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'.

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

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).

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

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.

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!

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. — KerimF

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

I am afraid that saying that 'something' exists, or not, leads to nothing if this 'something' is not well defined first. — KerimF

In what way is the concept of god well defined or not?

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

Now let us agree that just believing in science doesn't make someone a scientist. — 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.

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 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."

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...

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 :)

long the rule doesn't contradict my unconditional free-will love/care towards all others; friends, strangers and enemies. — KerimF

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.

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). — KerimF

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.

Not sure of spelling, but try wiki-ing Cathcar.

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.

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 :)

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. — KerimF

:lol: Fantabulous!

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.

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

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?

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).

KerimF : "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".

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.

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.

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 whole concept of justice/rules/regulations is a human one created by free will. If there were no free will then there would be no need for rules and regulations. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant to the
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.

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 :)

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. — KerimF

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:

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 :)

@KerimF A religion without rules!

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 :)