The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Teege
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

the catholic church officially teaches nonbaptized infants go to hell

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 77210
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the only teachings that might say otherwise, are fallible, nonauthoritative statements. the church might currently unoffically teach the issue is open to speculation, but officially they have already made a decision. remember to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, theological commissions, do not count.

just some examples:

Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..."

Council of Florence Session 6 "..the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."
Teege

Con

I would like to thank DairyGirl4u2c for allowing me the opportunity to debate this topic, as I originally didn"t fit her qualifications for the debate.
I will refute both of Pro"s arguments, and show that it is possible for infants to go to Heaven, without being baptized. By doing so, my evidence will contradict and invalidate her overall declaration that unbaptized infants are going to hell.
Session 11"4 February 1442 Pro asserts that the text from Council of Florence Session 11, (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..." means that children that haven"t been baptized are going to hell. However, her assertion is not true, and taken out of context, when looking at the entire paragraph, and prior paragraph. The prior paragraph begins teaching that one view being practiced in the Church, was to include the Old Testament sacrifices and Mosaic Law (the Law of Moses) [1]. People were still holding onto the beliefs that you had to adhere to the Jewish dietary laws, laws of circumcision, and many other rituals [1]. The Pope was addressing the Church"s, that did not have a "Jewish" Christian, and showed that under the new dispensation of Grace that the Mosaic practices had become empty rituals, which would not get anyone into heaven [1]. The Jewish Christians, the first Christians, would mix their Judaic traditions with the Catholic Sacraments in vein. Some examples of Jewish dates, which were applied to Catholic practices, are: male children were to be circumcised on the 8th day; a woman wasn"t clean until 33 days after childbirth, and couldn"t enter into the temple. By the 40th day the child was to be redeemed at the temple. This was also the time that that the child was presented to the public [2]. Notice how the Pope in his teachings specifically mentions 40 days? That was done specifically to teach the gentile Christians to refrain from keeping the Jewish traditions, which they were not bound to in the first place. By reading Pro"s argument, in its entirety and context, shows that her argument is false, when compared to the following statement from the Session 11, which occurs 2 paragraphs before Pro"s content [1]. "It (the Church) firmly believes, professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil's dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ." This simply states that there has NEVER been a child conceived, that was saved from Hell, except by FAITH. That means NOT even by baptism, but by FAITH. This proves that it is possible for an infant not to go to hell. [1]
[1] https://www.ewtn.com... [2] http://www.jewfaq.org...
Session 6"6 July 1439 "Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances." [1] "Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another." [1]
These two small paragraphs come back to back. This makes it easy to see that the second paragraph is referring to the prior paragraph, when it states, "as was stated above,"". If you put the two paragraphs into one it states, "the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, {(content from above), their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances.}, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another." This is one of the many reasons Catholics prayers such as, the prayers for the dead [3] and St Gertrude"s Prayer [2], when they pass by a cemetery.
DairyGirl"s claim bears the burden of proof. She has failed to do so, while I proved that it is possible that infants go to heaven.
[1] https://www.ewtn.com... [2] http://www.catholic.org... [3] http://www.catholic.org...
Session 8"22 November 143 [Bull of union with the Armenians] This is the point where I present an extra argument from Eighth Session of the Council of Florence, which shows that it is possible for an infant to escape hell, WITHOUT being baptized. "The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God." [1] The key word in this text is "incur". The following is tthe etymology of the word "incur": Word Origin and History for incur v. early 15c., from Anglo-French encurir, Middle French encourir, from Latin incurrere "run into or against, rush at, make an attack;" figuratively, "to befall, happen, occur to," [2] It is impossible for an infant to have the knowledge, understanding, thought process to decide to commit sin. Since the infant lacks the ability to conscientiously move towards sinning fall into the category of those who "go straight to the kingdom of heaven and vision of God." [1] If they, the unbaptized infant, are able to go straight to Heaven, then it is 100% possible for them to escape Hell.
[1] https://www.ewtn.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Session 11"4 February 1442 [Bull of union with the Copts] The following statement shows that Canonical teachings may supersede papal teachings, and may be used in future arguments and rebuttals, ""a wife on her husband's death is free from his law and free in the Lord to marry whom she wishes, and since no distinction is made between the deaths of the first, second and third husbands, we declare that not only second and third marriages but also fourth and further ones may lawfully be contracted, provided there is no canonical impediment. [1]
[1] https://www.ewtn.com...
I would also like to assert that Pro"s argument from Session 6 does NOT prove that unbaptized infants go to hell. The idea of Limbo, is not, and has never been, an official teaching of the Catholic Church. At that time, the unofficial Church teaching was that Limbo was where unborn and unbaptized infants went, because they had not been cleansed of original sin they could not be damned to Hell nor admitted to Heaven. The Church has no official position on infant death. There is no support they would be damned to hell. Pro still needs to prove damnation to hell.
I would like to thank DairyGirl, for opening up the debate for me. I look forward to round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i think con is confusing the actual and intended purposes of the texts. it'd probably be helpful to paraphrase the key ideas he quoted.

