I would argue that had Jesus not resurrected I do not think his teachings would have had as much bearing as they did. — Josh Vasquez

I totally agree with you on this. Jesus body's resurrection was very important, at that time, as all other miracles were as well.

Naturally, the multitudes (as groups of people, not as individuals) are interested in listening to rich and/or powerful persons only; usually via their official speakers and the like.

On the other hand, a real rich person cannot survive for long if he is not protected by a powerful group (usually the ruling group of a region/country). In exchange, he has to serve this group in one way or another. In other words, he cannot be real sincere every time he addresses the masses openly; unless he risks losing all his legitimate privileges (provided to him by the law, made/supervised by the ruling group) if not much worse (even worse than death). And Jesus is clear concerning this natural fact... the rich man of {Matthew 19:24}.

So, to be real free and independent, Jesus, who knows already this natural rule/fact above, incarnated as an ordinary human. And being all-knowledge, He knew how to attract the attention of his audience by various miracles. Naturally, his most important miracle was his body's resurrection, as you detailed on your reply.

The main purpose of Jesus miracles and the ones of the first apostles/disciples was just to spread Jesus teachings in the world. It was a very hard task. The essence of Jesus message contradicts the essence of any imposed law, said of man or God. Yes, good Jews and good Muslims, for example, are supposed to obey God (Moses' God and Allah respectively)... they are not supposed to love God :) Obeying is not Loving. Obedience is unidirectional (a slave/follower obeys a master) while Love is bidirectional. In other words, a faithful obedient slave and his master can never be unified while two beings (here, spiritual ones) can be unified by Love.

Now, as a pointed out on a previous post, these miracles are no more important since Jesus sayings/teachings could be accessed by almost anyone in the world. On the other hand, the world lives now (and to the end of time) a living miracle; the resurrection of Jesus message.

Yes, while all formal systems (religious or political) around the world don't allow preaching OPENLY (via satellites for example) many Jesus teachings 'as clear as He did', no one of them dares considering the printing of the Gospel (as hard copies or eBooks) as a crime that deserves punishment. — KerimF

Also I can humiliate and destroy almost anyone in debate — GodlessGirl

I pity your victims :)

Being a rational man, I personally don't argue or debate anymore. The reason is simple. In my rather long life, I didn't have the chance to meet even one person (a serious mature one) who has real doubts in whatever he ended up believing as being true, real and/or useful to him.
Don't you see this common beauty in human nature?

But this doesn't prevent people to argue and debate, for a certain reason, if not reasons. They are usually young people (I was one of them :) ) who see the world as they like it to be and not as it is in reality.

By the way, I met many men who don't mind following a philosopher if she is beautiful and hottt :)

Wish you a long happy life.

I just posted an interesting story that I think you will enjoy. Follow this link if you would like to read it. A Letter to My Sisters — Mapping the Medium

It is an interesting story indeed and thank you for sharing it.

Your story reminded me what I posted, in this philosophical forum, about death and afterlife too.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571
It was one of my first crucial questions which I had to find out its best logical answer, about 50 years ago.

Kerim

Thank you for pointing out 'nominalism' and 'Synechism'. They seem as two opposing extremes in defining our existence.

On my side, I had to discover first the main characteristics of the being that was given to me in order to exist in the time/space realm (our universe). I did it by finding out the action/reaction rules, as many as possible, that define my being (as I test any unknown device if I like to use it in a new design... in electronics). My main goal in doing this was to know the 'end purpose' for which I was brought into this temporarily life. My next step was to discover the real world in which I have to live.

Now. I am 71. It happens that I have no more important questions about my existence (or the existence, if you like) whose logical answers are unknown to me :( But, I am fortunate that my brain still need to think about how to design and update the products which I produce and sell (for the local consumers).

All coherent ideas/truths (based on my personal observations/tests and logical reasoning/analyses) by which I built my set of knowledge may be seen as 'science of life reality'.
It happens that one person only, throughout history, knew already whatever I discovered about my being and the world!
Anyway, by walking under the light of knowledge, I have no reason to be confused or afraid in any situation I may live (even death/afterlife is no more a mystery to me :) ).

I am not a believer because I don't accept an idea based on faith.
I am not a philosopher because I never had the intention to write books on what I know or convince anyone about anything.
It happens that I am just a rational man... an independent realistic spiritual thinker :)

May your dreams become real.

