Atheist that follows Catholic morality. What's your opinion?

[Bohm Bawerk]

Originally Posted by Soldier Of God

The Church only tolerated slavery. Aside from being vague your statement shows no objectivity as highlighted by your "What I believe..." statement. How does one "quantify" what's written in one man's heart? What about cultures that practiced human sacrifice, gladiatorial combat or cannibalism? If it was objectively "written in their hearts", why the alterity?

You can't quantify what is not numerical . That's a philosophical error that has produced a school-of-thought called positivism which considers Man as mere objects. Surely such belief is against Church teaching that Man was made in the image and likeness of God.

As for cultures that practiced human sacrifice, gladiatorial combat or cannibalism, such question is easily answered by the fact that uncivilized peoples practiced those deplorable deeds. That is why they are uncivilized. People who behave immorally are generally that - uncivilized. As Aristotle taught many years ago, one distinguishing aspect of Man is that he has the ability to overcome his impulses. It is for this reason why civilized societies generally do not commit murder; we find even today that Russia is starting to think back about it's pro-abortion stance as it endures a "demographic winter". So a society benefits when it behaves morally, for as Scripture says itself: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." (Proverbs 14:34).

[John Russell Jr]

Originally Posted by Bohm Bawerk

I believe morality is for the most part, objective. For instance, I would think most people agree that murder is objectively immoral.

Other actions, such as suicide and euthanasia, not so much. The reason these are considered sins by Christianity is because of the belief that people don't own their lives; on the contrary, their lives are entrusted to them by God. So you can see that the damnation of these sins require belief in God as it's logical prerequisite. As an atheist therefore, I don't consider suicide and euthanasia objectively immoral. Personally, I do believe it's disordered and the "worst of all worlds", but I wouldn't deplore it in the same manner the Church deplores it (i.e. considering it a mortal sin).

... dear bohm ,,, sorry the caps lock went on , forgive this dear friend ,,,

... in reality man is not a moral being and there is no such thing as morality , when man fell he was taken out of reality or the garden of eden and then part of his punishment was that all in his head and world was now goood and or evil , just as man wanted after the devil deceived eve , man also became subject to the devil hence a very evil world now and none can deny evil , and man wanted to be like god so he is in his own head anyway ,,, our whole univerese and cosmos and man has been altered , it's no longer reality , i call it a delusion which is whaT IT REALLY IS , SO THINGS ATHEISTS ARGUE ABOUT LIKE PROBLEMS OF EVIL , SIN , SUFFERING , HELL , PRAYER ETC ETC ETC ARE ALL TOTALLY INVALID ARGUMENTS -- THE WHOLE LOT I CAN THROW OUT IN AN INSTANT , BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THESE MOSTLY ARE TRUE AND PROVED IN THE DELUSION , EVERYTHING IN THE DELUSION IS NOT REAL , IT'S LIKE A NIGHTMARE , GOD CANNOT ALLOW EVIL TO EXIST FOR ONE THING OR HE WOULD IMPLODE AND IN ORDER FOR GOD TO BECOME MAN AND SUFFER AND DIE TO SAVE US HE CANNOT DO THIS AT ALL , HE MUST DO IT OUTSIDE OF REALITY AND THEN IT'S LIKE IT NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL ,,, GOD IS MORE CLEVER THAN YOU KNOW BOHM , EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE EVEN THOSE IN HELL ARE GOING TO BE BACK IN REALITY SOON AND IT'LL BE LIKE NOTHING WENT WRONG AT ALL , sorry the caps lock went on , we will all get back the garden of eden and heaven and so much more in our eternity and eternities , and this is my private opine and not official church teaching but i think i'm right dear friend ,,,

... may god bless and love you ,,,

... john ...

[AlanFromWichita]

Originally Posted by Soldier Of God

The Church only tolerated slavery.

I don't know about this issue, so I'm just asking. If the Church "tolerated" it, then without further information I would have concluded that it is not, in fact, objectively evil. Is that what you are saying?

How does one "quantify" what's written in one man's heart? What about cultures that practiced human sacrifice, gladiatorial combat or cannibalism? If it was objectively "written in their hearts", why the alterity?

I thought the law of love was written on every man's heart. The false self, being culturally trained, can obstruct its effects, but can't erase it I thought.

