Is "Common Sense" a Valid Source for Atheist Moral Norms?

[o_mlly]

A historical worldwide flood seems highly implausible. …

Since the bible’s authors did not have the benefit of satellite imagery, the flood would relate to only “everyone I know (or knew) of.”

 

[Bradski]

It appears you have not studied the culture of the Amalekites.

“…in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12.31)

In Leviticus 18, God gives a list of the things that had “defiled the land,” and for which He specifically was judging the inhabitants. There were only two categories: rampant sexual immortally (including beastiality and incest) and child sacrifice, both of which seem to be associated with temple prostitution and the worship rituals offered to their particular gods.tcapologetics.org/god-of-war-playing-the-amalekite-card/

The proponents of Euthanasia were rebuked in other threads on two counts: the euthanizer did not know the future and was not God, These limits, of course, do not apply to God, Himself. An argument to justify the ban placed on the Amalekites would be that God acted to mitigate the evil done by the Amalekites and to preserve Israel from syncretism by their pagan practices.

B: God hates the Amelikites.
O: Yeah. They practice child sacrifice.
B: Holy Toledo! We should stop that.
O: Yeah. God has told us to kill them all.
B: Hang on…ALL of them?
O: Yep.
B: Including the children?
O: Yep.
B: ???

 

[inocente]

How do I confirm the truth of “common sense” in a way that is more independently and materially reproducible than the way I confirm religious truth that atheists eschew?

But it’s “common sense” that I can pick out a passage from a text written in a different time, culture and language and provide a correct, definitive interpretation!

end sarcasm

I suggest Vonsalza II asks Vonsalza I how he confirms this definitive interpretation of religious truth, and then lets us know.

 

[Vonsalza]

I suggest Vonsalza II asks Vonsalza I how he confirms this definitive interpretation of religious truth, and then lets us know.

And there’s the beauty of living within the Catholic Church - away from the constant, chaotic din of protestant heretics trying to out-shout each other.

I don’t have to confirm it. I trust in Christ and the Church He established. It/They do the rest.

And it is so liberating. Seriously. I’m no longer tasked with explaining how my previous 16th century (but really 19th century) Baptist faith somehow represented a 1st century religion.

 

[inocente]

And there’s the beauty of living within the Catholic Church - away from the constant, chaotic din of protestant heretics trying to out-shout each other.

I don’t have to confirm it. I trust in Christ and the Church He established. It/They do the rest.

And it is so liberating. Seriously. I’m no longer tasked with explaining how my previous 16th century (but really 19th century) Baptist faith somehow represented a 1st century religion.

Yikes.

“Pope Francis on Monday begged forgiveness for the “sins and failings of the Church and its members” during Rwanda’s 1994 genocide …] During the 100-day genocide, more than 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu extremists. Many of the victims died at the hands of priests, clergymen and nuns, according to some accounts by survivors, and the Rwandan government says many died in the churches where they had sought refuge.” - catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/pope-francis-begs-forgiveness-for-sins-and-failings-of-church-during-rwanda-genocide/

No doubt some of them had also given up being moral agents and just did as they were told.

You may find that nowhere does the Church give you any such Nuremberg defense, and you cannot use your religion to avoid personal moral responsibility.

 

[inocente]

Since the bible’s authors did not have the benefit of satellite imagery, the flood would relate to only “everyone I know (or knew) of.”

But. Suppose you’re correct and it was the story of a historic local flood which the writers misinterpreted as global. Therefore humans and animals in the rest of the world would have been unaffected. Therefore the subtext that God had sent the flood to wipe out everyone except Noah & co was also wrong. In which case the text was not inspired.

(And scholars say, I think, the flood story was an age old myth inherited by the writers’ culture, which the writers massaged to fit their purpose.)

 

[Vonsalza]

Yikes.

“Pope Francis on Monday begged forgiveness for the “sins and failings of the Church and its members” during Rwanda’s 1994 genocide …] During the 100-day genocide, more than 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu extremists. Many of the victims died at the hands of priests, clergymen and nuns, according to some accounts by survivors, and the Rwandan government says many died in the churches where they had sought refuge.” - catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/pope-francis-begs-forgiveness-for-sins-and-failings-of-church-during-rwanda-genocide/

No doubt some of them had also given up being moral agents and just did as they were told.

