Is there a religion or doctrine that has no rules to be obeyed?
I didn’t have the chance hearing of a religion (or religious doctrine) that doesn’t have rules to be obeyed by believers/its followers.
Getting any reply will be appreciated. Thank you.
Kerim
Getting any reply will be appreciated. Thank you.
Kerim
Comments (75)
Deism is sometimes called a "religious philosophy or worldview", but it has no dogma or rules. Each person is free to determine how a created world impacts her life. One of those personal meanings is a Cosmic reason for moral behavior : to align oneself with the Tao, so to speak. :smile:
Note : By "Deism" I don't mean belief in a do-nothing deity. Instead, it's a do-everything First Cause creator that allows He/r own creation to evolve without interference. Rewards & Punishments are built-into the system. But Justice is a cultural ideal, not a natural fact.
If 'God' given free will is truly free, and unconditionally meant, as what we take 'free' to be, then any other attempts of the religion to have rules would be contradictory and wouldn't apply; however, I might add that a Person cannot be fundamental, for any system has to have parts—which would have to be more fundamental.
If I understood you well, to your knowledge too there is no well-known group of believers (of a religion or religious doctrine) whose God (or whatever the name is) has no rules to be obeyed (as in the army).
By the way, I add 'religious doctrine' to 'religion' because when I join, for example, a Catholic forum, I have to focus, on my comments and topics, on the Catholic doctrine only without mentioning, for example, Jesus sayings/teachings; otherwise my post is removed by one of its moderators. Yes, this happens to me and this may explain why there are many doctrines in one religion.
By the way, do you know any heavenly rule to be obeyed (as in the army) that Jesus, in person, mentioned in his teachings?
I personally didn't find any of such rules (on the Gospel I have; a Catholic Arabic Gospel, printed in 1967).
Instead, I noticed that Jesus message focuses solely on living the perfect free-will Love (or the unconditional Love towards all others). It clearly contradicts the human instincts of survival.
For instance, living such Love towards all others implies that a real disciple of Jesus has to be a free independent person. Otherwise, if he loves his enemies (in this case, the enemies of the group/system to which he belongs), he commits a crime against his group/system.
Yes, indeed.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Sorry, I couldn't get your point, speaking practically.
- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
- a particular system of faith and worship.
- a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
- something else
As to 'doctrine' (in the context of religion), it is usually defined as 'a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church'; thus one could suggest that by it's own definition a set of rules are implied. It seems difficult to have a belief or set of rules being held or taught that are void of rules.
Another question would be are you wishing to hold a position that it is possible to have a belief in god(s) without a subsequent religion being involved?
I'm not so much interested in providing an answer, as much as I am interested in reading the thread. I just thought some more clarity would help this move forward a bit and address the topic you indeed wish to address.
Religion = way of life. Doctrine = prescribed information. So, eh, not you as I don't know you but the kind of folk who speak in the same way kind of remind me of this.
Interestingly enough, those who seek to avoid what they deem as forms of control, are more.. uniform then those who don't.
Truth be said, it is not a wish since I am actually an independent person whose greatest real joy is living the unconditional free-will Love towards all others (even towards those who are made to play my enemies). So you may wonder, as I do, how it was possible for me to live this way since I was a teenager and reach the age 71 :) It is a rather long story and if presented in a movie, this movie would be seen as a fiction one.
On the other hand and as you likely know, it happened that Jesus Christ mentioned, already and very clearly, this sort of Love (on the today’s Gospel) that contradicts our natural instincts of survival. And although living such unlimited Love cannot be imposed by rules (since it is strictly a personal choice, based on one's free-will), many 'formal' doctrines (defined by rules, said of God) were made in the name of Jesus Christ (hence the name 'Christian' doctrines) in order to gather people in religious groups, for one reason or another.
I am afraid that whenever there is a group of people who are gathered under certain belief(s) and ritual(s), each of these believers has to observe some specific rules in order for him to deserve being a faithful active member in his group.
Wiki might be wrong, but are you saying it is not a religion, or that it is based on rules other than it is claimed, or that in practice adherents behave consistently?
To put it another way, it looks as though you are asking a rhetorical question to which you think you have the answer already. Which is a recipe not for a discussion but for preaching. Preaching is not philosophy.
Well, I, as an independent person, simply follow myself... follow what makes me be in a state of permanent peace and joy.
But, I also understand if one's self tells him to follow some others since the human natural instincts guide men to be gathered in groups in order for them to have a better chance of survival.
Sorry, do you mean talking about my experiences in life is preaching?
If this is the case, I am afraid that I have to be aware that whatever you may say in this forum has nothing to do with your life... because it has to be... about philosophy only.., that is about other's lives only.
And I also take the opportunity that you are here to help me know another title of this thread which is better than the question I chose. Thank you.
Have you had some experiences? Did you talk about them?
Luke 3:14
"Soldiers also asked him, “'And we, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.'"
So Jesus was fine with being a soldier. Also:
Luke 22:36:
"He said to them, 'But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.'"
