’ of our freedom to believe in God, we would be ‘forced’ to know him”. Or, if God would do that, we would be “pampered” and would have no need to grow. Or, the criteria to make a value-judgment about God is different from making a value-judgment about humans - we are not qualified to make such judgments. Or many others… the list is almost endless. That is self-deception.

 

[elts1956]

But maybe some do. It would be a sensible idea.

What about the RU486, or “morning after” pill?

The Church has made no statement regarding the fate of the souls of unborn, aborted, miscarried children. With compassion we pray they enter heaven.

Your theology is rubbish.

 

[John_Janning]

It is very simple and straightforward.

Take a zygote, freshly impregnated, before it even leaves for the trip to the uterus. According to the theists, it (definitely not a “he” or a “she”) is already a “human being”. It never gets implanted into the uterus wall, just gets flushed out from the woman’s system. What will be its fate? Will it get into heaven, or will be sent to hell? The limbo is no longer an offical doctrine - so we can leave that out from consideration. Surely it will not get to hell, not even the most conservative Catholic would assert that. So it will go into heaven, in some capacity. There are some people who say that it will not get to the beatific vision (whatever that means). But even a “low-level” heaven is pretty good.

Now, the second possibility is that the zygote gets implanted into the uterus wall, but for some reason or another, it gets spontaneously aborted. The result is the same, it will get into heaven. Good outcome.

Suppose that the abortion is not spontaneous, it is volitional. For the fetus the outcome is not diifferent, still a nice, cozy, warm place in heaven. Good outcome again. So, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, abortion is good. No risk of hell, only an assured place on God’s bosom.

But, what about the woman who makes this decision? Well, it depends on her intent. Catholics, (unlike some Protestants) take the intent into consideration, and not just the act itself. If her intent is to assure a place in heaven, she acts out of love, performing an act in the fetus’s best interest. Furthermore, she sacrifices herself, her future place in heaven, which is the highest form of love. So, she is not a criminal, she does not sin, she puts the well-being of the fetus in front of her own. Thus she is to be praised and a self-sacrificing person, who risks everything just to assure the fetus’s place.

Moreover, she prevents the possible “slip” of her child, who might commot some mortal sin and consequently would be confined to eternal damnation. From a simple risk-benefit analysis, it is her optimal solution. The fetus will get an assured place in heaven. Her fate is also assured, as a self-sacrificing person, who exhibits the highest form of love. Surely God will take her intent into consideration.

So, go and abort all your children. It is in the best interest of the child, and in the best interest of the mother. Be careful, however, not to be selfish, and do not perform the abortion for some temporal gain. Always cast your eyes on the heaven. God will understand your motive, and will reward for it.

Besides the ridiculousness of the thinking; the mother will not be in heaven based on what this perverted idea suggests, which is that salvation is based on “good works” or “good intentions”; that is another gospel. If it were to depend on “good works”, then the whole of humanity would be forever in hell…ask Noah and he will testify to this.

Hope some of you figure out what the true Gospel of God is before time turns into eternity.

 

[John_Janning]

The Church has made no statement regarding the fate of the souls of unborn, aborted, miscarried children. With compassion we pray they enter heaven.

Your theology is rubbish.

The Catholic Church may not have made a statement, which is actually not true, but God has and all children who have not reached the age of accountability will be in heaven. Ask King David; he stated it in no uncertain terms.

 

[CWBetts]

The Catholic Church may not have made a statement, which is actually not true, but God has and all children who have not reached the age of accountability will be in heaven. Ask King David; he stated it in no uncertain terms.

As Catholics, we trust in the mercy of God with regard to unbaptized children. AAs for this “age of accountability,” when is that, exactly?

 

[Lypher]

Yes, indeed it is… but it is a Catholic “rubbish”. Everything stated in it is based on Catholic belief. From the fate of the unborn all the way to the good intent of the woman, to the highest form of love as the ultimate sacrifice… I did not invent it, I learned it from you guys. Don’t blame the mirror for the reflection.

You have discovered Gnosticism…goood for you…go forth and flounder…or come back to the Church and do some more reading.