""It (the Church) firmly believes, professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil's dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ." This simply states that there has NEVER been a child conceived, that was saved from Hell, except by FAITH. That means NOT even by baptism, but by FAITH. This proves that it is possible for an infant not to go to hell. [1]"

all that that quote is saying is that faith is the prerequisite. it doesn't say baptism isn't necessary.

"Session 6"6 July 1439 "Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances." [1] "Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another." [1]
These two small paragraphs come back to back. This makes it easy to see that the second paragraph is referring to the prior paragraph, when it states, "as was stated above,"". If you put the two paragraphs into one it states, "the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, {(content from above), their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances.}, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another." This is one of the many reasons Catholics prayers such as, the prayers for the dead [3] and St Gertrude"s Prayer [2], when they pass by a cemetery."

the text was referring to 'penitent' people. that means you have to be able to be penitent. babies cant be. and, this text is not saying baptism isn't necessary. it is talking about satisfaction after baptism. all those prayers for the dead and such extend to them, not to the unbaptized.

""The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God." [1]"

this isnt refering to incurring guilty before baptism. it's talking about incurring guilt after baptism. those who incur no guilt after baptism go to heaven... that's why they were talking about the situation of satisfaction after being baptized. you have to look at the context of the sentence.
noteably, if what con said was true, the unofficial teaching would be that infants go to heaven, not what is currently unofficially taught that it is open to speculation.

the original quotes i cited in the original post say it- those with original sin go to hell. babies have original sin. the other quote even says that without baptism, they are in the dominon of the devil. that is enough of a statement to mean hell.

con says that limbo was taught ot be a neutral area. this isnt true. it was taught to be an upper level of hell. my original sin and dominon of hte devil quotes illustrate as much.. even if con was rght about this, the church would be officialy teaching a neutral place, but unoffically teaching it's open to speculation-- a contradiction at least unofficially. and it isn't far removed to say they aren't going to heaven as it is to say they are going to hell- though if con was correct it is still noteworthy per the technical resolution of the debate says they are going to hell.

as to what's true about limbo, just read wikipedia. the latin fathers said it was hell. and the medieval fathers said "If heaven is a state of supernatural happiness and union with God, and hell is understood as a state of torture and separation from God then, in this view, the Limbo of Infants, although technically part of hell (the outermost part, "limbo" meaning "outer edge" or "hem") is seen as a sort of intermediate state."
the wiki article tries to act as if it hasn't been defined, because of catholics who edit the page, but if you look at where it talks about florence, you see it is said to be necessary, and doesnt' even mention anyone who'd say otherwise till three hundred years later. it's also noteworth that the old catechism talked about limbo of the infants, despite current teaching that it's open to speculation (catechism isn't considered infallible)
Teege