So at least self-defense is allowed. The over zealous Crusaders probably used this first to justify violence, and the one where Jesus said he has come to "bring violence" among families and nations
[1]
This is based on my personal observation by which I concluded that, by definition perhaps, real believers of a religion (or a religious doctrine) have no choice but obeying/observing a certain set of rules, said not of man. But to be sure that my conclusion is real (I don’t imagine it) I started this thread.
[2]
I added this experience to explain the reason for which I add 'religious doctrine' as equivalent to 'religion'.
[3]
I pointed this out because I keep hearing from Christians of various Churches around the world that Jesus should be obeyed. But obedience implies the existence of rules. So I wonder how a person sees in Jesus (on the Gospel) a ruler, not as teacher as I do. Are there different Gospels I am not aware of?
[4]
Is it preaching or reality?
[5]
Isn't it my own experience in life? But if you see it as an act of preaching, I would be the sole preacher of it right? :)
.....
Sorry, I notice that Gregory replied while I am writing you. See you soon :)
Quoting Gregory
As you know, Jesus was fine with being a Caesar (a powerful rich ruler) as well. He didn't ask opposing, in any way, Caesar's rules about collecting taxes. But while Caesar and his soldiers are very important in serving the material world, they are not supposed to disobey their law and live the unlimited lawless love towards all others, as revealed and lived clearly by Jesus.
By the way, I personally have nothing against obeying the rules (civil, religious or political) imposed on the people among whom I live as long the rule doesn't contradict my unconditional free-will love/care towards all others; friends, strangers and enemies.
Quoting Gregory
Please tell me, if Jesus really meant by the word 'sword' that self-defence is allowed, why do you think his apostles and first disciples didn't use it to defend themselves while they were preaching later? Instead, they have preached unarmed till they were condemned to death for spreading Jesus teachings.
Quoting Gregory
I guess you mean {Matthew10:34}. Here the sword means division. In fact, by saying this, Jesus reminds me that, by design (this is a big topic by itself), real peace cannot exist even among the members of a family; though they usually share the same environment, language, culture... etc (besides sharing the same blood). If this is the case in one family, I can imagine what could be the case in the world ;) This simple hint lets me see that whoever talks about 'World Peace' is one of three:
1- A new comer to life, hence still ignorant of world's reality concerning peace.
2- An actor who plays a role, in a fiction movie/series, to achieve it.
3- A smart political actor to justify certain decisions, made (or to be made) by his powerful rich group, that harmed (or will likely harm) powerless people; local and/or foreigner.
Let me put it another way.
Is it possible to believe in god(s) without a religion or doctrine being involved?
I am a live example :D
You hear me talking of Jesus. I do it because he already knew 'all' what I discovered about my being and the world as it is. So I don't deserve the credit of what I know, even if it sounds new to many people.
I personally doesn't trust any ruling system though as I said earlier:
Quoting KerimF
To me in the least, any today's ruling god is a man-made one. But, the image of God as a ruler 'was' necessary when it was addressed to some of our ancient primitive ancestors (kids of humanity) as we raise and guide our little kids by rules to protect them till they grow up and be ready to be free.
I take it you mean 'yes'.
Quoting KerimF
So, have you replaced these established (ruling) systems with one of your own or do you simply have no system whatsoever?
EDIT: I'm sort of in a default position of understanding 'system' as 'system of faith or worship'... possibly meaning 'religion' or 'doctrine'.
Yes :)
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
As any ordinary person around the world has, I have, where I live, a ruling system (equivalent to Caesar). But, on the other hand, I didn't need serving (or just belonging to) any formal system by my own will.
While the unconditional free-will love could be lived by an independent person, it can 'never' establish a system which, by design (or definition if you like) has to be based on certain imposed rules, not on the unconditional love, as revealed and lived by Jesus.
Are you speaking of religion or something else?
As it is placed in a 'philosophy of religion' section of a philosophy forum I'd think you mean religion, but I'm not too sure. I could mean governmental systems or possibly social systems (social norms/ constraints/constructs). I can't really tell for sure; thus my question.
You are right. I had to be clearer.
A ruling system is a necessity for the people who look for survival at any cost. It is so because such people form the great majority in any region around the world. And a ruling system gives them the chance to be well-organized and be safe (at least ideally). It also lets them have the proper means to protect themselves against any possible external threat.
In the far past, the rulers around the world knew that asking their peoples to obey them directly wasn't as effective as asking them to obey powerful supernatural beings. So they used claiming they were inspired by certain gods/goddesses (or simply by supernatural spirits) about how to guide their peoples to have a better life, if not a better afterlife as well. This is how the first religions were born on which the ancient ruling systems were based.
But, by design, human's minds evolve with time. And the ancient image of a powerful ruling god and his wrath on those who disobey him lost their past effect gradually in controlling the multitudes. So the notion of a 'ruling' supernatural being (known by any name) had to be substituted with a modern one. Could you guess it? Well, it is 'We, The People'. It is indeed a very clever jump to keep controlling the multitudes without complains.
