The OSR project I am proposing is called Free Press Bible. It is to be a tool for "ideological self-examination, personal development, and deep social networking" based on the self-canonization process. It is meant to be useful whether or not someone thinks of their belief/value system as being "their religion" or not. It is to be a personal media management and content curation toolkit designed so that it can be used in an entirely decentralized fashion. i.e you don't have to be a "member" of any officiated group, religious or otherwise to use it. Users have the option to use the social networking functionality to network with other users based on commonality of articles. Each component of the toolkit is FOSS. As far as the website goes everything but the Free Press Bible name (Which is my trademark), users are free to copy and use independently. If users submit articles to the FPB website "article portal" and they later become dissatisfied with how the FPB site is being managed, I have made forking the ENTIRE project an easy matter. I actually even HOPE that I can get someone with better connections than me to fork the project and I even have a registered domain to give them (amenablebible.com) if they express interest AND have demonstrable technical ability, funding, or connections in academia or the broader FOSS community. Even though spirituality is a concept I don't personally find appealing, I would be willing to hand over the amenablebible domain to someone who did, so long as they were contractually obligated to keep the project open source and to uphold the idea that the project is to be a TOOLKIT and users should be creating their own communities (if they want) based on commonality (or lack thereof for those who want to debate:)) of articles.
If you want to read what others have to say about open-source you are free to Google the term. I would be surprised if you hadn't already. Should I doubt that you are being purposefully disingenuous here?
I do have specific ideas about how to develop religious belief systems in an open-source manner, it's not like I have been hitherto silent about the matter. The method I am trying to develop and promote is based on what I call "self-canonization", and unless you don't recall our earlier conversations, you already know that.
I will -for now- leave it up to you to do your own research on the various open-source development models and focus what you said about the "core information" for most religions being readily available. Are you referring to the various canons of sacred scriptures?
Open Source Methodologies are collaborative systems (or project) development strategies based on process transparency, and the unrestricted sharing of the information used to develop them.
Open Source Methodologies work by enabling organizationally diverse communities and individuals to work together through direct or indirect co-operation and/or competition.
I wasn't aware of the prime directive, Yet it doesn't quite exempt my questioning, for we can understand fate as something as far away from us as the universe or as close to us as a simple decision to go out rather than staying home. The moment when this conscious or unconscious succession of decisions actually become engraved into our genes to be passed on as a biological modification for the next generation might be yet for us obscure. Still I believe that science and technology are expanding our awareness into this matters as we might no yet understand what is it what happens to the bottom of a lake when we throw a stone a it we can definitely see that the ripples reach the other side. Isn't our capability to perceive this ripples enough to take responsibility(evolutionarily speaking)?
I was looking the other day at this article (http://www.messybeast.com/twisty.htm) where the author writes about the ethics of selective breeding, we have been affecting directly the evolutionary development of a wide variety of species for centuries, some of this breeds are created by thinking more on the form instead of function.
At 12:06pm on February 26, 2013, Joy B Tobin said…
Hi John,
I'm around I'm just having a very busy month. On Feb 15, I was performing in Aurora Illinois for V-day. It was a production of The Vagina Monologues by Eve Ensler. Our group managed to raise over $3000 dollars for local charities providing support to victims of rape and domestic violence. Since then I've been out gallivanting. I just haven't spent much time in front of the computer. I'm also looking forward to the weather turning nice and making plans to be out in nature and in the company of members of my chosen family. Did ya miss me? :)
It may not be a gene, but vryone's mind can mak people kill or intend to kill. veryone does have the ability to kill, self defenc or not. Peace can also be attained by the world. The world has its own army. This army can destroy humanity just as much as humanity can destroy th world. Warmongers can achieve peace, but that is when they have no one left to fight, unless they suddenly stop being a warmonger for some reason.
The idea that they will kill each other until thy are no more may be simplistic, but that does not mean it is not true. Not everything must be complicated to be real.
When peace is achieved in any area, it would not last because there is always someone that likes to get rid of it. By attempting to achieve peace, the attempter is telling warmongers to make war where there is peace. It seems to be an impasse. War will always exist, so aiding peace-causers is a waste of time.
