I think this is where we part company, Yuyutsu.

>>Why should religious people (or anyone else for that matter) be obliged to follow the rules set by others?<<

If you are unable to grasp the simple benefits of a society that respects laws, there is simply no common ground between us that we can explore.

Have a nice day.

Dear Belly,

<<I see ZERO relation to what I thought we would talk of on starting the thread others may, so go for it.>>

So if I get you correctly, you would like to discuss whether religious institutions are necessary, right?
A good topic with no easy answers!
Any institution in particular, such as the Catholic Church, or just all of them?

I think that one can reach God even if they never in their life heard or read anyone talk about Him, but it is rare and most people need some encouragement and direction along the way, which is what religious institutions are [supposed to be] about.

Dear Josephus,

The exact same external act can be good or evil, only depending whether it is performed for the glory of God of for the glory of man.

Dear Pericles,

<<If you are unable to grasp the simple benefits of a society that respects laws>>

If you live in society, and you do so of your own free choice, then you should respect its laws.

Once one reaches a certain stage in their religious development, they often need to stay away from society, to be either secluded or remain in the company of the like-minded alone. The problem is that society has grabbed for itself every spot on earth, leaving no physical place for those who are not interested in participating and being its members to live in. It has no right to do so.

Y I had in mind every single one of them that ever existed.
That the whole concept of religions, the reason we gave birth to them.
Or that God, any one of them created them.
I wanted to explore the good and bad outcomes of them.
Is the reliance some have on God fixing it all for us good or bad.
Should we hold ourselves accountable for our actions or let God do it?
I HOPE, FOREVER, TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION THAT ANSWERS THIS QUESTION.
*How can we follow our God totally, but so freely cast of every other one*

Now you are just being silly, Yuyutsu.

>>The problem is that society has grabbed for itself every spot on earth, leaving no physical place for those who are not interested in participating and being its members to live in. It has no right to do so.<<

Of course it has.

Every right.

The fact that you prefer not to observe society's rules does not invalidate either society, or the rules it has established. The "right" to implement those rules has developed over centuries, and has been motivated by the people themselves. Individual societies have created these things called "governments", who make and keep laws, and whose legitimacy is derived from the people themselves.

The name for someone who chooses not to live under society's guidelines is "outlaw". Historically, this indicates that those individuals - having declared themselves to be beyond the law's reach - have in fact also removed themselves from its protection. Probably as a result of this, these folk have developed their own laws, rules and habits, simply in order to identify themselves, and to give each other a form of mutual support.

The concept of "honour among thieves" is just one example of this. While at the other end of the social spectrum you have Trappist monks, with rules that encourage deep contemplation, as well as the production of some surprisingly good beers.

But you can always find some space that "society" isn't using, Yuyutsu. Just put your mind to it. There are plenty of examples, if you are genuinely keen to get away from it all. Pirate radio stations in 1960s UK, for example, placed themselves outside the law by occupying sites outside UK jurisdiction.

Think Jonestown. There you have a classic example of a religion that needed to, in your words, "stay away from society, to be either secluded or remain in the company of the like-minded alone".

That they were successful in doing so, is beyond question.

Dear Belly,

<<Y I had in mind every single one of them that ever existed.
That the whole concept of religions, the reason we gave birth to them.>>

We should hope that most institutions that we consider "religious" were born for the purpose of serving religion, of bringing people closer to God. Unfortunately a few of them were not to begin with, while others are no longer.

<<Or that God, any one of them created them.>>

Nobody created God and I don't think you subscribe to that wild idea yourself, but I think I get what you mean - that people created different CONCEPTS of God.

<<I wanted to explore the good and bad outcomes of them.>>

As I see it, to the extent those institutions succeeded in bringing people closer to God, they were good and to the extent they mislead people and drove them away from God, they were bad.

<<Is the reliance some have on God fixing it all for us good or bad.>>

Believing that God fixes it all for us is good for some, replacing anxiety with faith, but others take it too far: if you think "I won't tie my shoe-lace because God-will-do-it-for-me", then you consider God as your personal servant, which is wrong (and your shoe-lace will remain untied!).

<<Should we hold ourselves accountable for our actions or let God do it?>>

We are fully accountable for our actions until such time that we realise by direct-experience that we are not the doer of those actions. That's a pretty-advanced stage, so practically, the vast majority of people are accountable.

<<*How can we follow our God totally, but so freely cast of every other one*>>

We obviously cannot cast away God, we can only cast away other people's concepts of God - but we shouldn't do it!

If other people benefit from different concepts of God than ours, if it helps them to come closer to God, then we should encourage them to continue using those concepts. Their concepts may not be helpful to us, but they are helpful to them.

Yuyutsu,

To the extent that you believe that man (and everything) is God - and that we are on a journey to that realisation, I'm interested in your apparent rejection of society - as if the human condition is bearable without such a paradigm.

I understand that you yourself (apparently) feel that you have moved beyond such a requirement. But if man exists as a mortal being, he needs the company and cooperation of others of his kind. If man were to progress to a level where he considered his mortal existence as superfluous, and was universal in this perspective, then there would be no reason to quibble - but for the time being, as a mortal, he cannot get by without his fellows.

I note that you appear to act on a desire to communicate with your fellows in the virtual community/society of OLO - surely you do this out of instinct and need?