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

[inocente]

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.

I take your word about popes, otherwise agreed with two perhaps pedantic amendments.

Your third paragraph sounds like new public revelation, but I thought the Church teaches as in the answer here. And I think “the definition of the Church being Christ himself” should perhaps read “the church is the body of which Christ is the head”.

Noting I slipped in lower case church to include all Christians .

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.

Agreed.

 

[rinnie]

I take your word about popes, otherwise agreed with two perhaps pedantic amendments.

Your third paragraph sounds like new public revelation, but I thought the Church teaches as in the answer here. And I think “the definition of the Church being Christ himself” should perhaps read “the church is the body of which Christ is the head”.

Noting I slipped in lower case church to include all Christians .

Agreed.

As I stated the Church is agreed the body of which Christ is the head.

But the Church is also Christ himself, leading us, through the Holy Spirit.

Saul Saul why are you persecuting ME. Who are YOU? Christ the one whom you are persecuting.

Christ states as a husband and wife are one Christ and his Church are one.

The Church is the Pilar of all truth. Do you see where I am going with this. The CC can be referred to as Christ himself here with us on earth. IF you understand it in the right context.

Be back latter to explain what I am trying to say, go to go, got a customer.

 

[Vonsalza]

As I stated the Church is agreed the body of which Christ is the head.

But the Church is also Christ himself, leading us, through the Holy Spirit.

Saul Saul why are you persecuting ME. Who are YOU? Christ the one whom you are persecuting.

Christ states as a husband and wife are one Christ and his Church are one.

The Church is the Pilar of all truth. Do you see where I am going with this. The CC can be referred to as Christ himself here with us on earth. IF you understand it in the right context.

:clapping:

 

[o_mlly]

A historical worldwide flood seems highly implausible. There were some who said Hurricane Katrina was divine retribution for a gay bar in New Orleans. The Genesis story seems to be a version of earlier Mesopotamian myths.

I guess there are sects who believe that every word in the bible was inspired by God, but to me it stretches common sense to think that every word in that particular collection of books, and no others, was God breathed. Some yes, perhaps most yes, but all no.

Many of the Old Testament stories emanate from traditional (word of mouth) myths but these stories were altered by the sacred writers to their own purposes. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6106993&highlight=inductive#post6106993

 

[o_mlly]

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: ???

O:God loves the Amalekites. The Amalekites have inculcated evil as normal within their society. God hates the evil.
O: The effects of the evil caused by personal sin ripple outward through time and space.
O: The entire Old Testament could be summed up as: God prepares a people to receive His Son
O: Israel is that people and like all people they are weak. God wills to protect them from syncretism with the Amalekites.
B: Could you imagine what would have happened to Christ if he were born into Amalekite society given what happened to him born into God’s chosen people?
B: Why, he would have been tossed into the volcano before he spoke his first word.

 

[rinnie]

As I stated the Church is agreed the body of which Christ is the head.

But the Church is also Christ himself, leading us, through the Holy Spirit.

Saul Saul why are you persecuting ME. Who are YOU? Christ the one whom you are persecuting.

Christ states as a husband and wife are one Christ and his Church are one.

The Church is the Pilar of all truth. Do you see where I am going with this. The CC can be referred to as Christ himself here with us on earth. IF you understand it in the right context.

Be back latter to explain what I am trying to say, go to go, got a customer.

Sorry been a long day.

See we consider the Church the bride of Christ, to be holy and without blemish. Like how when a husband and wife become one in marriage, Christ and his Church are one.

We have leaders who lead the Church and are promised by Christ that he will be with his Church to guide and lead it until the end of time. The reason we say the Church and Christ are one, is because they are one in mind.

To us when you confess your sins and reconcile with the Church it is impossible then to not reconcile with God. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable form reconciliation with God. To you see what I am saying.

We are not the Church.

cont…

 

[rinnie]

Cont…

Here is where it gets tricky.

The Church is both visible and Spiritual.

Christ established and ever sustains here on earth his Holy Church, the community of hope and charity a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men.

The Church at the SAME TIME,

a society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ.
the visible society and spiritual community
the earthly church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches.

So the Church is both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities.

 

[inocente]

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.

Spotted on another thread:

“Curiously, 21 percent of Catholics break with their church when it comes to biblical fundamentalism, with 21 percent saying they believe the Bible is “to be taken literally, word for word.”” - americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/drop-faith-participation-reported-younger-catholics

 

[minkymurph]

Spotted on another thread:

“Curiously, 21 percent of Catholics break with their church when it comes to biblical fundamentalism, with 21 percent saying they believe the Bible is “to be taken literally, word for word.”” - americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/drop-faith-participation-reported-younger-catholics

The Catholic Church has not placed a ban on a literal reading of the Bible, but neither does it impose it.

I note the link you provide is from an American magazine. I would Catholics in America are more likely to read the Bible literally being influenced by Protestant fundamentalism. My business partner was brought up Brethren but he doesn’t follow it and I think he goes to a Baptist Church now. We often tease each other about our respective faiths - all good humoured ‘banter’ as we say in my part of the world. He is into the Bible for reasons I have stated which if find, that is the tradition and nature of his faith. He always says to me I am the typical Irish Catholic - receive Sacraments, say your prayers follow the 10 commandments and the Bible doesn’t really figure in the equation other than as a book of guidance. He’s not far off the mark.

 

[Vonsalza]

21 percent?

Sounds like a “minority” to me.

A little more illumination:

A Catholic Understanding of Biblical Inerrancy

It’s not long. I found the section “Avoiding Fundamentalism: The Problem of Literalistic Interpretation” to be particularly helpful.

 

[inocente]

The Catholic Church has not placed a ban on a literal reading of the Bible, but neither does it impose it.