2 Cor 3:
1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you?
2 You are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all,
3 shown to be a letter of Christ administered by us, written not in ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.
4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
5 Not that of ourselves we are qualified to take credit for anything as coming from us; rather, our qualification comes from God,
6 who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit;d for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life.

I've never studied this much, so I'm just wondering.

Alan

[John Russell Jr]

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

I don't know about this issue, so I'm just asking. If the Church "tolerated" it, then without further information I would have concluded that it is not, in fact, objectively evil. Is that what you are saying?


I thought the law of love was written on every man's heart. The false self, being culturally trained, can obstruct its effects, but can't erase it I thought.

2 Cor 3:
1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you?
2 You are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all,
3 shown to be a letter of Christ administered by us, written not in ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.
4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
5 Not that of ourselves we are qualified to take credit for anything as coming from us; rather, our qualification comes from God,
6 who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit;d for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life.

I've never studied this much, so I'm just wondering.

Alan

... if i may quickly interject , in times gone by certain forms of slavery were considered no different to hired servants today , it was a different world , you cannot judge this q so easily , the church has always condemned slavery as we mostly do today but the term slave could mean a respectable job at times , and st paul was preaching patience to slaves so they did not all rebel and get slaughtered , the church was working on the problem as it still does today ...

[AlanFromWichita]

Originally Posted by John Russell Jr

... if i may quickly interject , in times gone by certain forms of slavery were considered no different to hired servants today , it was a different world , you cannot judge this q so easily , the church has always condemned slavery as we mostly do today but the term slave could mean a respectable job at times , and st paul was preaching patience to slaves so they did not all rebel and get slaughtered , the church was working on the problem as it still does today ...

Thank you for that information.

Alan

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by Bohm Bawerk

You can't quantify what is not numerical .

Quantification means to bind in a definitive manner and does not necessarily entail a numerical attribute.

That's a philosophical error that has produced a school-of-thought called positivism which considers Man as mere objects. Surely such belief is against Church teaching that Man was made in the image and likeness of God.

So, why the dichotomy of materialism and dualism? As there is no purpose to existance and existence is a material one, is doesn't seem reasonable that cannot construe man to be anything but a material entity.

As for cultures that practiced human sacrifice, gladiatorial combat or cannibalism, such question is easily answered by the fact that uncivilized peoples practiced those deplorable deeds. That is why they are uncivilized. People who behave immorally are generally that - uncivilized.

As an example, the Roman's were more civilized than their contemporaries and yet practiced all of the above. Albeit, cannibalism was largely confined to their myths and at the collapse of the Western empire. So, at what point does "civilized" behavior lend itself to so called objective morality?

As Aristotle taught many years ago, one distinguishing aspect of Man is that he has the ability to overcome his impulses.

Which has what to do with objective morality? If I do not act on impulses, does that mean I'm acting objectively moral fashion?

It is for this reason why civilized societies generally do not commit murder; we find even today that Russia is starting to think back about it's pro-abortion stance as it endures a "demographic winter". So a society benefits when it behaves morally, for as Scripture says itself: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." (Proverbs 14:34).

Unfortunately, you haven't directly addressed the issue regarding what constitutes objective morality. What makes murder objectively wrong? The practices of the culture that provides a net benefit? A society can benefit from practices that may or may not conform to what you deem to be objective morality, such as disposing itself of individuals that add no evident value.

[Soldier Of God]

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

I don't know about this issue, so I'm just asking. If the Church "tolerated" it, then without further information I would have concluded that it is not, in fact, objectively evil. Is that what you are saying?

The Church tolerated slavery as a fact of existence it has no control over, not because the Church didn't think it evil.

I thought the law of love was written on every man's heart. The false self, being culturally trained, can obstruct its effects, but can't erase it I thought.

Yes, but only if you believe in purposeful and created existence.

[AlanFromWichita]

Originally Posted by John Russell Jr

... your very right but missing the big point , a man must love the lord his god with all his heart , mind , soul and strength , and his neighbour as himself to be saved ,,, ignorance can be bliss but bohm doesn't seem to quaklify here , so if he rejects god he rejects heaven whether he obeys rules or not and has very little chance of salvation

I think I see your point. He may be a valuable member of society, but according to scripture it doesn't sound like he can be in compliance with the Two Great Commands. Maybe I said something wrong, or used the wrong words. Note that many things I discuss on this forum I have thought but never tried to put it into words, so you may accept most of my posts as a "rough draft" which are available for proofreading and correction; that's one of the reasons I like these forums. Sometimes I disagree with my objectors, but without others telling me there's egg on my face (even if they are just imagining it) I don't know when I need to wash up.