I will bow out of this one. Best to you :) — Mapping the Medium

I had a look on your profile. I wonder if in your various long studies you ended up realising, as I did, that:

If someone cannot trust himself (his mind, his heart and his soul) more than anyone else, he has no choice but to be a shadow of someone else.

Wish you good luck in your discussions.

Hi All,
There wasn’t a real war in Iraq in year 2003.

Iraq (people, army and natural resources) was simply sold to the World’s Elite. But it had to be prepared first for about 2 decades (economical sanctions against the Iraqi people and 10-year war with Iran) before its delivery.

The seller was presented as being the cruellest tyrant in human history who was even threatening the entire world, starting from USA. Obviously, the world couldn’t hear of such ridiculous character if the world’s media, everywhere, is not well controlled by the buyers.
In year 2003, we all heard that the American army had to invade Iraq to save its people from their TYRANT. The main mission of the American troops, at that time, was to capture this tyrant, so that he could be judged and condemned to death for being a cruel killer who had no mercy at all towards his powerless victims.

Then a miracle happened. A few days before the arrival of the well-armed Americans who were asking for his head, this tyrant, the anti-America number 1, became a true loving Christian. He decided to ‘Love His Enemies’. Yes, he didn’t take the American civilians (he had in Iraq) as hostages and let them reside in his various buildings which were supposed to be targeted by their army (as any newbie terrorist does). It happened that his heart became very sensitive, all of a sudden. So, he did his best to let them all return home back 'sane and safe'. His heart couldn’t see the heads of these innocent Americans be blown by their own bombs and missiles. After all, these hi-tech missiles were sent to blow his head and of the Iraqi people only.

Don’t you see? Even in our days, a clear miracle did happen :)
But, it may not be so to those who knows that all stories which were made and spread worldwide about Iraq (to justify its invasion and destruction) since before year 2003 till our days, are just fairy tales made especially for the smart adults :) This great talent in creating such stories is very important in 'the Art of Politics'.

I don't understand this question. Reformulate? — 180 Proof

I liked saying that in case a typical atheist is not supposed to have favourite thinkers/philosophers to guide him in his life (as theists have certain God's stewards on earth), he has to depend on himself only (his mind) to discover the best path(s) for him; in other words, be a philosopher for himself. — KerimF

ABSOLUTELY! Please see my last post in the Lounge. — Mapping the Medium

Sorry, after about 12 hours, I am not sure which post you were referring to.

By the way, our friend '180 Proof' answered "Of course not." for the following question:

I used wondering if, for a typical atheist, his favourite philosophers are, as guidance in life for him, equivalent somehow to the favourite prophets/saints for a theist. — KerimF

So I added:

In this case, could we say that a typical atheist is somehow an individual philosopher? — KerimF

But it seems the expression 'an individual philosopher; is not clear.
I liked saying that in case a typical atheist is not supposed to have favourite thinkers/philosophers to guide him in his life (as theists have certain God's stewards on earth), he has to depend on himself only (his mind) to discover the best path(s) for him; in other words, be a philosopher for himself.

Of course not — 180 Proof

I guess you meant the serious point, not the thread's title :)
In this case, could we say that a typical atheist is somehow an individual philosopher?

I agree. We always compare ourselves to others, while also taking good ways to act to our own ways of acting. We are ever evolving species with unlimited thirst for knowledge. Some knowledge is good, but some knowledge can be harmful as well. This is why it is important to learn what kind of actions are good from a very young age. Sadly some humans are forced to grow under bad influence, which then affects their future choices. — Yozhura

Well said :up:

All the reasons you give can be more really about the attitudes of people who want to maintain society. You exist because at some level, people think it is okay to bring more people into the world and thus, de facto, work at maintaining the institutions to maintain society and bring about more people who will do so. It is just that over and over. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, unfortunately. You either get with the program, try to hack it in the wilderness and die a slow death or die a fast death through suicide. Getting with the program means using the institutions of a given society to get your deprivation needs met of survival, comfort, entertainment. — schopenhauer1

You are totally right in describing a human being who perceives that he is made of a human living flesh 'only'. In this case, he has no choice but to take care of it (if not his family, friends and species as well), at any cost, while being guided by his pre-programmed instincts; mainly of survival.
To achieve this goal properly, he just needs (as you mentioned) to render, as possible, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; that is whatever the ruling system, he chose or imposed on him, expects from him to do (and say). This ruling system could be social, religious or political.