War can bring peace if all the warmongers are destroyed. If not, peace is still achieved, temporarily.
If souls will come to repopulate this planet one more time, it may end eventually. If not by all warmongers being destroyed and the world still remaining, then it will be by the world being destroyed and warmongers with it.
Maybe the new inhabitants will not be warmongers, maybe they will be peace-creators. It is a possibility as much as them all being like humans. If they will be like humans, this new species is not much different.
The best option, if it is not possible in any other way, is to wait until all the warmongers are destroyed. They will be eventually. Let them kill each other instead of trying to bring peace to the world. More of them will die and faster from this.
Peace is the one I "feed". Sometimes it is possible to feed war by feeding peace. As long as there is peace, there will be war as long as anti-peace creatures exist on this world.
If humans have war within themselves, it should not be difficult to end it quickly. There may be "difficult" choices to make, but by doing nothing, the war inside is being extended.
Eventually, permanent true peace will be achieved. If not by warmongers having a "change of heart", it will be old age that destroys them. When they are gone, there will be no one left to start more wars. It will take a while to end violence.
If one wishes to help the world, that one must fight to end war.
Sometimes people have no choice. Child soldiers are forced to participate in wars so fighting for peace would end that. No more children would have to witness the horror of violence and death.
The statement was general because it involves many people that are concerned with war such as politicians and soldiers that are willing to die for "their" country.Of course not everyone cares for war so it does not include the entire population.
Virginity is ruined by reproduction. Peace is ruined by war. War and reproduction are not the same, but many humans may reproduce for war.
The difference between peace and virginity is that peace can return to a soul again, but virginity is eternally lost.
Sometimes death is necessary. Many shall die in war, but many shall survive. If no one sacrifices themselves, more losses could occur. Fighting for peace is necessary so violence is finally ended.
I already get all that John. If you would recognize the difference between A religion (an institutionalized sect) and religion itself (the practice) you might not miss my point.
If one must fight for peace, it is acceptable. After all the un-peaceful things are destroyed, peace can last forever, personal or not. It is like riding in a bus, if there is fighting on the bus and no one is trying to stop it,the goal of achieving eternal peace would be delayed.
Only those that want true peace should fight to stop it. If an un-peaceful soul fights another of its kind, how could true peace ever be achieved? If they love war, they would still find a way to survive so they can war again.
That is an interesting theory, but even if one person finds inner peace, others may not and the world would not be changed unless the peaceful being has changed it even a little bit.
Of course, there would still be some humans that are against being united to others. If they cannot be united, they must be destroyed for the world's safety. It may be unfortunate, but it would have to happen.
An open-source religion (as in an organized sect) has founding members. I understand individualized practice of religion John, because that's all I have ever done. What makes you think that I think I have invented something new John?
I'll stand by what I said before. Either perfection "is" Walt Whitman style, or perfection is nothing I want anything to do with. It all depends on how you define it.
Since millions of years, it has been only since about 250 years ago that someone was, consciously and almost continuously, in the spiritual world for 27 years. Swedenborg explained what it means to be a spirit. It does not mean a spirit inside and limited to a physical body, it means a spirit in correspondence with and thus influencing and controlling a physical body.
But we are not limited to our body. We have a whole spiritual world around us with many spirits who were in the their body many years ago. Those relate to us, influence us and give us ideas. Apparently so much sometimes that it is thought they are us.
Hypnotism can cause the same mis-interpretation. There is no communication with the person on the couch, but with the spirits around him or her.
However, having said all that, I don't think it is very important if one believes in reincarnation or not. That's just details.
How is life on the OSR going for you John? I noticed there are some changes.. I hope everything is working out for you!
Kernel John's Comments
Comment Wall (105 comments)
You need to be a member of The Open Source Religion Social Network to add comments!
Join The Open Source Religion Social Network
Dear Kernel, I think I might have removed you accidentally along with rest of my emails the other day. If I did, please email me again.