Therefore, to me in the least, a ruling system is just a ruling system, no matter on which notion it is based... 'Supernatural Beings' or 'The People'. After all, both notions cannot be real (this may be discussed in another topic). But, I have the impression, so I may be wrong, that an atheist, unlike I, doesn't mind believing in the existence of "We, The People".
Did I miss something to add?
Kerim
Saying: "you didn't have a chance" is interesting.
Are all rules wrong or only some of them?
It seems a simple enough question until one gets mixed up with one's own life.
Here's perhaps a strange questions.
Are all ruling systems, be they 'supernatural beings' or 'we the people', religious and their doctrine religious?
Does all of this mean all systems of belief and doctrine are 'supernatural' or 'supernatural substitutions'?
--------
On a side note...
To my understanding an atheist is an individual who answers the question 'does a god or gods exist' with 'no'.
The identity of a person being classified as an atheist can only be asserted until this question has been asked and they have answered it with a 'no', so their identity as an atheist is directly contingent upon this question.
Regarding the foundations upon which one builds a system of believe/worldview...
I'm not too sure if an atheist forms their various worldviews or individual systems of belief according to what it is they don't believe exists, but rather in what they believe exists.
If I 'flip the script' to the question of how does a monotheist form their worldviews and individual systems of belief it might shed some clarity upon the gist of my drift.
I would find it to be somewhat absurd if someone who believes in the existence of a particular god deity and does not believe in the existence of a all other different god deities would go to the effort to create a system of believe founded upon the notion of the not believing in the existence of the god deities, but rather it would make far more sense for them the build the foundation of their belief system in the god deity they actually believe exists.
Regarding a monotheist...
The only difference between the atheist who believes no god deities exist and a monotheist who believes in only one particular god deity is simply that one exception of a god deity that they believe exists. More or less a monotheist makes a single exception that the atheist does not, as the monotheist answers the question do the other gods exist with the same 'no' as an atheist... making them an atheist in respect to the other god deities.
As to a pantheist.. that's a different kettle of fish.
---------------
Sometimes you turn the other cheek, other times you defend. It depends on the situation
By the way, what you mentioned here is indeed what the ordinary people around the world are supposed to believe. So let us see why...
"god is the one who brings order" tells people that their today's worldly ruler (actually a group whose top decision-makers likely work behind their hired politicians) has to be good and trusted because his job is to bring order.
"the devil is the one who brings disorder" tells people that if someone opposes a rule approved by the ruling system has to be evil because he tries to bring disorder.
So both statements above (about god and the devil) help protecting the powerful rich group that rules its people; now in millions, if not about a billion in some countries.
Quoting TheMadFool
If you had time to read the posts of this thread, you would notice that all agreed that, by definition or by design, a real faithful believer of any well-known religion (or religious doctrine) has to obey certain rules and observe certain rituals (said inspired from the god of his religion).
For instance, although Jesus didn't impose any rules (let us agree that if love is imposed by a law it cannot be true love), this doesn't prevent all Christian Churches/Denominations around the world to convince their believers that Jesus also has rules to be obeyed and religious rituals to be observed.
After all, a 'free-will' submission (to another person as in a sexual activity or to a powerful supernatural being during worship) gives a special sensation of extra pleasure. This is why a believer of any religion feels great while worshipping his god. Therefore, an atheist cannot live this sort of extra pleasure, unless he worships someone on earth or he is not interested to live it in the first place as I am :D
Quoting KerimF
Quoting KerimF
Words dripping with wisdom! You've answered your own question.
However, one mustn't forget that religious rules do exist, those that prohibit one from turning to the dark side of the force, so to speak. There are no rules to make you good but there are rules to keep you from becoming bad.
Actually, it is not about good and bad rules. It is instead about the image of my Creator.
To me in the least, my Creator (or, if you like, whatever is behind my temporary existence in this world) has no need to play the role of a worldly needy king who has to look for followers and slaves and limit himself by a certain set of rules that he has to apply on them.
But I also understand that many people don't mind being guided by rules (said of a god or else) so that they avoid the blame if something goes wrong (relative to their morale). For example, killing, while serving a ruling system (religious or political) in war, is an act of heroism if the victim is on the system's black list.
On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, rules are very important in running the material world.
In brief, I am just presenting what I know/discovered about the real world in which I lived for 71 years so far :)
In the end, we each have to decide for ourselves what that requires. If you want to be responsible about what happens in a certain way, you will make sure to be in the place where it comes down.
All today's ruling systems are actually created and run by men (and women if you like).
A ruling system is called religious if the men in charge of it say that the core of its rules was inspired from a certain supernatural being. Otherwise, it is given a worldly title that usually differs from one country to another.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
I am afraid that saying that 'something' exists, or not, leads to nothing if this 'something' is not well defined first.
For example, whatever forced me to exist temporarily in this world cannot be a ruler; otherwise he/it cannot be my maker since we would have nothing in common.
In other words, I personally have no reason to believe in the existence of a ruling god. Am I an atheist? Of course not, because I, being a rational man (and a designer of new products), know for sure that the probability to be/stay alive is very close to zero if the zillion living cells in my body are programmed to act in a random way.