It happens that I perceived in me, since I was teenager (now 71), another being than my living flesh. But it is not easy at all, for me in the least, to explain clearly my case. It is like perceiving first what a radio set is as a generator of sound (voice, music or noise) coming out from its speaker(s). But this is also a receiver/detector of electromagnetic waves. These waves are defined by rules that are different from the ones of sound waves. These waves have existed since always and humans lived in the past without the need to believe in their existence.
This is the closest analogy in the physical world (I was able to think of) to what could be called spiritual sentience :(

Besides all said previously, I like adding, one's life story, past or history also depends on the nature of which he is made/created. His nature (his common and personal instincts for a few) directs him to have certain priorities in life to be achieved. So with time, someone 'may' predict, to some extent (on a big image), his own future (as the apostles and first disciples, for example, have already prepared themselves to what will happen to them).

How often do you hear of Christians forgiving the person who has murdered their son, for example. — david plumb

This is why I call such Christians formal ones. In this respect, they are not supposed to react differently from how a Jew, Muslim or Pagan (if not atheist) is supposed to do.

Lawless is Satan who obeys no-one other than himself and he is the lawless one. — david plumb

Let us suppose that Satan does exist as a being (not just a mere notion). Actually, he also follows a law; his law. The essence of his rules is simply disobeying the rules which are imposed by another; in this case the god of a religion (Yes, I am afraid that, as there are different images of God, there are different images of Satan).

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. — david plumb

Oh, did Jesus say this?!

You're confusing the human laws to right a wrong, which would not be needed were we all to love each other as God commands, with God urging us to be righteous and love each other regardless. — david plumb

By the way, it was impossible for me to live the unconditional love, if God didn't also create humans to play evil roles against me. But, we don't need to be worried about those actors (to play evil) because they are also made to be happy the way they are... till they return back to the state of void; their state before birth (as it is the case of all other non-human living things).

Okay, it seems that, in general, a man may have favourite female philosophers... as long she is not his wife, I guess :D

Now, it is time for a serious point to discuss.

I used wondering if, for a typical atheist, his favourite philosophers are, as guidance in life for him, equivalent somehow to the favourite prophets/saints for a theist.

Where did Jesus reveal that God is lawless? Are you talking about Satan? — david plumb

Sorry, what could I add if you tell me that, in your life and environment, living the unconditional lawless love (no rule can impose it) towards all others, as revealed and lived by Jesus, has to be seen as an evil act? (By the way, I didn't know you believe in the existence of Satan as formal Christians are supposed to do... because I don't).

{Matthew 5:45}
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Do you see any law or justice here :)

As a side note only, my God, I perceive, is not only my Father in Heaven (Heaven denotes the realm which is beyond this temporary realm, limited by time/space). As I said, it is just a side note, not directed to anyone... because it is just me, a realistic spiritual man :)

An “absolute fact” as I would best define it is a fact that can be regarded/ verified as true independently of or consistently through time. — Benj96

Doesn’t this mean a 'living cat' (now dead :( ) cannot be seen as an absolute fact?

How fortunate you are to be able to read the Bible in Arabic. I have found one language does not easily translate to another. Also, the Romans could not accept the Greek understanding of the trinity until they invented a new word to hold an understanding that could be expressed in Rome. I hold the idea, that people who know of Buddhism have a totally different understanding of Jesus than in the more materialistic West. — Athena

I agree with you. For example, I noticed that the English word 'commandment' is heard by most British and American readers as if it were an order that should be obeyed. In Arabic it is heard as an important advice given by a loving father to his beloved sons. After all, love cannot be commanded; otherwise it can be called anything but true love.

I think it is easier to have agreement with scientific thinking than religious thinking? Religious people disagree and yet each is sure their different understanding are God's truth is the right one. That fact of life is what made me turn away from Christianity when was a 8 years old and a Sunday school teacher could not give a good explanation of why there a Protestants and Catholics and not agreement on God's truth. Later I found out there are many more religions, all believing they have truth and willing to kill each other over who has the better truth. That is not moral. — Athena

Jesus message focuses on the unconditional (lawless) love and nothing but love. And this love contradicts clearly the human instincts of survival.