Please consider this viewpoint: I think too often what we call "God" is actually our image of God, because as human beings our imagination can only stretch so far, so we tend to believe that God behaves in a way we can figure out. OK that's a no-brainer, but bear with me here...

As a believer in the sort of things that contemplatives claim, and in accordance with the Cloud of the Unknowing, I have maybe a different "image" or, if I am successful, "non-image" of God. The idea is that God is beyond all human description and imagination, and the way to find unity is to deny oneself and allow one's soul to experience something else; somewhere only God can take us, which is away from everything we already know and into the Cloud. So I am very careful because I think too often the first or "most obvious" literal human interpretation of the Word of God is distracting, because if we focus too much on our understanding of it then we fail to get the real "heart" of the Word which is, IMO, the transforming effect It has on us. So like you I'm not all about rules, but on transforming our hearts and letting our own "true" selves get a shot at the mind/body "controls" under the guidance of and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

In the case at hand, since I feel a bit backed into the proverbial corner, I offer this excuse for my previous statements: I don't believe that the Two Great Commands are actually distinct and independent. In other words, I do not believe one can love his neighbor and not God, nor God and not his neighbor. Essentially, I see them as two ways of putting the Same Thing into words.

So where does that leave us? One can say that one cannot "truly" love another human being without God, and to that I say it's a matter of interpretation. But when one loves another human being, one automatically loves God too, because "whatsoever you do..." Therefore, I say that one can love God by doing His work and loving His people, without necessarily buying into the same image and literal definition of God that Christians claim.

Also, Jesus said, "whoever is not against us is for us." To me that means that a human being can be justified through the love demonstrated for other people, because this is what God intended for us to do. If a self-described "believer," especially one I don't know, asks me, "do you believe in God?" I find that to be a trick question, because as soon as I say "yes," then they presume that in order to have this belief I must have the same image of God they have, believe the same things about God they do, and accept whatever they say God wants us to do. So if I say yes, then I give them the false assumption that I agree with them on everything. That really isn't the case, but it comes across that way and I know this because I've had the experience of people telling me bizarre things and then saying, "I thought you said you believed in God."

So what if somebody does God's work on earth, and has an honest desire to be Good and not Evil, but has some mental stumbling block that prevents him from admitting to God? Is God going to condemn them to hell because they don't understand -- and often justifiably so because of all the junk that is said in God's name? What if I were to take some of the attributes we give God (merciful, just, loving, etc) and strive to internalize these same characteristics in ourselves, then am I not, in fact, loving God but describing it in different words?
(continued in next post)

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

bohm has judged god and rejected god because god has disobeyed the laws and rules in bohms head , man rewards if his laws and rules in his head are obeyed and punishes if they are not , bohm is punishing god for his disobedience ith such problems as evil , sin , suffering , death , hell , prayer etc

Maybe I missed something in this thread; if so forgive me but there have been quite a few details discussed. I have had times I believed there was no God, and even now I occasionally have doubts -- so technically I guess you might call that agnostic, at least at times. I don't know about Bohm, but I didn't "reject" God or "deny" God or "have a problem with" God, because God was a non-entity. It's like I could make up some word, ummm, how about "Flagyllificator." I don't have any anger toward the Flagyllificator, because there is no such thing. Nor do I wish to punish same. I simply don't consider the Flagyllificator as a divine source of knowledge that I must accept. If the Flagyllificator and I happen to agree on how I should handle any given situation, then that's great. But I mean no disrespect to the Flagyllificator by not believing in Him.

Moreover, I think that if I really want to have faith, trust, and peace, then I must, as an ostensible believer in God, then I need to make some decisions. Do I believe that God's will be done on earth or not? Do I believe the Holy Spirit has things under control or not? If the Holy Spirit is in charge, then I have no concerns whatsoever about Bohm's belief or soul, because IMO if God called Bohm to belief, then Bohm would have no choice but to believe. He could deny it, and I think some of us on this thread are counting on the fact that somewhere, deep in his heart, he knows God exists but for one reason or another cannot admit that outwardly at this time. Have it as you will, but IMO if we believe the Holy Spirit is really in charge, then my faith says that it isn't my problem. I can listen to Bohm, I can tell him my opinion, I can console or disagree with him, but in the end it isn't my job so I don't have a horse in that race.