You may find that nowhere does the Church give you any such Nuremberg defense, and you cannot use your religion to avoid personal moral responsibility.

If you can’t distinguish between the doctrines of a perfect Church and the behaviors of its imperfect membership, you have zero business commenting on an apologetics forum. Catholic or otherwise.

“A priest can be wrong” is something every Catholic here knows is true. Equating “the belief in a perfect Church” to “following whatever the local leadership tells you” is a logical fallacy so obvious and weak that it’s a little hard to even consider.

I agree that the behavior of many Catholics in Rwanda was horrendous. I also think one of the greatest mistakes in all Christendom was the Catholic Venetian sack of Orthodox Constantinople.

---

Let me be abundantly clear:

**Catholics believe that the Church is flawless. However, the men and women that comprise it are not. **

You should seriously avoid posting on a Catholic apologetics forum until you can internalize this.
“Common sense” may even demand it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Catholics believe that the Church is flawless. However, the men and women that comprise it are not.

The bakers believe: “The bread is flawless, even though the flour was moldy, the yeast was dirty and the water was putrid.”

“Common sense” may even demand it.

That is the exact opposite of “common sense”, whether someone believes it or not.

 

[inocente]

If you can’t distinguish between the doctrines of a perfect Church and the behaviors of its imperfect membership, you have zero business commenting on an apologetics forum. Catholic or otherwise.

“A priest can be wrong” is something every Catholic here knows is true. Equating “the belief in a perfect Church” to “following whatever the local leadership tells you” is a logical fallacy so obvious and weak that it’s a little hard to even consider.

I agree that the behavior of many Catholics in Rwanda was horrendous. I also think one of the greatest mistakes in all Christendom was the Catholic Venetian sack of Orthodox Constantinople.

---

Let me be abundantly clear:

**Catholics believe that the Church is flawless. However, the men and women that comprise it are not. **

You should seriously avoid posting on a Catholic apologetics forum until you can internalize this.
“Common sense” may even demand it.

Not sure why you decided to play a pompous schoolmarm there, did I hit a nerve?

In any event, the Pope is quoted as saying the “sins and failings of the Church and its members". Not just its members then. That seems at odds with your view. It’s off-topic but you should seriously avoid posting etc.

 

[Vonsalza]

The bakers believe: “The bread is flawless, even though the flour was moldy, the yeast was dirty and the water was putrid.”

The disparity between the ideal and the adherent is as old as civilization. If you think that’s a good reason to abandon the ideal, enjoy the meaninglessness of nihilism.

That is the exact opposite of “common sense”, whether someone believes it or not.

As “common sense” only exists between people who agree on a particular matter, I was hoping you’d see that it was typed “tongue-in-cheek” - thus the “wink” face. For those who have followed the discussion, it may have been appropriate.

 

[Vonsalza]

…In any event, the Pope is quoted as saying the “sins and failings of the Church and its members". Not just its members then. That seems at odds with your view. It’s off-topic but you should seriously avoid posting etc.

And there you have it folks. According to Inocente, the Pope himself has done away with the infallibility of the Church. Be sure to recycle your rosaries and bibles as you leave.

:doh2:

 

[rinnie]

Yikes.

“Pope Francis on Monday begged forgiveness for the “sins and failings of the Church and its members” during Rwanda’s 1994 genocide …] During the 100-day genocide, more than 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu extremists. Many of the victims died at the hands of priests, clergymen and nuns, according to some accounts by survivors, and the Rwandan government says many died in the churches where they had sought refuge.” - catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/pope-francis-begs-forgiveness-for-sins-and-failings-of-church-during-rwanda-genocide/

No doubt some of them had also given up being moral agents and just did as they were told.

You may find that nowhere does the Church give you any such Nuremberg defense, and you cannot use your religion to avoid personal moral responsibility.