Con

Remember that this is your topic; the Burden of Proof, that infants go to hell, is yours to bear. You have said many things, which are either true or false, however you have not provided any references to check the validity of your claims.
Argument #1- Vatican II [1], as part of the Roman Curia[2], established the belief of Paschal Ministry. The Paschal Mystery is the official, and current, teaching, and doctrine, stating that the Passion(the cross)of Christ and the Ascension is all that is needed to be in Heaven; baptism is not necessary, because it then bases salvation on a believer's action, totally negating God's eternal love, grace, and mercy shown in Christ's Passion and ascension [1]. Some, who cling to the post-conciliar (the traditionalist disliked what the Vatican II had to say) era teachings of 1965-71, say that the Vatican II is only a political statement from the Roman Curia. This simply is not true. We have already established, in the previous round, that Canon Law is official, and part of the taught doctrine. What does the the Code of Canon Law say about the Roman Curia? Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and with his authority for the good and service of the churches. [2] This clearly states that the Roman Curia actions has the authority to set forth, and establish, the official teachings and doctrines for the Church, i.e. ex cathedra, Infallible on matters of faith and morals. Pope John Paul the II believed and officially taught the principle of the Paschal Mystery, in the Evangelium Vitae on pages 56-61 and 104 [3]. On page 104, the Pope states that mothers, who have obtained eternal salvation, will be able to ask their aborted baby for forgiveness, in the presence of the Lord [3]. What did Pope Benedict XVI think about the teachings of the Paschal Mystery? In our century, this has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament." [4] What does current Pope Francis say about Vatican II? One thing is clear about the Vatican II, actualizing the message for today, IS IRREVERSIBLE [5]. It is clear to see that the mystery of God's eternal love and mercy, The Paschal Mystery, is the official, authoritative teaching and doctrine of today. The Paschal Mystery states that God's eternal mercy is the sole necessity to being in Heaven. John Paul II stated that infants, who were not baptized go to Heaven. This plainly illustrates how infants who are unbaptized. go to heaven.
[1]http://stjosef.at... [2]http://www.vatican.va... [3] http://www.catholic-pages.com... [4] http://www.resurrection-catholic.org... [5] www.americamagazine.org/pope
Argument #2- I asked, last round, about the prayers for the dead, and what was the purpose of doing so. You explicitly stated in this round that, "it is talking about satisfaction after baptism. all those prayers for the dead and such extend to them, not to the unbaptized.". You have not provided enough evidence, other than YOUR OWN word, that invalidate my claim, "that prayers for the dead, can open the gates to heaven". Your own word does not meet your terms of this debate, of being "to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, theological commissions, do not count.". I ask you to show me one piece of evidence, that any Pope suggests that there is no reason to pray for the sinner; I do not mind where it comes from as long as it is on an authentic Catholic website.
--August 7, 2014, Pope Francis, while in South Korea tells them to pray for the aborted babies. [1]https://ronconte.wordpress.com...
--August 4, 1999, Pope John Paul II, Jesus enters the heavenly shrine once and for all eternity, to intercede with God on our behalf (cf. Heb 9: 23-26, especially, v. 24). He is both priest and "victim of expiation" for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Jn 2: 2) [2]. JESUS ENTERS TO HEAVEN TO INTERCEDE FOR SINNERS, FOR ALL ETERNITY. This means that Jesus eternally intercedes on our behalf. To doubt God's powers, to extend his mercy to sinners after death, undermines the true nature, and mystery, of the eternal mercy and forgiveness.
[2]https://www.ewtn.com...
--I can list plenty more occasions if you would like.
Argument #3- Pro falsely claims what I said, when she wrote, "con says that limbo was taught ot be a neutral area. this isnt true. it was taught to be an upper level of hell." I never said that they went to Limbo. I said Limbo doesn't exist. It is not an official doctrine, and you have not shown proof that it does exist. You have to prove (meaning post legitimate sources with your argument that Limbo exists, if you are going to use your devil's dominion argument. The whole sentence says,"
--Pro is paraphrasing (see Rebuttal #1 about Pro's arguments) what I said, to the point she changed the meaning of what I clearly stated, "the unofficial Church teaching was that Limbo was where unborn and unbaptized infants went, because they had not been cleansed of original sin they could not be damned to Hell nor admitted to Heaven. The Church has no official position on infant death. There is no support they would be damned to hell."
*"the unofficial Catholic teaching of Limbo" means that there is no, none, not a single one official teaching of Limbo.
*"The Church has no official position on infant death.", means the church does not have a definitive teaching on whether or not and infant goes to Heaven or Hell.
Rebuttal #1- Pro opens this round by assuming that I have confused the actual and intended meaning, and believes that it would be better off paraphrasing what I what I posted about the Florence Council Sessions 6, 8, and 11. The assumption is just her opinion, and nothing more. She has can not prove it; just as she has not proved her initial arguments with a legitimate source, needed to support her pro side and initiated topic.
--DairyGirl clearly stated the terms of evidence, when she said, "to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, theological commissions, do not count." If Pro argues that we should start paraphrasing, what the Bishop of Rome teaches, then she is in violation of her own terms. Unless it is supported by another Papal teaching, Pro can only argue that she can paraphrase the Pope, if she believes that she has the power and authority to establish what the Pope did, or did not, mean to say.
--Pro has not shown that the initial argument is supported by another teaching. If fact, we don't even know where she found her Round 1 quotes from. I have given her the opportunity to read my sources on Papal Teachings, which are authorized by the Vatican. I request that Pro share the link to the page showing where she got her evidence/argument from. Her source can not be from wikipedia.com; it is not a reliable for this debate. Pro shares the belief that Wiki is not a reliable source when she states, "the wiki article tries to act as if it (LIMBO) hasn't been defined, because of catholics who edit the page," The writers/editors each hold their own opinions, of Papal teaching, which they shade subjects topics to resemble their belief.
~Please add your references
I'm out of room now
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con says i have the burden of proof and need to provide referenences. in my opening post, i quoted the council, and the session, and the text, that says infants go to hell. they go because of original sin quote, and the 'dominion of the devil' quote.