If I heard Jesus telling me that I have to obey certain rules and observe some religious rituals (in private and/or among some others) to please the Will/Energy behind my existence (God/Lord), I would see in him just a founder of another Pagan religion.
Also, if Jesus tells me that the Will/Energy behind my existence is of One Being only, I would see in him a deceiver who tries convincing me that it is possible for a ‘one of his kind' being can live love or even know it.
Actually, none of these two cases happened.

But for practical reasons, the men in charge of any Christian doctrine around the world had to cleverly turn away from Jesus in many subjects (in other words, they created somehow another Jesus, unlike the one on their Gospel). And they focused instead on Judaism (the Old Testament) which was addressed to the kids of humanity (our ancient primitive ancestors).

What that led me to conclude was that there certain facts which are consensus, including ones including personal ones like, date of birth, country and some of the structures of one's life. — Jack Cummins

'My date of birth' is a fact which I heard of, but not lived (I wasn't conscious at that time :) ). I just trusted my parents about it.

'My country' is what some others may think it should be mine because also some others applied some other's rules to let it be mine :D
I personally see home wherever I live and my family whoever I live with.

I liked by these two simple examples showing that the way by which someone is aware of a fact is always relative to him (the observer)... much like ‘Relativity’ in modern Physics :)

All I can say in response is the finite can't grasp the infinite. — TheMadFool

In perspective geometry, the infinite is brought to a finite piece of paper when two parallel straights are drawn for example :)

What do you mean by a ruling god? I only recognise the term God. — david plumb

What could I say? you used hearing of a certain supernatural being who created humans just to let them obey, worship and glorify him... in short... to please him :) This is a Ruling god... much like an earthly ruler/king looking for followers and slaves.

Hardly adopted as He either exists or He doesn't — david plumb

A human doesn't have to perceive his maker (a ruling or lawless one), his instincts which are pre-programmed by his maker (whoever or whatever is) are enough to guide him how to serve the world as all other living things are supposed to do (though each has its own role or roles).

One free will? Free will is free will, it is surely not sub-divided. — david plumb

You are free to believe this :) but, as a programmer myself, the human living bodies are simply robots pre-programmed with highly developed algorithms (philosophers and scientists keep discovering them while they use them, isn't it fantastic :) ). Anytime an instruction of the various complex conditional jumps (in their code) is executed, it gives the impression of having free-will. After all, you are not supposed to believe whatever I say :)

It hardly matters whether they have any interest or not but just turning your head is an effect of your free will to turn your head. Are you talking about consequences? For a consequence of your free will to happen you need your free will to create an action, surely? — david plumb

Well, I guess you never heard before that this simple action, you mentioned about turning the head, helps me discover, from its consequences, the deep inner/nature of the other side; no matter how clever he is in hiding it.

Pre-programmed instincts? Your free will is outside of everything, it is simply your ability to choose for yourself at the moment of decision. The decision may well be as a consequence of other factors. — david plumb

You are right, but this free-will is called... execution of a conditional jump in a program, robotic or not. Naturally, in case of a human, predicting the next instruction to be executed after a very complex conditional jump instruction (that checks too many factors sometimes) is not easy, at all, though not impossible.
Let us return to the example you gave about turning the head. If someone smites on your cheek, the way the other side and you will react afterwards... will simply reveal an important part of the nature of each of you two. This simple but very effective, hint helped me a lot in discovering many of the people I knew, met, worked or lived with. (I said 'many' instead of 'all' because not all people had the chance to smite on my cheek, in a way or another :( ).


Some people saw in me... a realistic spiritual man... I wonder why :D

In brief, how an absolute fact is seen is always relative to the observer.
This leads us having the same fact being seen differently by different observers.
Therefore, in order to let many people (now in millions, if not billions) see a fact (usually a story; social, medical, religious or political) equally, big money (besides many other means) have to be invested first in spreading a version of it that the multitudes are supposed to believe.

Equally there are so many in this world who would say : " A life that is guided by the question: "What will God think of this?" is an unfulfilled life. Hence the problems that "we" get ourselves into due to selfish needs and behaviours. — david plumb

If this question refers to certain rules imposed by a god (or God), I am afraid it refers simply to some man-made rules (this reminds me Pharaoh :) ) which were cleverly attributed to a certain supernatural being (as God).

It happens that Jesus only revealed clearly (on the today’s Gospel) that God is 'lawless'. This truth had to be cleverly deformed in ALL Christian doctrines; let us say, for practical reasons.