I note the link you provide is from an American magazine. I would Catholics in America are more likely to read the Bible literally being influenced by Protestant fundamentalism. My business partner was brought up Brethren but he doesn’t follow it and I think he goes to a Baptist Church now. We often tease each other about our respective faiths - all good humoured ‘banter’ as we say in my part of the world. He is into the Bible for reasons I have stated which if find, that is the tradition and nature of his faith. He always says to me I am the typical Irish Catholic - receive Sacraments, say your prayers follow the 10 commandments and the Bible doesn’t really figure in the equation other than as a book of guidance. He’s not far off the mark.

It’s from an American Jesuit magazine, and I made no comment. Click the link back to the press release and you’ll see an interesting story: roughly 1 in 5 Catholics answered that the bible is the actual word of God, 2 in 5 that it’s inspired by God and error-free, 1 in 5 that it’s inspired but contains errors, and 1 in 5 that it’s not inspired by God.

It’s a blogspot site, so the link may not hold up:

nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com.es/2016/08/sacraments-today-updated.html

 

[minkymurph]

It’s from an American Jesuit magazine, and I made no comment. Click the link back to the press release and you’ll see an interesting story: roughly 1 in 5 Catholics answered that the bible is the actual word of God, 2 in 5 that it’s inspired by God and error-free, 1 in 5 that it’s inspired but contains errors, and 1 in 5 that it’s not inspired by God.

It’s a blogspot site, so the link may not hold up:
http://cara.georgetown.edu/st2016f.jpg
nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com.es/2016/08/sacraments-today-updated.html

I’m not really sure were we are going with this.

Those surveyed were randomly selected adults in the US. The total number of those surveyed was 1010.

20% said the bible is the actual word of God

40% said it’s inspired by God and error-free

20% said it’s inspired but contains errors

20% said it’s not inspired

Is the ‘interesting story’ 404 out 1010 adult Catholics surveyed in the US said the Bible is the inspired word of God and error free?

If so - why is this an ‘interesting story?’

 

[inocente]

I’m not really sure were we are going with this.

Those surveyed were randomly selected adults in the US. The total number of those surveyed was 1010.

20% said the bible is the actual word of God

40% said it’s inspired by God and error-free

20% said it’s inspired but contains errors

20% said it’s not inspired

Is the ‘interesting story’ 404 out 1010 adult Catholics surveyed in the US said the Bible is the inspired word of God and error free?

If so - why is this an ‘interesting story?’

I assume the university did its homework on the numbers and the results are statistically significant.

It interested me that 1 in 5 don’t believe the bible is inspired by God, and also that may not support your idea that “Catholics in America are more likely to read the Bible literally being influenced by Protestant fundamentalism”.

And as a non-Catholic, it makes me wonder to what extent I should take any poster as representative. Such as the OP for instance.

 

[minkymurph]

It interested me that 1 in 5 don’t believe the bible is inspired by God, and also that may not support your idea that “Catholics in America are more likely to read the Bible literally being influenced by Protestant fundamentalism”.

What I said was little more than a guess. It may not be the case at all.

 

[Vonsalza]

And as a non-Catholic, it makes me wonder to what extent I should take any poster as representative. Such as the OP for instance.

As that would certainly be a hasty generalization (the Church is enormously diverse), you should probably look to the actual clergy and the catechism for representation rather than any one poster on an internet forum.

 

[inocente]

As that would certainly be a hasty generalization (the Church is enormously diverse), you should probably look to the actual clergy and the catechism for representation rather than any one poster on an internet forum.

In that case we’re agreed your OP is entirely unrepresentative.

 

[Vonsalza]

In that case we’re agreed your OP is entirely unrepresentative.

Whatever you say…

 

[Clevus]

Morality :

newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm

“Where morality is divorced from religion, reason will, it is true, enable a man to recognize to a large extent the ideal to which his nature points. But much will be wanting. He will disregard some of his most essential duties. He will, further, be destitute of the strong motives for obedience to the law afforded by the sense of obligation to God and the knowledge of the tremendous sanction attached to its neglect — motives which experience has proved to be necessary as a safeguard against the influence of the passions. And, finally, his actions even if in accordance with the moral law, will be based not on the obligation imposed by the Divine will, but on considerations of human dignity and on the good of human society. Such motives, however, cannot present themselves as, …”

Also…

Intellect

newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm

“As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere** sense-cognitions**…”

 

[inocente]

Morality :

newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm

“Where morality is divorced from religion, reason will, it is true, enable a man to recognize to a large extent the ideal to which his nature points. But much will be wanting. He will disregard some of his most essential duties. He will, further, be destitute of the strong motives for obedience to the law afforded by the sense of obligation to God and the knowledge of the tremendous sanction attached to its neglect — motives which experience has proved to be necessary as a safeguard against the influence of the passions. And, finally, his actions even if in accordance with the moral law, will be based not on the obligation imposed by the Divine will, but on considerations of human dignity and on the good of human society. Such motives, however, cannot present themselves as, …”

Not sure that article ought be taken as authoritative, given the author goes on to say:

“the savages of today are not primitives, but degenerates. It is the merest superstition to suppose that these degraded races can enlighten us as to what were the beliefs of man in his primitive state. It is among civilized races, where man has developed normally, that we must seek for knowledge as to what is natural to man.”

 

[Clevus]

Not sure that article ought be taken as authoritative, given the author goes on to say:

“the savages of today are not primitives, but degenerates. It is the merest superstition to suppose that these degraded races can enlighten us as to what were the beliefs of man in his primitive state. It is among civilized races, where man has developed normally, that we must seek for knowledge as to what is natural to man.”

Strong by today’s standards perhaps, but a word fitting in the context.