 

[joandarc2008]

I just came into this really really late - I am in agreement with Lypher which is really no suprise. But I will go a bit deeper as I have headache just following - so here it is - you take an abortion takes away each individual zygote’s ability to freely choose to Love the Lord in life and thus freely choose real love and thus choose to be in true communion with Christ and the Saints. That is assuming that all of your original premises were true. God bless you and keep you and may the Holy Spirit fill your own heart with love someday.

 

[John_Janning]

As Catholics, we trust in the mercy of God with regard to unbaptized children. AAs for this “age of accountability,” when is that, exactly?

The age of accountability is the age at which a person has the mental capacity to understand the Gospel well enough to either accept it or to reject it. It will and does very from person to person, which is why the Bible does not give and exact age. The Bible does clearly state the reason for people going to hell is for rejecting the Gospel or rejecting Jesus, which is the good news; a child or anyone that is mentally challenged does not have that capacity and therefore cannot be in hell.

 

[Lypher]

The age of accountability is the age at which a person has the mental capacity to understand the Gospel well enough to either accept it or to reject it. It will and does very from person to person, which is why the Bible does not give and exact age. The Bible does clearly state the reason for people going to hell is for rejecting the Gospel or rejecting Jesus, which is the good news; a child or anyone that is mentally challenged does not have that capacity and therefore cannot be in hell.

John,
I can find this thought in the CCC, but it would be nice if you could point our exactly where in the Bible the reasons is stating that someone is going to hell… Hopefully it is NT?

Thanks…

 

[CWBetts]

The age of accountability is the age at which a person has the mental capacity to understand the Gospel well enough to either accept it or to reject it. It will and does very from person to person, which is why the Bible does not give and exact age. The Bible does clearly state the reason for people going to hell is for rejecting the Gospel or rejecting Jesus, which is the good news; a child or anyone that is mentally challenged does not have that capacity and therefore cannot be in hell.

Sounds pretty nebulous to me. Where is this idea supported in the Scriptures or Tradition?

 

[John_Janning]

John,
I can find this thought in the CCC, but it would be nice if you could point our exactly where in the Bible the reasons is stating that someone is going to hell… Hopefully it is NT?

Thanks…

Funny thing that you being a Catholic would ask such question since the idea of loosing and binding comes from the idea of accepting or rejecting the ““Gospel” Of Jesus Christ”. If you expect to see “only those reject the Gospel or My beloved Son will be in hell” in those exact words, then you will have a hard time finding that.

If you look at David’s son who died as an infant; David quit mourning after the baby died and said you cannot come to me, but I will come to you. David knew that the child was with God. He also knew the child was not capable of making any decisions or knew what sin was.

 

[John_Janning]

Sounds pretty nebulous to me. Where is this idea supported in the Scriptures or Tradition?

Do you read the Bible? Read the story of David and his infant son that dies and you will have your answer.

 

[CWBetts]

Do you read the Bible? Read the story of David and his infant son that dies and you will have your answer.

Let me tell you something. Just because I am Catholic does not mean I don’t read the Bible. Before I was led to the Catholic Church I was a “Bible-believing Protestant” just as you fancy yourself to be. I spent a year in a Baptist “Bible college” fill of teachings that went against the Scriptures. I am now a student of Theology at a Catholic university. I started coursework there in the fall. Since Last august, just as part of coursework alone, I have read: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Luke, John, Romans, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Galatians, Hebrews, James, and Revelation. This is in addition to the readings at Mass (which are most assuredly more substantial than at any Protestant service), and my personal devotional reading. THink aout this the next time you feel the urge to talk down to someone about Scripture because the person you are addressing is Catholic. (I might add that the books I mentioned are only in my two Scripture classes. They do not include the various times I had referred to the Scriptures when reading an Encyclical, Apostolic Letter, Conciliar Document, or passages from the Catechism). I fully believe that at no place does the Bible teach that the salvation of all under the “age of accountability” has their salvation assured. The normative way one is saved requires Baptism, but this does not mean that the unbaptized have salvation absolutely denied.