To me in the least, there are two main images of God: the Ruling God and the Lawless God.

All religious worshipers, I heard of, see in their God the ultimate supernatural ruling king.

Therefore, a typical atheist is simply a person who doesn’t mind submitting to an earthly kingdom but not to any imaginary one, said supernatural.

By the way, Jesus only revealed clearly (on the today’s Gospel) that God is lawless. But this truth had to be cleverly deformed in ALL Christian doctrines; let us say, for practical reasons :)

I guess you are talking about the ruling god; a notion adopted by the men in charge in any religious sect around the world.

The true God has no reason to impose any rules on humans. God's instructions are embedded in their living body already; usually called instincts. This also applies on all other non-human living things.

Therefore, in reality, humans may, I said 'may', have, at best, just one free-will (because, as you will see, not all humans are supposed or interested in having this free-will, in the first place, because of the nature of which they are made).

Some humans can decide, in every situation, to follow their pre-programmed instincts (it is their right, we like it or not) or to live the unconditional love towards the other side, no matter who he is. Obviously, this love contradicts one’s instincts of survival and the essence of any man-made Law, said religious or else.

Christianity is actually about what you call "magical salvation" .... It's all meaningless — Gregory

So I wondered about what could be the reasons for which many people, who are as intelligent as I am (if not more), join a religion (actually a sect of a religion) as believers (worshipers). Some of these reasons could be:

{1} the human instincts (as of the less evolved beings) guide a person to join a certain well-organized group (if not more than one) to have a better chance to survive (he/she and likely his/her family too). This group could be civil/social, religious or political.

{2} the human instincts (unlike of the less evolved beings) let the human in question avoid, as possible, submitting to another human. This fact was known since humanity was primitive. Therefore, those who have to be in charge of a group (of the people in a region) created the notion of RULING gods/goddesses, so that they can rule and control their masses, without having serious complains; by doing this in the name of certain gods, not in their own names (see Pharaoh, for example). While humans evolve, the notion of ruling gods became ‘one ruling god’. Then, a clever ruler (I am not sure who the first one was) replaced the notion of ‘The One Ruling God; with ‘The Ruling People’. In all cases, the followers in any group are happy that they are not submitting to the rules and will of a human being as they are :)
(I wish to be notified if someone had the chance to meet 'The Ruling People' :) )

{3} there is a fact which is not supposed to be revealed or discussed openly. It is about the extra pleasant sensation one may feel while he is submitting, by his own will, to anther human. For example, if this happens in a sexual relation and even if the other side didn’t start doing anything serious, the submitted person starts feeling this extra pleasure in his imagination already. This may not be true to all humans, as some people told me :) Anyway, this extra pleasant sensation could be felt regardless of the other side’s nature, real or supernatural. This explains why in any religion (Jewish, Christian, Islam and Pagan) the believers feel great during their worship rituals, in private or in a group.

There are more reasons but, I guess, the three above are enough for the time being :)

I have not studied the bible so I am not sure what the sacrificing is about but I think it has something to do with being on God's good side. — Athena

I was raised in a mid-class Catholic family. When I was about 15 (I am 71), I started realizing that what are called Church’s teachings didn't suit my nature, intellectually and spiritually. In other words, based on my humble logic which I had at that time, I couldn't relate them to my reality; to whatever I have discovered, though a few at that time, in my being and the real world.

Since these teachings were supposed, as claimed, reflecting Jesus teachings, I decided to prove, once for all and to myself in the least, that Jesus (real or myth) has also no importance in my life.
At age 17, I started reading attentively whatever Jesus, in person, says on the Gospel which I had (an Arabic Catholic one, printed in 1964). To my big surprise, I found out, even in my rather preliminary studies, crucial contradictions between his sayings and the Church’s teachings (Catholic or else). In brief, this personal study ended up, after many decades and to me in the least, what I may call ‘science of life reality’.

I think I have to also point out that in my high studies in electronics and data communications I became aware that a received data via a noisy/long channel need to be filtered with ‘appropriate’ algorithms in order to let be as close as possible to the transmitted data; to get an acceptable video image or audio voice/music for example.
I said this because a believer in any religion is supposed to preserve every word, if not every letter, on a book if it is approved (by the men in charge of his religion) as being holy; inspired by God.

Nobody, but that’s more a question about institutional knowledge and epistemic authority than the topic of this thread which is individual knowledge. — Pfhorrest

Thank you for clarifying.
So, it has nothing to do with my life :)
Wish you the best.

