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

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.

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

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.

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.

By religion do you mean:

- 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.

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

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema

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.

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.

I am afraid — KerimF

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, do you mean talking about my experiences in life is preaching? — KerimF

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

By the way, do you know any heavenly rule to be obeyed (as in the army) that Jesus, in person, mentioned in his teachings? — KerimF

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

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 :)

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.

Let me put it another way.

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

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.

I am a live example — KerimF

I take it you mean 'yes'.

I personally doesn't trust any ruling system... — 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'.

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.

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. — KerimF

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

---------------

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? — KerimF

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

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

Jesus didn't impose any rules — KerimF

free-will — KerimF

if love is imposed by a law it cannot be true love — 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.

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 :)

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.