Now let us agree that just believing in science doesn't make someone a scientist. But the prerequisite to be a scientist is to believe in science first.
Similarly, just believing (having faith) in God (even the real one, behind the Creation of our universe) doesn't make someone an all knowledge person (as God). But the prerequisite to get all the knowledge that one may need in his life is to believe that a source of true knowledge does exist (besides his given logic).
So any source that doesn't reveal all what I need to know about life (about my being and the real world) cannot be of my Maker :)
It is better to stop here though it is the first step of what we may call 'Science of Life Reality'.
I defend what? My body and of anyone else will die sooner or later.
On my side, if my love towards all others cannot protect my body, nothing else can. And you may have noticed already that I am no more of this world. So I don't fear the one who was programmed to kill my mortal body but I do fear that I may follow my instincts of survival and return back to join the living things of the world :)
About turning the other cheek, it is a simple, though very effective, hint by which one can discover the deep inner of someone else (the offensive one here). It has another advantage in reality. So I may give later more details about how I use it in my life.(likely on a separate thread).
You remind me what my Muslim friends used telling me about their religion of peace. they were told that if God (Allah, the Arabic word of God) didn't send their Mohammad who prohibited men "from turning to the dark side of the force", people in the world would kill each other. They had no idea that their Islam could be used to build hundreds of groups of well-armed mercenaries (controlled by the powerful rich world's Elite) to attack and destroy many weak countries (I guess your heard of the Arab Spring) while they think they are helping their Allah in spreading his rules (Al-Sharia).
I am afraid that, similarly, almost all religions in the world are also used to serve, in one way or another, the interests of the world's Elite. For example, I think you heard of the believers who used living in many countries around the world and were given, soon after WW2, the right and the means to be gathered, 'at any cost', on what is known as God's Promised Land.
So do you really think now that I better join a religion so that its rules can keep me from becoming bad? :D
Even if one believes that his Creator loves him, it doesn't mean for sure he knows how he is loved, speaking practically. In this case, your statement "any experience of them is the brain being altered or acting abnormally" applies.
It is early morning here and I was here since about midnight.
See you tomorrow.
By the way, technically speaking, if splitting hairs is your thing, no matter how hard you try to break free from the shackles of rules, you will never be able to succeed for that there are no rules is itself a rule. The devil, it seems, is in the details! Good luck!
I'll put the genetic fallacy oh hold for just a bit, but are you stating that all ruling systems are religious?
Quoting KerimF
In what way is the concept of god well defined or not?
Quoting KerimF
If you do not believe a ruling or otherwise interacting god exists you would be an atheist.
It seems as if you wish to claim that humans are the result of intentional design or purpose, if so, how do you defend this position as being fact or simply the given?
If so, you might have to build a case for this particular argument.
Quoting KerimF
Again.. my questions would be...
How do you know there is another world (implied from the statement 'in this world')?
How can you know that IF an agent (a god creator) forced you into existing that you do not have anything in common with that agent?
What if there was no agent (a god creator) to have 'forced you into existence'?
Is that previous question a question you are willing to ask yourself?
It seems you'll need support for these assertions as well.
Quoting KerimF
I would not really agree with the statement as such, as science is not a belief, but rather a tool for investigation. Anyone suggesting that science is a belief doesn't understand science.
One does not 'believe' in science, but rather one applies scientific methodology to test notions. If one applies these methods to something once held as a belief and it proves to not be true, the only thing that is gained is a better understanding of that thing. The process of science works as it takes the human assumption of 'it must be thus and so' or 'it's evident to me, so I don't need evidence' out of the process... it eliminates bias. There is no principle in science that indicates an investigator must be pleased with the outcome or that the science pays any respect to what an individual (including a scientist) believes.
Basically science start with an observation of a phenomena and builds questions to yet be answered. The investigation is founded in empirical evidence and facts; thus eliminates the bias of preferential notions of faith where a claim of 'it's evidence to me' have no place. The answers may not be the one's one prefers and quite often lead one to simply asking even more and hopefully better questions.
Religious faith doesn't work in the same manner, but rather starts with the central answer, then subsequently builds questions in respect to that central answer that need not be supported by any empirical evidence or facts, but it is supported by a religious faith... what one has in the absence of evidence or fact. In this case the claim of 'it's evident to me' will be able to replace and dismiss any and all evidence or facts that would be contrary to the notion of faith.
Indeed religion is a belief (not contingent upon empirical evidence or facts... as faith is enough), but science (completely contingent upon empirical evidence and facts... as faith is a bias) clearly isn't.
Please note, I didn't say (never said) I am not ready to observe the rules of Caesar (of the powerful ruling systems, religious and political, that control the people among whom I live).
I hope it is clear now.
On my side, I am sure of everything I say. But, as I mentioned on one of my earlier posts, what is real and useful to me may not be so to most people in the world. if not all humans :)
And if I ask questions sometimes, I do it to just hear what some readers may have in mind about certain subjects; I mean without any intention to change one's mind in any way. In fact, to me in the least, imposing just an idea or even 'help' on a mature person (against his will) is an evil act (opposite of love).
