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 :)

So, if god exists and he's the one behind all creation in general, evolution in particular, and if his preferred method is trial and error, it must be that good is not a genius who understands the ins and outs of creation and life but is actually a simpleton as herein defined. — TheMadFool

By the way, if the process of 'trial and error' doesn't belong to a very intelligent algorithm(s), I personally wouldn't be one of the fruits (humans), even after zillions of years of evolution on earth (if not the first living cells on earth came from somewhere in outer space).
Now 'trial and error' is used in what is known as 'Artificial Intelligence'. And I personally use it in some products I design.

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. — Gnomon

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 :)

The irony of rules is that without them there would be no "sinning" — david plumb

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 :)

Sorry for the interruption.
I wonder how many people (mainly the old ones) around the world realized that a leader, a president, a prince or a king is just the official speaker of a certain powerful rich Elite who helped him (I try avoiding saying the truth by saying... hired him :) ) to play these symbolic highest positions before 'The People'.

So one has to admit that D. Trump played so well his given role (better than his precedents and the greatest actors at Hollywood did) to the point almost all people (right, left.. etc..), if not all, were fully convinced that he is a real top decision-maker and not just another official speaker (just a great talented actor behind whom there are... sorry I don't like talking politics).

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. — david plumb

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.

The weakness of Deism is that each believer stands alone in his private belief system. — Gnomon

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.

These rules and regulations are in place to enable people to use their free will to do God's will. You have the free will to ignore them, of course. Can't help thinking that all this free will will result in the same conclusion as it would were we all to follow the rules and regulations , it will just take longer and be more painful. The end has already been set and all the actions, reactions etc will see the same consequential conclusion, eventually. — david plumb

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).

Well said, if we presume that the today's human beings are all made of the same structure, hence having somehow the same priorities in life in order to satisfy it (their being... their structure).

Typically, a new comer to life likes believing that all other humans are made like him. So he tries his best to find out the logical reasons for which other's beliefs sound different from his, if not opposite
I lived this state of confusion till age 30 :( Then, I realized that I had seeing/discovering the world as it is and not as I like it to be. By following this path, my knowledge started to be realistic and now, no one surprises me including my dear atheists and formal theists.

I guess, if I understood well what free elections mean, the best American persons who are chosen by 'The People' in America so far are Biden and Trump. Good luck to all.

What is 'true' love? — schopenhauer1

Very good question indeed.
But I am afraid that if someone cannot perceive it by himself, he has no choice but seeing it as fiction and what I said about it and evil would sound to him as non-sense.

Therefore, God doesn’t exist. — Isabel Hu

Actually, a 'ruling' God doesn't exist :)

Otherwise, such god would look as a needy worldly king who has no choice but looking to have followers and slaves and limiting himself by a law which he should apply on them.

I am sure I didn't made myself, therefore I am created, but surely I am not created by a supernatural needy master... a ruling god.

About evil, I explained it already.

Actually, when and where 'true' love is supposed to exist but fails to do, we may say evil replaces it.
Similarly, scientists define the notion of 'hole' in electricity. It replaces an electron during its move (electric current). — KerimF

Actually, when and where 'true' love is supposed to exist but fails to do, we may say evil replaces it.
Similarly, scientists define the notion of 'hole' in electricity. It replaces an electron during its move (electric current).

To be honest, I can't really follow what it is your attempting to communicate — Mayor of Simpleton

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 :)

Rules and free-will can't coexist. Either one precludes/negates the other. — TheMadFool

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.

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. — Mayor of Simpleton

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.

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. — 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 :)

I'll put the genetic fallacy oh hold for just a bit, but are you stating that all ruling systems are religious? — Mayor of Simpleton

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" :)

If you do not believe a ruling or otherwise interacting god exists you would be an atheist. — 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?"

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? — 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.

How do you know there is another world (implied from the statement 'in this world')? — 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

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? — 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.

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. — 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...

I am not sure how the agency of a Creator relates to the list of what is permitted. Since you are asking similar questions, maybe you are not sure either.
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. — Valentinus

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."

Firstly, I didn't offer you religion as a route to goodness. Quite the opposite, I only reminded you of the devil - veritably a religious figure albeit if only as an adversary - to show you that there's ample room in religion for what it is that you seek, a state of complete freedom from any and all rules.

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! — TheMadFool

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 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. — KerimF

I hope it is clear now.

I don't think there are are any spiritual entities that love us. Any experience of them is the brain being altered or acting abnormally — Gregory

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.

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. — TheMadFool

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

Sometimes you turn the other cheek, other times you defend. It depends on the situation — Gregory

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).

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'? — Mayor of Simpleton

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.

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. — 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'.

Are all rules wrong or only some of them? — Valentinus

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 :)

To my reckoning, all religions share the same theme - there's a benevolent being looking out for us - we call this being god - and in direct conflict with such a being is an adversary - the devil. In all cases of such pairing of opposites, god is the one who brings order and the devil is the one who brings disorder, and disorder is a state when there are no rules. — TheMadFool

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.

In short, if you're looking for a religion with lawlessness as part of its central doctrine, you don't need to try too hard. — 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

Are you speaking of religion or something else? — Mayor of Simpleton

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

I take it you mean 'yes' — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes :)

So, have you replaced these established systems with one of your own or do you simply have no system whatsoever? — 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.