Not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying you blame the RCC for the sins of the leaders? Or are you saying because our leaders are not perfect, it someone means the teaching of the RCC is not perfect? Please explain. thanks

 

[Peter_J]

B: God hates the Amelikites.
O: Yeah. They practice child sacrifice.
B: Holy Toledo! We should stop that.
O: Yeah. God has told us to kill them all.
B: Hang on…ALL of them?
O: Yep.
B: Including the children?
O: Yep.
B: ???

But for many Christians (I might say, most Christians who aren’t Traditionalist Catholics or Fundamentalist Protestants) it’s not entirely clear that God commanded that.

 

[inocente]

And there you have it folks. According to Inocente, the Pope himself has done away with the infallibility of the Church. Be sure to recycle your rosaries and bibles as you leave.

:doh2:

Señor Bluster rides again.

I didn’t write the Catholic Herald article. Google the quote from the Pope and you’ll see that a number of mainline newspapers and news channels ran it: “sins and failings of the Church and its members”. He said it, not me. He was talking about morality, and he only said it three days ago.

I’m not a Catholic but I think you’ll find that infallibility is limited to definitions on faith and morals, not your blanket assertion “the Church is flawless”. Therefore the Pope’s apology was sincere, he didn’t slip up, nor did JPII in his various apologies.

If you think the popes spoke out of turn then I’ll happily start a thread for you to argue why you think they got it so wrong. But back on topic, the Church’s moral teaching is available to everyone, not just Catholics. Atheists can use it if they want. But in no case can anyone argue, before Christ or before men, that it allows them to give up their own personal moral responsibility. Not even a little bit.

 

[inocente]

Not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying you blame the RCC for the sins of the leaders? Or are you saying because our leaders are not perfect, it someone means the teaching of the RCC is not perfect? Please explain. thanks

I’m not blaming anyone, we’re all human, we all fall well short.

The article says “Many of the victims died at the hands of priests, clergymen and nuns, according to some accounts by survivors”.

Without even looking up the dogma we all know it certainly didn’t tell them to do that. There was no failing in the dogma of the Church. But somehow they still got it into their heads that God was on their side, that God ordered an ethnic cleansing of the -]Tutsis/-] Amalekites and they were doing God’s work. The Pope apologized for the “sins and failings of the Church”, because obviously something went badly wrong, not in dogma but perhaps in command and control, they went rogue, something the Vatican has presumably investigated forensically and tried hard to ensure can never happen again.

My point was simply that no one in that Army of Jesus (as some of them styled themselves) can argue before Christ that they were not morally responsible for their actions because they were working in the name of a religious truth, or only following orders. Therefore the notion that anyone can give up on common sense and personal moral responsibility because they thought their religion or God wanted them to do it is false.

 

[minkymurph]

But for many Christians (I might say, most Christians who aren’t Traditionalist Catholics or Fundamentalist Protestants) it’s not entirely clear that God commanded that.

I agree Peter.

To my knowledge Christians who believe the Bible in inerrant, should be given a literal reading and ‘inspired’ means practically dictated by God are a minority largely composed of fundamentalist Protestants, though as you say Traditionalist Catholics adopt a synonymous approach to Scripture.

 

[Vonsalza]

I didn’t write the Catholic Herald article. Google the quote from the Pope… He said it, not me.

Yes, and he was apologizing for the horrendous behavior of many representatives of the Church. Again, the disparity between the adherent and the ideal - learn it. Conflating them is pure ad hominem fallacy.

I’m not a Catholic but I think you’ll find that infallibility is limited to definitions on faith and morals, not your blanket assertion “the Church is flawless”. Therefore the Pope’s apology was sincere, he didn’t slip up, nor did JPII in his various apologies.

You don’t need to identify the fact you’re not Catholic. Your knowledge about the Church speaks for itself.
The Church is still “flawless” in that it’s a metaphysical concept that simply cannot be assailed. I fully support the apologies that its clergy have made over the centuries because Catholics have done many terrible things in history. As we strive for an ideal that is nigh-impossible to fully achieve this side of mortality, apologies will certainly continue to be needed - and not just by Popes.