Roman
Ok John,
The OSR project I am proposing is called Free Press Bible. It is to be a tool for "ideological self-examination, personal development, and deep social networking" based on the self-canonization process. It is meant to be useful whether or not someone thinks of their belief/value system as being "their religion" or not. It is to be a personal media management and content curation toolkit designed so that it can be used in an entirely decentralized fashion. i.e you don't have to be a "member" of any officiated group, religious or otherwise to use it. Users have the option to use the social networking functionality to network with other users based on commonality of articles. Each component of the toolkit is FOSS. As far as the website goes everything but the Free Press Bible name (Which is my trademark), users are free to copy and use independently. If users submit articles to the FPB website "article portal" and they later become dissatisfied with how the FPB site is being managed, I have made forking the ENTIRE project an easy matter. I actually even HOPE that I can get someone with better connections than me to fork the project and I even have a registered domain to give them (amenablebible.com) if they express interest AND have demonstrable technical ability, funding, or connections in academia or the broader FOSS community. Even though spirituality is a concept I don't personally find appealing, I would be willing to hand over the amenablebible domain to someone who did, so long as they were contractually obligated to keep the project open source and to uphold the idea that the project is to be a TOOLKIT and users should be creating their own communities (if they want) based on commonality (or lack thereof for those who want to debate:)) of articles.
If you want to read what others have to say about open-source you are free to Google the term. I would be surprised if you hadn't already. Should I doubt that you are being purposefully disingenuous here?
I do have specific ideas about how to develop religious belief systems in an open-source manner, it's not like I have been hitherto silent about the matter. The method I am trying to develop and promote is based on what I call "self-canonization", and unless you don't recall our earlier conversations, you already know that.
I will -for now- leave it up to you to do your own research on the various open-source development models and focus what you said about the "core information" for most religions being readily available. Are you referring to the various canons of sacred scriptures?
Open Source Methodologies are collaborative systems (or project) development strategies based on process transparency, and the unrestricted sharing of the information used to develop them.
Open Source Methodologies work by enabling organizationally diverse communities and individuals to work together through direct or indirect co-operation and/or competition.
Dear Kernel,
I wasn't aware of the prime directive, Yet it doesn't quite exempt my questioning, for we can understand fate as something as far away from us as the universe or as close to us as a simple decision to go out rather than staying home. The moment when this conscious or unconscious succession of decisions actually become engraved into our genes to be passed on as a biological modification for the next generation might be yet for us obscure. Still I believe that science and technology are expanding our awareness into this matters as we might no yet understand what is it what happens to the bottom of a lake when we throw a stone a it we can definitely see that the ripples reach the other side. Isn't our capability to perceive this ripples enough to take responsibility(evolutionarily speaking)?
I was looking the other day at this article (http://www.messybeast.com/twisty.htm) where the author writes about the ethics of selective breeding, we have been affecting directly the evolutionary development of a wide variety of species for centuries, some of this breeds are created by thinking more on the form instead of function.
Kernel, please check out the latest video I posted if you want some insight into the problem I have with you. Peace.
It sure is...
Hi John,
I'm around I'm just having a very busy month. On Feb 15, I was performing in Aurora Illinois for V-day. It was a production of The Vagina Monologues by Eve Ensler. Our group managed to raise over $3000 dollars for local charities providing support to victims of rape and domestic violence. Since then I've been out gallivanting. I just haven't spent much time in front of the computer. I'm also looking forward to the weather turning nice and making plans to be out in nature and in the company of members of my chosen family. Did ya miss me? :)
It may not be a gene, but vryone's mind can mak people kill or intend to kill. veryone does have the ability to kill, self defenc or not. Peace can also be attained by the world. The world has its own army. This army can destroy humanity just as much as humanity can destroy th world. Warmongers can achieve peace, but that is when they have no one left to fight, unless they suddenly stop being a warmonger for some reason.
The idea that they will kill each other until thy are no more may be simplistic, but that does not mean it is not true. Not everything must be complicated to be real.