Again, if the Holy Spirit is in charge, and (in my times of belief) I believe He is, then all is well and there is peace and joy for the taking, even amid storms. So I neither congratulate nor pity Bohm for his viewpoint. Just like with everybody else, I agree with some of what he says and disagree with others. Either way, I believe that the Holy Spirit has us all right where we are intended to be; to say otherwise would be distrustful and emotionally unsettling. I am here posting because the Spirit has guided me to. You have posted because the Spirit guided you to. Bohm is posting because the Spirit guided him to (whether he sees it that way or not), and is so patient with those who disagree with him that it is giving us ample opportunity to sort out our own feelings and put them into words. So Bohm may think what he wants; whatever that is, his existence on this earth and presence on this thread has been a blessing to me and others. So whatever he says, from a believer's standpoint, he is doing God's work. If he later comes to believe, then I shall rejoice. If he doesn't, then I shall pray for him, thank him for his kind attention, and let his fate rest in the hands of God as I understand God.

Alan

[John Russell Jr]

... philospohical proof for the existence of god ...

... first , you must understand nothing is what it says and nothing is just nothing and it does not exist , these arguments may require some thought but they show that if anything at all exists , even a thought or experience , then this is absolute total rocksolid proof god exists , it does not explain who or what god is as that is impossible for man to ever know let alone understand or appreciate , but it gives guiding principles to the q , and as to who god is all we have is revelation , i refer to god as something in my arguments based on pure objective truth about something and nothing , you learn why god is too --- why he always must exist if you think hard , these arguments usually get dismissed because people so loosely use the word nothing but there can be no such thing as nothing , so read on and put your thinking hat on dear friends ,,,

... let's say time has a beginning , but in reality there is no time , there is just eternity , eternity has no start , finish or middle -- there is just " now " so in " now " there is a choice ??? , will there be something or nothing , if something then that's what we can call god , if nothing then this is an absolute impossibility as if nothing exists then nothing having existence has become something , so if you really think you'll see whichever way it went there had to be something -- we call it god ,,, now of the nature of this something we can know it must be the absolute most infinitely perfect something that can possibly be and have no imperfection at all , how do we know this ??? , because there can be no nothing / ness in it and if that is the case it is a completely perfect something , remember it is impossible for nothing / ness to actually exist too ,,, another attribute is this something must be love amongst endless other good possibilities , anything good in any way even and most ceratinly unkown to man must go into the make up of this something , love unites , evil divides , there can be no evil or anything of a bad nature in this something or it would infinitely and instantaneously divide and cease to be ,,, another important attribute of something is that it is the very nature of something that it must do something , be creative , and since this something is the most absolutely perfect something that can possibly be it must be infinitely creative , this is why what we call god is creative , and infinitely so ,,, now it's very important to note the following : something cannot come from nothing , i've shown how god has and will always be and has no cause apart from him who is , but that anything else apart from god exists even a thought , experience , grain of sand or anything , is absolute concrete posite irrefutable proof god exists , if this something god did not exist then nothing would exist , but as said it is impossible for nothing to exist ,,, and things like evil , sin , suffering , death , demons , hell , wars and all humanities problems and all the evils and imperfections in our univerese , cosmos and mans life are happening outside of reality in a delusion which is the loss of the garden of eden and the reason is if there is any imperfection in gods creation it is a reflection on the creator and this would mean the creator or something was imperfect and he would cease to exist , so god for his very survivial put our whole world outside reality as he did with the demons until he fixes this mess and we all get back to reality like nothing went wrong at all , this may take time to understand and appreciate so take your time as it is perfectly true but the fallen human mind is very dysfunctional and cannot recognise truth so easily , this is true dear friends ,,, i'm happy to answer any q's or discuss this further if any want , feel free to talk dear friends ,,,

... may god bless and love you all ,,,

... john ...

[AlanFromWichita]

Originally Posted by Soldier Of God

The Church tolerated slavery as a fact of existence it has no control over, not because the Church didn't think it evil.

Is this the same Church I'm thinking of? The Holy Roman Church?

I didn't know the Church has ever had a problem trying to control things she thought was evil but had no control over.