But our own personal views for what works for us do not necessarily work for others. I think you realize that too. It has been great to converse with you. =) — Philosophim

Oh, thanks, by the way, you are the first one, in my rather long life (71 so far), who says this, directly and clearly :)
Our conversation has been great because of you too.
A plane to fly well should have two similar strong wings though they could be painted differently :)

An interesting thread. Thank you.

I am not a philosopher but I guess that the first and second crucial steps in answering a question or solving a problem are:

{1} having a REAL interest in doing it.
{2) understanding very well the question/problem; not its words but the important idea(s) behind them.

Which one comes first depends on the situation.

This applies in my reality in the least :)
I mean; I have to ignore answering a question or solving a problem if the above two steps cannot be fulfilled first.

Let us imagine there is a certain proposed belief/idea.
Who, in your opinion, has the last word to approve it is true or not and/or it is useful or not?
Thank you.

You shouldn’t focus on happiness. — Lokii

I am far from being a good writer (in any language). So I am sorry to give you the impression that I am looking for the happiness you elaborated (on your first reply above), thinking I am talking about the temporary feelings of certain pleasures which are pre-programmed in one's body.

But this I have understood for a long time: to seek happiness is to make a hole in the water. If you seek happiness you will be unhappy, so it is better to seek victory, self-assertion, strength, etc. At this point, you are past the stage of the pursuit of happiness. — Lokii

Naturally, I also didn't need to seek victory or strength to deserve living temporary certain pleasant sensations (the main stimulus that lets most humans around the world work hard without complain :) ).

There is no peace and happiness in this world, it is a valley of tears. — Lokii

You are right.
Real peace and joy may exist in one's inner only. On the other hand, a permanent fear of someone or something is somehow always due to lack of knowledge.

Another point that differentiates the Christian religion from the others is the miraculous events that are abundant. The true God is the one who acts in his religion. — Lokii

Miracles may let a person having faith in someone else (not gaining knowledge) and this is just the first step, at best, to get knowledge from THIS someone.
Having faith, by itself, has, therefore, no real value other than seeing it perhaps a path to a certain magical/mythical ending (which differs from one religion to another).

Finally, I bet you never imagined that, someday, someone will tell you that his best perfect teacher of 'life reality' is Jesus Christ only; not anyone else throughout history, not even those who talked in his name or on his behalf... as prophets, apostles, saints... etc.
But discussing the knowledge of this branch of science is not appropriate in a philosophical section as here, ‘Philosophy of Religion’.

I liked comparing what I heard from you and what a typical theist believes.
It seems to me there is a common point. But, let us see if I will be able to explain it:

A typical theist doesn't mind believing that he can control remotely the state of his supernatural Creator (or God). He has a list of actions by which he can let his God be in a good mood or angry. Such interaction may occur between two beings having about the same level of sentience (I got this word from you :) ) A human may control, deliberately, the state of another human. But an ant cannot control, deliberately, the state of a human. Therefore, a typical theist believes that he and his God could also be rivals; making himself at the same level of his God who is supposed being... super of super... in many aspects.

Back to what I understood from you, we, humans, are chosen by 'The Existence' to be the ultimate creators in it, if not for it.

I can't fool myself and say that one of these two scenarios can be suitable to my nature.
How do I know this?
I simply can't relate, speaking logically, the set of the various action/reaction rules that defines my nature/being... with such scenarios :(

Fortunately, I found the one I was looking for. And this is why it is no more hard for me to understand and even respect all other human natures; no matter how they are.

In a word: A life that is not guided by the question: "What will God think of this?", is an unfulfilled life. — Lokii

Thank you for summarizing your philosophical post above in this rather simple sentence.
By the way, one of my personal axioms (on which my knowledge is based) is that the nature of which I am made should have clearly something crucial in common with the Will/Energy behind my existence (or God, if you like).

Your question "What will God think of this?" implies that the person in question refers to the God he used hearing of. But, as you know, a faithful Jew, a faithful Muslim, a faith believer of a Christian doctrine or a faithful Pagan tries his best to fulfil, what, he thinks/believes, pleases 'his' God, not 'the' God..
So every believer of those is supposed to observe the Law which is, in turn, supposed being inspired by the God he worships. We end up having many God's Laws, not just one God's Law. Even in the same religion, and no matter if it is Judaism, Islam, Christian or Pagan, God's Law may also differ from one sect to another.