Is it possible to believe in god(s) without a religion or doctrine being involved? — Mayor of Simpleton

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:

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. — 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.

Thank you for pointing out these two verses Luke 3:14 and Luke 22:36

So Jesus was fine with being a soldier. — 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.

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 — 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.

...and the one where Jesus said he has come to "bring violence" among families and nations — 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.

Have you had some experiences? Did you talk about them? — unenlightened

[1]

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. — KerimF

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]

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; — KerimF

I added this experience to explain the reason for which I add 'religious doctrine' as equivalent to 'religion'.

[3]

I personally didn't find any of such rules (on the Gospel I have; a Catholic Arabic Gospel, printed in 1967). — KerimF

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]

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. — KerimF

Is it preaching or reality?

[5]

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). — KerimF

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 :)

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. — unenlightened

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.

You can't strictly follow nothing without following something, even if that something is to strictly follow nothing. Interesting I suppose — Outlander

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.

Thelema — unenlightened

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.

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? — Mayor of Simpleton

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.

Let’s describe the world we live in as best as we can. — bizso09

I guess you mean 'Let us discover the world we live in as best as we can'.

In this case, the most important thing, to me, to discover was my own nature/being; that is discovering the natural rules that define how its outputs (in my inner and to my environment) are related to its inputs (from my environment).

Meanwhile, I tried my best to discover the natural rules that define the nature of every person, I knew or met, (starting from his/her priorities in life since every person is unique) and the few objects in the world in which I am interested (scientific studies).

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. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, indeed.

; however, I might add that a Person cannot be fundamental, for any system has to have parts—which would have to be more fundamental. — PoeticUniverse

Sorry, I couldn't get your point, speaking practically.

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.

Hello,

Couldn't we conclude that a useful true idea (based on one's logic and experience) is 'relative' to the person who was seeking it? I mean; it doesn't need to be so for all other humans.

In fact, I used noticing that while the ideas with which I have built my set of knowledge with time (for about 55 years) are real useful to me, most of them are not necessarily so to others.

By the way, in my philosophy, while there is an absolute set of truths that defines our universe and life, a human being needs to discover just a 'subset' of it to reach his 'relative perfect' knowledge; all ideas and answers that he really needs to know.

Kerim

Hello,
I am new here.
I am 71 and it happens that I am a rational man whenever I looked for logical answers (scientific or spiritual) about my being and the world in which I was brought/forced to exist for a certain period of time. I used also the verb ‘forced’ because, to me in the least, the start of my temporary existence has nothing to do with what I may call ‘my will’.

Therefore, one of my crucial questions which I had to find out their answers at the beginning of my life (I mean, soon after being a teenager) was:
“What could happen to me after the death of my living body?”
Fortunately, I had the chance to get its best logical answer. This helped me continue my life in a rather stable balanced way.

Since English is my 3rd language, after French and Arabic, I hope I will succeed, while using my narrow English vocabulary, presenting here what I have in mind about death, 'my' death in the least.

]1] Naturally, the first idea, I had, is that when I will die, my dead body will lose all contacts with ‘time and space’ that define the world/universe in which my living body existed. I will also lose my personal will as well.

[2] Also I used hearing that for a human being to know what will happen to him in the afterlife, he has to die first!

[3] But, based on [1] above, I asked myself: “Didn’t I live the state of being dead?”
I mean; being in a state in which there is a total lack of time/space perception besides losing my will.
This happens, to me in the least, every time I am in a deep sleep.
In other words, if my body dies while being in this state it wouldn’t see any difference.

[4] The obvious next step was the analysis of what happens to me after being in a deep sleep.
I noticed that, sometimes, I find myself existing in what I may call ‘a dream realm’.

[5] And I am brought to live into this realm, also without my will and without knowing exactly how and when my existence in it started.

[6] While I am in this realm, I have the impression as if I really live; till I find out after wake up that it was just a dream.

[7] I also noticed that my dream life reflects, to a great extent, my life in the time/space realm.

[8] After every deep sleep, my living body is programmed to return me back into the time/space realm; till it needs to sleep again.

Conclusion:
{A} To me in the least, whoever or whatever programmed my living body to let me exist (be conscious) in both realms; the time/space and dream ones, is able to let ‘me’ exist in one of them only.
Please note that while I am sure of what I am talking about (being a designer myself), this doesn’t imply that you, the reader, agree on this.

{B} If I will, beyond my will as usual, be born and live in the dream realm after death, my dead body won’t be able to wake up and stop it.

{C} Based on [7] above, the dream realm would be ‘null’ if the person in question didn’t exist/live in the time/space realm first.

{D} Also based on [7], I try my best to live in a way that lets my dreams be as peaceful and joyful as possible. So I have had no reason, at all, to hate, judge or even blame seriously anyone I may meet or know. I even love those who are programmed to play my enemies so that I see them too as friends in my actual dreams and in the possible eternal one... Meanwhile, I missed having nightmares (which I had some when I was a kid due to lack of knowledge).

Wish you all having happy dreams.

Kerim