con says the pascal mystery teachings indicate salvation for infants is possible without baptism.

thing is, they never mention the pascal mystery specifically including infants. con just assumes it. it is better to read quotesas if they are not contradictory, and ive shown quotes that say infants go to hell. generic langauge is not a good arguemnt to make universal claims.

"John Paul II stated that infants, who were not baptized go to Heaven."

con did not provide a quote for this. even if it was an encyclical, those are not necessarily considered infallible. they have to meet the defition i provide, that sys it's the pope, intentionoallly, teaching..... etc etc.

"I asked, last round, about the prayers for the dead, and what was the purpose of doing so." "You have not provided enough evidence, other than YOUR OWN word, that invalidate my claim"

"--August 7, 2014, Pope Francis, while in South Korea tells them to pray for the aborted babies. "
"JESUS ENTERS TO HEAVEN TO INTERCEDE FOR SINNERS, FOR ALL ETERNITY."

these are not authoritative official teachings. the second one doesn't even necessarily mean Jesus intercededs for infants, con is just assuming by extension that he does.

"Pro opens this round by assuming that I have confused the actual and intended meaning,"

i provided contextual evidence in some instances that you were not correct in the meaning. i also provided my interpretation, which is just as good as yours. i also provided direct quotes that indicate infants go to hell. if there's any question about what a quote means, it's best to interpret the quotes as if they are not contradictory

im not sure why con is asking for a direct link to teh florence quotes, given con just cited his own quotes without links. but here is a link where you can find the quotes in their context.
https://www.ewtn.com...
Teege

Con

Pro's only 2 references are over 550 years old. She refuses to accept any new changes the church has made., e.g., The Vatican II Councils, Evangelium Vitae, etc, which are authoritative and fall under the terms of the debate. Early authoritative teachings said that the Earth was flat with 4 corners, and that all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. Are we to assume that the church still believes this doctrine, since it has never officially changed that doctrine? The argument that something has been that way, so we should keep it that way fall under the category of debate fallacies known as the Appeal to History, and renders the argument invalid [1]. Since its inception the Catholic Church has always seen the need to review current teachings, to ensure that they are relevant to the modern era, and make changes if necessary. In the nearly 2,000 years the Pope has called the Ecumenical Councils together 28 times [5]. They currently have a council scheduled to meet next year[6] and another set for the late 2020s with a specific time and date to be named later.