Cases in point: didn't the Church used to kill people she suspected of being heretics? The Church cannot directly control others' thoughts, but she could surely say they were evil and kill them for it. The Church apparently cannot control the alleged majority of Catholics who use or accept the use of birth control, but that doesn't stop her from declaring it evil. She condemns acts of rogue governments and entire nations that she has no control over, and in some cases have no stated allegiance to the Church or even to God. If she truly believed slavery was evil, then I can't imagine she would shy away from saying so on the basis that she couldn't stop it from happening. Besides, she could have done something. She could have killed the slave owners. It wouldn't be without precedent.

Alan

[LaFleurDeLis]

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

You might be attacked, if not in this thread then at least in the minds of lurkers who decide not to post against you at this time. But if they attack you, then afa I'm concerned they're attacking me, too, and whether I answer it or not I'm on your side.

Jesus was attacked for his ideas about unity and human kindness as being much more important than the letter of the written law and identification with religious denominations. So we're in Good Company.

Alan

Glad to see I'll be in good company..

[John Russell Jr]

[quote=AlanFromWichita;8358830]I think I see your point. He may be a valuable member of society, but according to scripture it doesn't sound like he can be in compliance with the Two Great Commands. Maybe I said something wrong, or used the wrong words. Note that many things I discuss on this forum I have thought but never tried to put it into words, so you may accept most of my posts as a "rough draft" which are available for proofreading and correction; that's one of the reasons I like these forums. Sometimes I disagree with my objectors, but without others telling me there's egg on my face (even if they are just imagining it) I don't know when I need to wash up.

... dear alan , i don't care if you make mistakes , all do , it's a normal part of human communication which is a problem solving process whilst seeking truth , so don't worry or apologise please -- for anything , problems can take time to solve and not one post ...

Please consider this viewpoint: I think too often what we call "God" is actually our image of God, because as human beings our imagination can only stretch so far, so we tend to believe that God behaves in a way we can figure out. OK that's a no-brainer, but bear with me here...

As a believer in the sort of things that contemplatives claim, and in accordance with the Cloud of the Unknowing, I have maybe a different "image" or, if I am successful, "non-image" of God. The idea is that God is beyond all human description and imagination, and the way to find unity is to deny oneself and allow one's soul to experience something else; somewhere only God can take us, which is away from everything we already know and into the Cloud. So I am very careful because I think too often the first or "most obvious" literal human interpretation of the Word of God is distracting, because if we focus too much on our understanding of it then we fail to get the real "heart" of the Word which is, IMO, the transforming effect It has on us. So like you I'm not all about rules, but on transforming our hearts and letting our own "true" selves get a shot at the mind/body "controls" under the guidance of and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

.. i believe all men here worship false gods but god knows mans fallen dilemma and accepts his best efforts , but there has never been two humans who had the same understanding of god , people manufacture the god they want and largely with their imaginations as you righly say , have you ever thought how people reward and punish god based on how he obeys or disobeys the laws and rules in their heads which are beyond infinite and continually changing and total insanity eg god answers my prayer and i'm happy and reward god with love etc , but if my prayer goes unanswered i'm unhappy and punish god by expressing my displeasure , there are endless eg's here , maybe bohm is punishing god because god allows all thgese evils to exist , i think he might be ,,, the laws and rules in mans head have become his god because he's put them above god , mans mind is so polluted with rubbish like this and his judgment so clouded perhaps he should clear his mind to have a clear sky and allow a beautiful sunset with the most beautiful clouds to appear -- the unkown clouds , as you say ??? ,

In the case at hand, since I feel a bit backed into the proverbial corner, I offer this excuse for my previous statements: I don't believe that the Two Great Commands are actually distinct and independent. In other words, I do not believe one can love his neighbor and not God, nor God and not his neighbor. Essentially, I see them as two ways of putting the Same Thing into words.

... the way i see it dear alan , is when god gave moses the law he gave him his word , and not just words or tablets , gods law is his word -- jesus , and to obey gods law which is to love you must love jesus , only obeying and loving jesus can save you , if you know gods law which is his word jesus and refuse the obedience of love and have no clain to ignorance or serious mental issues chances are you've lost your soul , the whole law is love jesus and all in jesus , that's how i see it dear friend ...