So I fully agree with you... "In the end, we each have to decide for ourselves what that requires."
Surely not all of them, didn't you hear yet of ruling systems in which the men in charge of them say that their rules are inspired by "We, The People" :)
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Thank you for pointing out this statement/criteria because since long I liked hearing it from someone.
All Atheists. I had the chance to meet and talk to, used skipping this point and kept repeating... god doesn't exist... god doesn't exist... Actually, in their subconscious, they say... a 'ruling' god doesn't exist but after omitting the word 'ruling' which was obvious to them because to ALL religions, they heard of, god has to be a ruler.
You may wonder now about the reason for which humans are created and given the ability to perceive things beyond their physical sensors. I leave it for another thread whose title will be something like:
"What do you think about the main/end purpose of your existence?"
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
I don't claim anything, I just say how I am made. And my being (its various action/reaction rules that define it) is the 'best fact' on which my knowledge (the set of 'my' logical useful ideas) can be based.
This applies on science too. For example, every time I discovered a novel solution in electronics, I just took advantage of it in my own projects; without waiting any elite scientist in the world to approve that my solution is real and useful.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Good question. You may like reading my first post in this forum.
The last post on the thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9374/afterlife-ideas
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
It seems you didn't notice that I was talking about a 'specific' character (or whatever the English word is instead of 'character') which is 'being a ruler'. In this respect, I have nothing in common with what defines a ruler... god or man.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
It seems you didn't meet yet people who don't believe in science as a tool they need in their life. I knew many of them. They managed to live normally without using scientific knowledge; excluding 1+1=2 :)
On the other hand, when I was a kid, I believed that the 'abstract non-sense' math problems (as seen by some students) will help me discover/build many new things by myself. So I didn't let even one problem, I heard of at that time, without solving it (I used doing this just for myself, not for the exams).
But, I also understand that learning science could be imposed on kids by their parents and school teachers. Naturally, such kids didn't need to believe in the usefulness of 'learning' science. So what will happen to them later with what they learnt (as science) depends on many factors.
To be continued...
The best thing man can do is to discover what it was unknown; though it has existed since the beginning of times. So you are totally right.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
This is another reason for which I had no interest, at all, in joining any religion or doctrine. It happens that I am a man of reason... not faith. So every idea I add/include in my set of knowledge has to be coherent with all previous ones in it which are based on the same empirical logic.
But let us recall that the main object in our life is our being (starting from our human living flesh). Although most people insist that human beings are made alike, your being and mine are actually different; in some respect in the least. So when I test my being and analyse how its inputs affect (or are related to) its outputs (the inner and external ones), I don't expect getting the same results that someone else gets in the same condition(s). Naturally, I believe in the results, I personally got, only though this doesn't prevent me to accept/understand anyone else as he/she is.
Now you know that my set of knowledge couldn't be seen as religious since it is not based on faith. And it cannot be seen as scientific either because it is about ideas that are real and useful to me only; perhaps it is so to a few persons too... though I didn't meet any of them... yet :)
Rules and free-will can't coexist. Either one precludes/negates the other.
To be honest, I can't really follow what it is your attempting to communicate.
The key point in my concept of Deism, is that it is an individual understanding of the world, not a collective belief system. As personal Beliefs are merged into group Faiths, some kind of imposed structure is necessary to hold differences of opinion together. That structure is both the strength of Religion and its weakness. Religious doctrines, over time, tend to fossilize into rigid dogmas. But Deists remain free to change their opinions as their personal experience matures.
The weakness of Deism is that each believer stands alone in his private belief system. That's why many Deists eventually seek to bind themselves into a communal faith system : a religion. When they do, they give-up some of their personal freewill, in exchange for collective security and stability. In small groups, the trade-off may be worthwhile. But as the collective expands its numbers, as in armies and global religions, each person becomes a robot bound to a central command center : like the Borg of Star Trek. :smile:
Religion : from latin re- (back), and -ligare (to bind)
PS__Armies are bound to earthly commanders, but Religions tend to "pass the buck" of responsibility up to an un-earthly commander. Unfortunately, the chain of command still flows through fallible humans down to the individual. Hence, your faith must be applied to each link in the chain. And Faith's weakness is at the weakest link in the revelation from above.
I am afraid that it does exist, in my life in the least.
When I was rather young, I had to join the military service for about 2 years. Being an engineer, I do it as an officer though of the lowest rank.
In the first training session on guns, I refused holding one.
They: "You have to know how to use a gun. This helps you defend yourself in case you will be attacked by an enemy".
Me: "But I have no enemies in my life"
They: "You may not have enemies now, but your country may be attacked by enemies anytime".
Me: "Please, what do enemies mean, in your opinion?"
They: "Our enemies are those who will impose their will on us".
Me: "Don't you mean they will do as you are doing to me now?”
They laughed while going away... and I wasn't asked anymore to attend such training.
By the way, my occupation in that period of time was teaching electronics in a military academy.