The following was published April 27, 2007 in, and with, the authority of the Pope. The following is from the Introduction section[4].
5. Second, taking account of the principle lex orandi, lex credendi, the Christian community notes that there is no mention of limbo in the liturgy. In fact, the liturgy contains a feast of the Holy Innocents, who are venerated as martyrs even though they were not baptized, because they were killed "on account of Christ." There has even been an important liturgical development through the introduction of funerals for infants who died without baptism. We do not pray for those who are damned. The Roman Missal of 1970 introduced a funeral Mass for unbaptized infants whose parents intended to present them for baptism. The church entrusts to God's mercy those infants who die unbaptized.
6. Third, the church cannot fail to encourage the hope of salvation for infants who die without baptism by the very fact that she "prays that no one should be lost"6 and prays in hope for "all to be saved." On the basis of an anthropology of solidarity, strengthened by an ecclesial understanding of corporate personality, the church knows the help that can be given by the faith of believers. The Gospel of Mark actually describes an occasion when the faith of some was effective for the salvation of another (cf. Mk 2:5). So, while knowing that the normal way to achieve salvation in Christ is by baptism in re, the church hopes that there may be other ways to achieve the same end. Because by his incarnation the Son of God "in a certain way united himself" with every human being and because Christ died for all and all are in fact "called to one and the same destiny, which is divine," the church believes that "the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery".
Section 45 [4], states, "This preferential and universal love of God is intertwined and realized in a unique and exemplary fashion in Jesus Christ, who is the unique savior of all (cf. Acts 4:12), but particularly of whoever becomes low or humble, like the "little ones." Indeed, as one who is gentle or humble in heart (cf. Mt 11:29), Jesus maintains a mysterious affinity and solidarity with them (cf. Mt 18:3-5; 10:40-42; 25:40, 45). Jesus asserts that the care of these little ones is entrusted to the angels of God (cf. Mt 18:3-5). "So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish" (Mt 18:14). This mystery of his will, according to the good pleasure of the Father, is revealed through the Son and dispensed by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know of any text that is more authoritative than that of the Bible. (All scripture references are from the KJV Bible.)
---It states that God's mercy is eternal 41 times. [2] This means that nothing can stop or outlast God's Mercy, which is what the Vatican II stated, through it's teaching of the Paschal Mystery. (see reference #1 of Argument #1 in previous round.)
---Matthew 12: 31 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." ALL MANNER OF SIN!! I believe that all manner of sin includes original sin, which means that even the sins of children who are not baptized.
---Romans 8:37-39 - "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." NOTHING THAT GOD HAS CREATED WILL BE ABLE TO SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD, that includes sin and is why the Vatican II states that God's mercy is extended to ALL. (See Con's Round 2, Argument #1, Reference #1.) This is what Pope Benedict XVI taught, in his apostolic letter (which follows Pro's debate guidelines), If this absolute love exists, with its absolute certainty, then"only then"is man "redeemed", whatever should happen to him in his particular circumstances. This is what it means to say: Jesus Christ has "redeemed" us [3].

The main reason I kept asking for references is because what you originally quoted in Round 1 has Wikipedia's commentary on that line from Session 11. I find it difficult to believe that the original document had Wiki's commentary when first written. The references that I provided in Round 1 and 2 doesn't have the Wiki commentary. The second reason I kept asking for a reference is because throughout round 2 you consistently left off the "with unequal pains" phrase from Session 6 quote. The phrase "with unequal pains" refers to LIMBO. Something that you and I agreed was not an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Also, you regularly repeated that unbaptized babies go to hell, is unofficially taught, with speculation. That means that they don't know for sure.

Pro stated in this round, " i also provided my interpretation, which is just as good as yours.". She has also mad use of that argument in the previous round. Just because you assume something is true, because it is opposition to the other side, does not make your argument valid; that is called the "Appeal to Closure" [1].

Pro, throughout this debate, has consistently paraphrased the meaning of what I have said and claimed.
A.) I have clearly stated my argument, to the point that no interpretation is needed.
B.) Pro does not have the right to say what she "thinks" I really meant to say.
C.) By doing so, she has changed the meaning of what I said, resulting in her arguing with what she has misquoted me on.
D.) Not only has Pro changed what I have said, but also insists that we paraphrase what the authoritative documents have said, by picking and choosing what part of the document she uses as her argument.
E.) This is a common practice used by Pro, in all of her debates. She has started this debate, or similar debates, on 6 previous occasions[7], each time using the strategy of twisting her opponent's words around.

[1] http://utminers.utep.edu... [2] http://www.answers.com... [3] http://w2.vatican.va... [4] https://www.ewtn.com... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://www.catholicherald.co.uk... [7] www.debate.org/debates/?keywords=infants+go+to+hell&fields=0&category=&challenge=true&debating=true&voting=true&post=true&member=dairygirl4u2c&order=1&sort=1&submit=Search
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Teege 1 year ago
Teege
I would like to debate you, but since I'm new I can't except your challenge. If you change the settings for the debate I will accept. I'm not Catholic, but my girlfriend, who did in September was. Her mother and I talk about the Catholic faith because I'm curious, and this topic is one that we've discussed.
Posted by Geogeer 1 year ago
Geogeer
Glad to see you're still on here dairygirl!
No votes have been placed for this debate.