So where does that leave us? One can say that one cannot "truly" love another human being without God, and to that I say it's a matter of interpretation. But when one loves another human being, one automatically loves God too, because "whatsoever you do..." Therefore, I say that one can love God by doing His work and loving His people, without necessarily buying into the same image and literal definition of God that Christians claim.

continued -

[John Russell Jr]

... true , i believe god judges each man based on what he would do and could do if he knew the whole truth , but that does not mean a free ride to heaven for all who reject christ , only god can know this and judge ...


Also, Jesus said, "whoever is not against us is for us." To me that means that a human being can be justified through the love demonstrated for other people, because this is what God intended for us to do. If a self-described "believer," especially one I don't know, asks me, "do you believe in God?" I find that to be a trick question, because as soon as I say "yes," then they presume that in order to have this belief I must have the same image of God they have, believe the same things about God they do, and accept whatever they say God wants us to do. So if I say yes, then I give them the false assumption that I agree with them on everything. That really isn't the case, but it comes across that way and I know this because I've had the experience of people telling me bizarre things and then saying, "I thought you said you believed in God."

... the human mind is beyond infinite and no two are even remotely similiar so i agree , i don't think any human being can possibly articulate what they believe , and on that point god does not care what you say or do , he just reads your heart and mind to see your intentions and takes much into account that man can never understand , we must never judge others because the judgments of men are never even nearly right , but we are obliged to spread the gospel and practise the spiritual and corporal works of mercy among other things , and the more you love the more you want to tell the whole world about it , god is not bad news , we should tell all about him , he is infinite love and infinitely loveable and somisunderstood , most hate god or misunderstand him , if we love god and we should do so insanely we should shout the truth about god from the rooftops or at least tell who we can when the opportunity arises ...

So what if somebody does God's work on earth, and has an honest desire to be Good and not Evil, but has some mental stumbling block that prevents him from admitting to God? Is God going to condemn them to hell because they don't understand -- and often justifiably so because of all the junk that is said in God's name? What if I were to take some of the attributes we give God (merciful, just, loving, etc) and strive to internalize these same characteristics in ourselves, then am I not, in fact, loving God but describing it in different words?
(continued in next post)[/quote]


... i guess it may work , but we are here to do one thing only : gods will , and nothing else , people think they have free will to do good or evil and they do in this delusion , but in the beginning man only had freedom within gods will , and man is supposed to live that way still , man is being tested , why would man think he knows better than god , you may stand a chance of heaven if you don't do gods will but we are here to o gods will and not our own or anything else ,,, for man to defy god causes such scandal with god his outrage is infinite , and god is not the same with man , so if men want to rebel against god then they need to know god will not cry if he has to send them to hell -- it's their choice and they choose , god in heaven has no human emotions or feelings , if people think god can't punish look at the totality of human history , we must accept god as he is even if we don't understand , who's right ??? , god or man -- god of course ,,,


... may god bless and love you ,,,


... john ...

[Stornoway]

I have followed where this discussion has gone but I'll return to the original question. No, I don't believe an atheist can follow Catholic morality.

Catholic morality (or teaching) like all things in this life, has been designed by God in such a specific way, that to take one part of it away is to nullify the whole concept. In this case, you are proposing taking away the very reason for its' existence: that human beings may live lives acceptable to God.
You are ruling out the possibility of prayer, arguably the most important concept in Catholic morality and I can say with absolute certainty that without the guidance received through prayer, you will naturally slip into a life which is far from that of a praying Catholic trying to follow Church teaching. 'We are human, therefore we are weak. We are weak, therefore we pray'.- St. Thomas Aquinas

The Catholic Church and God are inexorably linked. Without the Catholic Church, we cannot live lives fully acceptable to God and without God we cannot fully follow Catholic morality.

When agnostic, one of the key things which actually brought me back to God was, like you, seeing the sense in the teaching of the Church. I experienced so much that confirmed the absolute sense in Church teaching that I began to wonder how the Church had managed to get so much right if not for divine guidance. And not just the basic things which one could possibly argue is instinct in human beings like charity and respect for human life. Teachings like that of chastity which so much of society sees as outdated now, made perfect sense to me as its' end result is, objectively, further respect for human life.

The reason that so many Catholics follow the guidance of the Church is not that they've been indoctrinated from an early age and are so rooted in their upbringing that they fail to open themselves to other ways of life like so many in society believe. The reason is that they see the absolute sense in so much of what the Church teaches and recognize the path of the Catholic as the path which ultimately leads to a total respect of human life and therefore the path which gives full glory to God.


God bless and good luck, I hope this has helped in some way.