I personally believe (base on my experiences and observations) that no one can change the mind of another 'mature' person (I may add that one cannot change even his own deep nature... this is a crucial topic by itself). Therefore, the best thing that wise persons can do in a forum is to share their different knowledge in friendly ways. I guess, this what we are doing here. And this is just my first introductory thread :)
:lol: Fantabulous!
Surely they can. Just because you are following rules doesn't mean you do not have free will. You are using your free will to follow the rules. Otherwise how are you following the rules?
As, in many other languages, a word may sound differently in different writings.
Here, I mean by rules, the ones which are imposed on others, and in the name of justice, the one who disobeys them deserves a certain punishment.
But you may be right in what you said (concerning rules and free-will), if the God, you are referring to, doesn't need to punish, in any way, those who disobey his will (his rules that are confirmed and approved by the men in charge if his religion).
Here, I mean by rules, the ones which are imposed on others, and in the name of justice, the one who disobeys them deserves a certain punishment".
Surely KerimF you cannot "impose" rules on anyone as they have the free will to ignore them. The actions will create a reaction and a consequence which seems the whole point of our existential lives. That doesn't mean you can "force" anyone to do anything though. You have the free will to end your life so rules are irrelevant. To impose rules you will need the ability to direct a person's free will which is the real issue which surely makes free will a key factor and so necessary and perhaps the reason for its existence.
While you see 'standing in one's private belief system' a weakness, I don't :)
Even as a scientist (designer in electronics), discovering a new solution (not known or not approved yet) doesn't let me feel weak anytime I apply it on my own projects (to lower their cost or increase their reliability/usefulness).
By the way, I am glad that I am not alone in what I know and have discovered (thru many decades) concerning my deep being/existence and the world's reality to which I am brought.
To my big surprise, Jesus (I assume you heard of him) knew already all what I know!!!
But please note that I can't say I am Christian because a Christian in any Church/Denomination around the world is supposed to listen to his Church's teachings, not to Jesus ones (on the Gospel) in case they are different or opposite.
In other words, thanks to Jesus, I discovered that I am not alone in what I know (in what I believe, if you like) so I have no reason to see myself a weird or abnormal person even if all humans in the world follow different paths from mine.
I got your point and it sounds good, speaking ideals.
As you know, in the material world, where there are rules (orders... commands... etc.) there are rewards and punishments. And when they are applied on certain subjects, they form what is known as Justice (usually not the same in different regions).
But, in your opinion, does the intelligent energy behind the existence of our huge universe have a reason to also apply such worldly justice on one of its tiny created species (called the human race), living on a tiny planet, Earth? Thank you.
idea of free will. Free will is just that, free will.
The irony of rules is that without them there would be no "sinning" as without those rules we would be unaware that we were breaking any rules. A tiger is unaware when he kills a human being that it is wrong to do so as he is unaware of any rules telling him it is .He is simply hungry and a human being is food. The rules are designed to steer the free will toward the rules intended direction and as you know there are so many people in prisons that have used their free will to ignore them.
Free will creates as many problems as it solves and logically you have to wonder why.
Twice, I was in China for business. Most Chinese, I met, are atheist. And they didn't need to believe in a certain ruling god to tell them what is good and bad for them. Also, I was real surprised for seeing them much more loving and open-minded people than almost all formal Christians I knew or met.
By the way, a human being has, at best, 'one free-will’ only. It is the choice between living the unconditional love/care towards all others (friends, strangers and enemies) or be guided by his natural instincts of survival that start from applying/following a certain man-made justice.
Any other reaction, seen as a free-will act, is actually a 'conditional jump’ instruction in a rather very complex program which is embedded already in every living thing, including the human being... by the maker.
So more knowledge of the common program embedded in humans, a better control of 'The People' could be achieved... naturally such knowledge is crucial in politics and to the religious leaders as well :)
Unfortunately, I learned the hard way, that the Gospels are not the words of Jesus, but a compilation of ancient writings from various anonymous sources, edited and redacted by the Imperial Roman Church in order to reconcile the incompatible beliefs of Jesus' followers throughout the empire.
So, although I appreciate some of the teachings of Jesus, I can't accept the Catholic Bible as the genuine and authoritative Word of God. Hence, I no longer call myself a Christian. Nevertheless, as a Deist I still can't deny that the world shows evidence of being suddenly created from who knows what, when, or where. So, I'm not exactly godless. But the only book written by my G*D is the natural world "in which we live, move, and have our being". (Acts 17:28) :smile:
As an engineer in data communications (besides other fields in electronics), I know that if certain data is transmitted thru a channel (here, Jesus sayings thru too many generations), the receiver needs to apply various filtering, and even correcting, logical algorithms on whatever it receives. Its final output, then, could reflect, to a good extent, the useful information that was transmitted; for example, in reproducing an acceptable video image on a monitor or a comprehensive sound of a human voice (if not a pleasant piece of music) on a speaker.
I personally was never interested in analysing words separately. Instead, I focus on the ideas they may referring to.