In reality, we like it or not, the question which guides a human could be one (or more) of the followings:
"Will what I will do let me have peace and joy in me?"
"Will what I will do let (some others) be proud of me?"
"Will what I will do help me deserve a special reward or position (civil, religious or political)?"
"Will what I will do give me, my family and/or my friends a better chance to survive?"
"Will what I will do please my leader (my boss)?"
..
and, as you mentioned already:
"Will what I will do please 'my' God?"

On my side, I asked first the first question on the list above but updated a little:
"Will what I will do let me have a permanent peace and joy in me?"
Then, it became
"Will what I will do help me keep and protect my permanent inner peace and joy?

I am afraid that going on further to talk about the path that suits my nature and how I found it is not a philosophical topic to be discussed here :)

Please don't be puzzled, this thread is not about resentment or like :)
I deliberately used the word 'forced' (instead of any 'softer' one) to justify, to myself in the least since I was teenager (many decades ago), the initial personal search of whatever or whoever could be behind my existence, so that I could discover the reason (the end purpose) for which I was brought temporarily into this life (into the realm which is defined/limited by time/space).
In my OP, I mentioned in {N} that I got the answer, I was looking for, already. This answer was the first step to what I may call 'science of life reality'. So, as you see, it is not suitable to be explored and discussed in a forum about philosophy :)

"As I recall well".............you did? Stranger and stranger.
"No-one asked me"..........that would be a tad difficult before you existed?
"I had no free will, at all, concerning my birth in this world".............not surprising considering you — david plumb

Thank you for your interesting remarks.
You are right, I had to say instead: "As far as I can recall..." :)
But, I wonder why you said 'that would be a tad difficult before I existed'. Right after my birth, no-one asked the human baby, I was (I existed here, right? :) ), if he likes or not to live in this world :)
Obviously, no one did it because it was very clear to all that the baby, I was, didn't have yet any sort of free-will :)

As such, we can shape it into something with foresight and thought, instead of the blunt result of chemical forces. — Philosophim

But aren't our foresight and thought also the fruit (the result) of some electrochemical reactions :)

With intelligence, we can create more "existence" then what is merely here. — Philosophim

I guess you mean... we, humans, are given the ability to discover what are still unknown to us of its rules (of ‘The Existence’), so that we can add new forms of existence, inert and/or living things.

We just must not forget that we are a part of this universe, and respect the rest of existence around us as well. — Philosophim

To me in the least, this respect is obvious. I even don't resist evil.

In short and if I got you well, I have to see myself now as another piece of matter whose existence is important just to maintain the continuity of 'The Existence'.

Truth be said, and you are free to call me whatever you like :), I see exactly the inverse.

It is me who perceives 'The Existence'. And without this perception I would be just an inert piece of matter which has no connection, at all, with 'it' (and its Big Bang and whatever happened to matter and anti-matter) other than existing in some human minds who, unlike I (the inert matter), still perceive 'The Existence'; including the piece of matter, 'me'.

I hear ya. To be clear, I have no interest in demonizing scientists. We hire them to develop knowledge, and they do a good job of performing the service we asked them to perform. — Hippyhead

Yes, I believe you. I met many of those professional scientists already. They, unlike I, had to work for some others, not for themselves, in order to gain not only their daily bread but some extra bonuses as well. After all, they deserve these extra bonuses as a humble reward for their submission :)

I think a person like yourself who is polite, listens, and wants to ask questions is always welcome! You have caused no harm, and it has been nice chatting with you. — Philosophim

Thank you.

By the way, I wonder if the following question is philosophical:
What could be the meaning of life on earth if the human race is removed completely?

This question is tricky.
I guess no one deny that the ratio of the today's human population to the one of all living things (cells, plants, animals... etc.) is too close to ZERO. Even in one human body there are millions of living cells.

This question shows clearly that even a minority whose number is too small (very close to zero) relative to the number of all others could be the most important one among all, in a certain respect.
You likely expect what I can conclude from this fact :)

Mmmmmmm..................you expect free will before you exist? That's a first or is that a result of the choice consumerism that you have been a victim of? — david plumb

Of course not, this is why I simply said that I had no free will, at all, before I existed (even when I was a little baby).
Isn't it obvious?
Where is the problem?!