If you think the popes spoke out of turn…

:doh2:

…But in no case can anyone argue, before Christ or before men, that it allows them to give up their own personal moral responsibility. Not even a little bit.

As no one is arguing that, nice preparatory “straw-man”.

 

[rinnie]

I’m not blaming anyone, we’re all human, we all fall well short.

The article says “Many of the victims died at the hands of priests, clergymen and nuns, according to some accounts by survivors”.

Without even looking up the dogma we all know it certainly didn’t tell them to do that. There was no failing in the dogma of the Church. But somehow they still got it into their heads that God was on their side, that God ordered an ethnic cleansing of the -]Tutsis/-] Amalekites and they were doing God’s work. The Pope apologized for the “sins and failings of the Church”, because obviously something went badly wrong, not in dogma but perhaps in command and control, they went rogue, something the Vatican has presumably investigated forensically and tried hard to ensure can never happen again.

My point was simply that no one in that Army of Jesus (as some of them styled themselves) can argue before Christ that they were not morally responsible for their actions because they were working in the name of a religious truth, or only following orders. Therefore the notion that anyone can give up on common sense and personal moral responsibility because they thought their religion or God wanted them to do it is false.

Correct and I agree with you. But you also have to understand which people seem not to is this. There are 2 definitions of the Church. One is the people and leaders of it as you stated. And then there is the definition of the Church being Christ himself.

You have to take both meanings and use them in the right context.

Christ promised us when he speaks to the leaders of the Church and reveals sometime to them and they speak in his name, it is indeed the word of God.

But as you stated the leaders of the Church has made mistakes in the past, and will continue to do so. They are not perfect and they are as open to human sin as the rest of us.

You will also have one Pope feel this way, one Pope feel that way. And you hear people who do not know the true way the RCC works say got ya.

But no Pope has every claimed that his Opinion on something is indeed the word of God. They have free will to agree with something or disagree, the same as us.

But when any Pope speaks in the name Of Christ which is indeed dogma, then it is indeed the word of God. But here is something else, a Pope at any given time could be a bad Pope, and still have the power of the Holy Spirit to speak in the name of God.

Jesus pick 12 Apostles, and one of them was a devil. He knew it, he showed us with Judas even though they can choose to follow God, they also have free will to choose satan.

 

[inocente]

How do I confirm the truth of “common sense” in a way that is more independently and materially reproducible than the way I confirm religious truth that atheists eschew?

inocente;14554746:

But back on topic, the Church’s moral teaching is available to everyone, not just Catholics. Atheists can use it if they want. But in no case can anyone argue, before Christ or before men, that it allows them to give up their own personal moral responsibility. Not even a little bit.

As no one is arguing that, nice preparatory “straw-man”.

:ehh:

 

[rinnie]

I’m not blaming anyone, we’re all human, we all fall well short.

The article says “Many of the victims died at the hands of priests, clergymen and nuns, according to some accounts by survivors”.

Without even looking up the dogma we all know it certainly didn’t tell them to do that. There was no failing in the dogma of the Church. But somehow they still got it into their heads that God was on their side, that God ordered an ethnic cleansing of the -]Tutsis/-] Amalekites and they were doing God’s work. The Pope apologized for the “sins and failings of the Church”, because obviously something went badly wrong, not in dogma but perhaps in command and control, they went rogue, something the Vatican has presumably investigated forensically and tried hard to ensure can never happen again.

My point was simply that no one in that Army of Jesus (as some of them styled themselves) can argue before Christ that they were not morally responsible for their actions because they were working in the name of a religious truth, or only following orders. Therefore the notion that anyone can give up on common sense and personal moral responsibility because they thought their religion or God wanted them to do it is false.

And I think we can both agree it is not just Catholic clergy who can TRY to convince others they believe it was the will of God. And refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

And I think we can both agree there are times we ourselves believe we are doing something right, and find out how bad we messed up.

But what none of us can do not matter how bad the sins of others is claim to know what their true intentions of their mind was. Only God does and they will be judged fairly.