So after filtering the Gospel, the one I have in the least and concerning Jesus sayings and life only, I discovered that Jesus didn't bring the world a new magic (believe/repent ==> one is saved). He simply revealed, to me in the least, what I may call the 'Science of Life Reality'. After all, what do I need from my Creator? I personally need his help to let me get the logical answers to ALL my crucial and important questions related to my own existence and the world as it is in reality.
Truth be said, if I couldn't learn from Jesus (after filtering the Gospel first) the 'relative perfect' knowledge I was looking for, I would see him just another character made famous by men, for one reason or another.
Naturally, my life is rather boring now since I have no more important questions (even just one) that I don't have their logical answers which are related to my being which is my main object under test and analysis. But, fortunately, to gain my daily bread I still need to think to find out how to design new products and update my previous ones :)
A system without rules!
Not any system but one that's a religion!
While the thought of the Egyptian god of chaos, Set, did cross my mind, something less obvious (to me) grabbed my attention. What exactly? You might ask. Well, don't get fooled by looking for one religion, instead take a step back and look at the entire landscape that is religion and we see, much to my dismay, Buddhism here, Islam there, Christianity at one location, Judaism at another, the same goes for all religions dead or alive, big or small.
Then take note of the fact that all these religions, at some point, contradict each other. For instance, Hinduism says many gods while Abrahamic faiths pray to one; Buddhism and Hinduism has reincarnation, other religions don't; Pork is forbidden in Islam (and Judaism?) and beef is a big no-no in Hinduism.
It appears that for every rule that either mandates/prohibits an act in one religion, there's another rule that does the exact opposite in another religion. If we take all religions together, under one banner, as so many with nothing but good intentions have attempted to do, I'm afraid they'll cancel each other out and we'll be left with nothing! Exactly what you're looking for.
Let us take a step back and see for which end purpose/goal all these 'formal' religions were created and supported by powerful rich men (and women, if you like).
Isn't it to control their ordinary/working masses in the name of a powerful supernatural king while protecting themselves?
But, as everything evolves with time, this mass control is also achieved successfully, in these days, in the name of 'We, The People'... that may exist, as an entity, in one's imagination only... and in movies.
Therefore, the prerequisite of every formal religion is presenting a list of rules to be followed by the believers in order to please this supernatural king and avoid his wrath in this life and afterlife :)
And although Jesus (on the today's Gospel) focuses solely on a sort of love that cannot be imposed (for being based on one's will only; otherwise it would be called anything but the true love that contradicts the human's instincts of survival, hence any man-made law as well), this didn't prevent the creation of many 'formal' systems in his name. For example, while Jesus shows clearly that the best way to pray, when necessary, is when it is done in private, it is usually claimed that if a Christian doesn't attend certain rituals of worship (as the Sunday Mass), he commits a sin against God! (By the way, in certain hard situations, even an atheist follows this advice of Jesus and asks others to leave him alone for a while :) )
This was just an example of many ones that the men in charge of any Christian Church/Denomination in the world try their best to ignore them. But, truth be said, they have no choice but to ignore cleverly many sayings/teaching/hints of Jesus, while addressing their followers, in order not to lose their donations :)
Are you familiar with the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the United States, and a Deist. He distilled his own copy of the New Testament down into a small book, he called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. :smile:
Jefferson Bible : "In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson
By curiosity, I will read his book.
From what is explained on Wikipedia, Jefferson seems to see in Jesus a source that represents the (best) morale. But I ended up seeing Jesus the source of perfect knowledge (Science of Life Reality), that defines my own existence in the least, besides the real world in which I have to live for a certain period of time.
Although I am 71, I didn't write any book about this. I am a bad writer (in any language) due to lack of reading other's literary works and being busy always in working with numbers, symbols, equations and various scientific problems (related mainly to electronics).
So if, I say if :), I will be able to write someday my filtered Gospel, I will certainly present, with it and in details, all the natural truths that Jesus, unlike any other man throughout history, has revealed clearly (though in simple ways) and had the chance to reach me, even after 2000 years, despite most people in the world (past and new generations) are supposed to follow their instincts of survival only and have, therefore, no interest to learn anything else.
Yes, even in science, what could be, in your opinion, the percentage of people on earth who really need learning advanced math? I doubt it exceeds 1% (if not much less). Does this mean that the knowledge of advanced math is superfluous and should be disregarded?
Unlike some philosophers, I don't think it's my duty to undermine the faith of other people. But since you noted that you are not well-read in literary works, I don't think you should say that Jesus' "revelations" are "unlike any other man throughout history". Instead, they are simply "natural truths".
I agree that Jesus taught some good lessons to his followers. But much of what is recorded in the Sermon on the Mount, for example, came from ancient Jewish Wisdom Literature, such as those collected by the Essenes, a sort of reclusive monastic order. Parts of their collection have been discovered in modern times, and labeled the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course a lot of imaginative speculation has filled-in the gaps in their secretive history. But, due to some parallels between their beliefs, and those of Jesus, several scholars guess that Jesus may have studied with them, during the "lost years" between the ages of 12 and 33. I don't know if that is true, but it's clear that most of Jesus' moral & escatological teachings can be found in the ancient literature of the Israelites and Jews.