When peace is achieved in any area, it would not last because there is always someone that likes to get rid of it. By attempting to achieve peace, the attempter is telling warmongers to make war where there is peace. It seems to be an impasse. War will always exist, so aiding peace-causers is a waste of time.
War can bring peace if all the warmongers are destroyed. If not, peace is still achieved, temporarily.
If souls will come to repopulate this planet one more time, it may end eventually. If not by all warmongers being destroyed and the world still remaining, then it will be by the world being destroyed and warmongers with it.
Maybe the new inhabitants will not be warmongers, maybe they will be peace-creators. It is a possibility as much as them all being like humans. If they will be like humans, this new species is not much different.
The best option, if it is not possible in any other way, is to wait until all the warmongers are destroyed. They will be eventually. Let them kill each other instead of trying to bring peace to the world. More of them will die and faster from this.
Peace is the one I "feed". Sometimes it is possible to feed war by feeding peace. As long as there is peace, there will be war as long as anti-peace creatures exist on this world.
If humans have war within themselves, it should not be difficult to end it quickly. There may be "difficult" choices to make, but by doing nothing, the war inside is being extended.
Eventually, permanent true peace will be achieved. If not by warmongers having a "change of heart", it will be old age that destroys them. When they are gone, there will be no one left to start more wars. It will take a while to end violence.
If one wishes to help the world, that one must fight to end war.
Sometimes people have no choice. Child soldiers are forced to participate in wars so fighting for peace would end that. No more children would have to witness the horror of violence and death.
The statement was general because it involves many people that are concerned with war such as politicians and soldiers that are willing to die for "their" country.Of course not everyone cares for war so it does not include the entire population.
Virginity is ruined by reproduction. Peace is ruined by war. War and reproduction are not the same, but many humans may reproduce for war.
The difference between peace and virginity is that peace can return to a soul again, but virginity is eternally lost.
Sometimes death is necessary. Many shall die in war, but many shall survive. If no one sacrifices themselves, more losses could occur. Fighting for peace is necessary so violence is finally ended.
I already get all that John. If you would recognize the difference between A religion (an institutionalized sect) and religion itself (the practice) you might not miss my point.
If one must fight for peace, it is acceptable. After all the un-peaceful things are destroyed, peace can last forever, personal or not. It is like riding in a bus, if there is fighting on the bus and no one is trying to stop it,the goal of achieving eternal peace would be delayed.
Only those that want true peace should fight to stop it. If an un-peaceful soul fights another of its kind, how could true peace ever be achieved? If they love war, they would still find a way to survive so they can war again.
That is an interesting theory, but even if one person finds inner peace, others may not and the world would not be changed unless the peaceful being has changed it even a little bit.
Of course, there would still be some humans that are against being united to others. If they cannot be united, they must be destroyed for the world's safety. It may be unfortunate, but it would have to happen.
An open-source religion (as in an organized sect) has founding members. I understand individualized practice of religion John, because that's all I have ever done. What makes you think that I think I have invented something new John?
I'll stand by what I said before. Either perfection "is" Walt Whitman style, or perfection is nothing I want anything to do with. It all depends on how you define it.
That was indeed interesting John.
Since millions of years, it has been only since about 250 years ago that someone was, consciously and almost continuously, in the spiritual world for 27 years. Swedenborg explained what it means to be a spirit. It does not mean a spirit inside and limited to a physical body, it means a spirit in correspondence with and thus influencing and controlling a physical body.
But we are not limited to our body. We have a whole spiritual world around us with many spirits who were in the their body many years ago. Those relate to us, influence us and give us ideas. Apparently so much sometimes that it is thought they are us.
Hypnotism can cause the same mis-interpretation. There is no communication with the person on the couch, but with the spirits around him or her.
However, having said all that, I don't think it is very important if one believes in reincarnation or not. That's just details.
How is life on the OSR going for you John? I noticed there are some changes.. I hope everything is working out for you!
Welcome to
The Open Source Religion Social Network
Sign Up
or Sign In
Top Content This Week
What is God? And why the idea of God?
Predestined for Glorification
Latest Activity
WHAT MAKES A BELIEF A BELIEF?