I won't belabor that point, but the essence of Jesus' moral teachings is the Golden Rule, which is also characteristic of moral instructions of many cultural traditions. So, I don't think Jesus was unique in his analysis of human immorality and suffering. And his promise that the kingdom of heaven would come "soon", to bring an end to the suffering of the Jews, has still not been fulfilled 20 centuries later. So, I wouldn't believe everything you read in Christian Literature. :smile:
The Golden Rule : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
From what you say, it seems, in your knowledge, it is possible that someone, other than Jesus, said clearly that a rich man cannot, even if he wants to, be honest and sincere before the multitudes. This is a real fact because if a rich man (a real rich one who is approved by the powerful rich group that rules his region) reveals one or more of the hidden truths (he knows) he would affect badly the interests of his rich colleagues (if not his own interests as well). If he does it, he likely risks his life, if not much worse.
I am all ears always, to hear about someone who could be seen as an equivalent to Jesus as the teacher of 'Life Reality'.
About the Golden Rule, does any religion/culture, you heard of, precede it with what Jesus said?
The greatest first advice of Jesus that is addressed to humans as individuals not as groups, is about LOVING (not obeying, glorifying or worshiping) the Creator (the intelligent energy/will behind the existence of our universe). In reality, one has a very little chance to live the Golden Rule (the 2nd advice of Jesus) if he couldn't get first how one can love his maker without the need of obeying, glorifying and worshiping.
In brief, since many may say that what I will say is off topic:
The acts of obeying, glorifying and worshiping are one-way
Love is bi-way.
Just to be sure I got what you said.
A totally independent person who doesn't join any other believers in their religious gatherings (usually known as rituals) could also be seen as a real Buddhist, Taoist, Sufi or Advaitan.
Quoting FrancisRay
Indeed, Jesus gave me many simple but effective hints to help me discover other's natures. These hints work if someone has no intention to judge others or ask to apply on them any man-made justice.
But as you said, such teachings are not suitable, at all, to run any formal Christian Church or Denomination :)
"A totally independent person who doesn't join any other believers in their religious gatherings (usually known as rituals) could also be seen as a real Buddhist, Taoist, Sufi or Advaitan."
Those who attend such communal rituals on a regular basis are unlikely to be serious practitioners, who usually have better things to do. I think perhaps you are not a student of comparative religion. Communal gatherings and rituals are not necessary for a truth-seeker and if we are not this then we are not a Buddhist or Taoist. . .
You may have missed my point about sin and guilt,and I feel it it is a vital one for anyone interested in religion. It is not just that we should not judge anyone sinful, says Jesus, but that there is no such thing as sin and no need for guilt. He say this in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and in 'A Course in Miracles'.
In my opinion such teaching are eminently suitable and vitally-needed at this time in the Christian Church. It angers me that the Chrch so misleads people.and brings discredit on all of religion in the process. . . .
You are right. But do you have a clear idea of what kind of truths in such religions (or whatever they are called) a truth-seeker may be interested to know?
Quoting FrancisRay
On one hand, those who have/perceive a human living flesh only to take care of, at any cost, they are, by design, free to do whatever they like, without feeling any sort of guilt/fear as long what they do is hidden.
On the other hand, the prerequisite for someone (who has also a living soul) to be able feeding his soul with a permanent joy by living the unconditional love towards all others, is discovering the world as it is taking into consideration that the nature of every human is somehow unique. Since it is usual that most people in the world present themselves behind various masks (not for coronavirus :) ) Jesus gives the necessary hints to discover other's deep inners/natures, no matter how clever they are in wearing their masks :)
The generic method is Yoga, the meaning of which is union. The goal is union with reality and thus knowledge of the true nature of reality and the transcendence of life and death. The goal is that 'I and the Father are One'. For mysticism Jesus is a son of God, not 'the' son.
I would say it is not possible to 'discover other's deeper nature' without discovering your own. which is Yoga. This is the 'classical' Christianity of the early church. . . . . . , . . , ,
I can agree with you on all what you said excluding Yoga on which I have no idea (I just heard of it in movies :) )
It took me 30 years to stop seeing the world the way I like it to be, and start discovering it as it is in reality (on the ground, far from the great speeches). Of course, I did it after analysing carefully (methodically) the nature of my own being.
Since you mentioned it, I also knew how to be one with my Father in Heaven, as Jesus and the Father are one too. It is somehow like two independent persons who are seen as if they were One being having One will and power by 'any outsider' if they are real friends (unified by the spirit of friendship).
Similarly, the divine Spirit of Love, known as the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost, unifies, in the spiritual realm, two independent beings if they want to.
This explains why the perception of the Holy Spirit is the crucial prerequisite to learn anything from Jesus message that describes 'Life Reality'. After all, Jesus message has no value to those who have a human living flesh only to take of (their instincts of survival can guide them instead).
Thank you for the invitation. But I may not be able to watch the video... let me say for technical reasons.