Are you still fund raising for the belief genome? my company does $1500 grants i could check into. Employees submit nonprofit organizations and they select a few to donate to. I actually just got an email saying the deadline is approaching.
Open Source Religion (OSR) is the practice of mixing religious and non-religious beliefs in an individual, even across multiple religions.
But HOW (specifically) is it supposed work?
Who can become a member and what are the responsibilities of membership?
. . . .Is there a cost?
. . . . . etc; etc.
Let me know when you're not so tired. There is much work to be done. Hopefully you and the Architects of OSR Group are up to the challenge.
- Content - Structure - Governance -
Did you know that Governance needs Content in order for it to work? This means that when looking at any "level" within a system or organization or topic or whatever, we can always look at it in terms of these 3 factors or dynamics. Problems do however arise when one confuses, for example, Content at one level of distillation with the Structure of another.
Yes, Architecture requires some over-riding principles. Do you (and your AG colleagues) have any common principles that you plan to abide by - or do you intend to wing it? High level Governing Principles will set the stage for the adoption and implementation of Lower Level policies and procedures at subsequent levels of implementation - if you know what I mean. But remember none of this a substitute for Shared Vision for it is through this that alignment will occur.
Yeah, I didn't even mention talk pages because they are obviously lacking. The Belief Genome project does seem cool. How's it coming along?
Just one more suggestion: instead of tying the chosen belief modules to the individual, tie them to an automatically created religion, and tie that religion to the individual. This is effectively the same, but it allows for more possibilities. Religions could be forked. Some things might only work on top of other belief modules, and not as separate module.
For example, my religion (which would default to the name Anti Thesis's religion for convenience) would include the modules 'determinism'. On top of this, I would say 'God(dess) is never displeased with anyone' because that would imply that one can act against God(dess)'s will, which determinism does not allow for. One is the result of the other.
Someone else may fork this religion, but straight out remove the latter module because it would imply murder is justified, which seems unethical to them. Or the former module, but keep the latter one as a 'basic' module, because they don't feel that determinism is required in order for God(dess) to never be displeased with anyone.
This would also allow people to map Christianity as described in the Bible, and fork contemporary Catholicism from it, which incorporates some of Plato's ideas. Not everyone who considers themselves Christian, subscribes to every single one of the ideas, so everyone could have their own fork of Christianity.
It may sound like I'm overcomplicating things, but not everyone has to make use of all features. I do think this will be very useful to people, because some religions may be more complicated than the other.
Hello, sorry for the late response but I've been busy. I'm going to post it in the belief modules section when I've worked out the theories a bit more.
This site has a great design, but to be honest, I don't find it all too intuitive. If the idea is to aggregate belief modules, I'm expecting a Wiki that grants oversight, not for the information to be scattered across a forum. It is true that a wiki provides less of a community feel than a forum, but ideally, the two would be combined. A lot more practical, perhaps, is to just have a community-maintained wiki in addition to the forum.
Hi Sidian, just looking for more knowledge outside the dogmatic world, and share what i been learning my way, I think is a better way as a comunity knowledge that every one can share their own experience, thanks.
Hello! I've been following along on Facebook for a little while, now, and I think it's a fascinating project. Though not a particularly religious sort these days, I've done the same measure of studying and dabbling that I think most educated people have, and I always wonder why people believe what they do- and, more importantly, how it affects their perception of the rest of the world.
Hello and thank you. You've never heard about Asheranity because I've made it up. Basically, I found the Semitic Goddess Asherah came closest to being a historical representation of the Goddess I believe in. I was actually looking for monotheism with a female representation of the godhead, but it seems that that doesn't exist except for the recent feminist branch of Wicca called Dianic Wicca, and there's several problems with that.
A consort of the Hebrew god YHWH (Judaism used to be polytheistic) was all I was going to get, but that's good enough. It turns out that during the Babylonian captivity, the TeNaCh was strongly revised to only include the god Yahweh, and if there are still references to Her, they are now in a negative context.
Though the source isn't too serious, there's a quote I particularly liked: "Wooden pillars erected in [h]er honor were so numerous that even YAHWEH himself felt a little threatened. These so-called 'Asherah Poles' are mentioned several times in the Old Testament — usually accompanied by the words 'Thou shalt not'." Source: http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/middle-eastern-mythology.php?deity=ASHERAH
It seems like they had to bury Her because they feared She'd become too powerful otherwise. And that's exactly what I'm trying to catch. To me, every Goddess is the same and I chose Asherah simply because She seemed to represent my ideas the most. I am not fond of Her in particular, only of the idea of a Goddess. I still have a lot to learn about the various Goddesses and the name / representation are still prone to revision if I find a better alternative. And that's the good thing about open-source: if I focus on explaining my ideas, someone else may come along and recognize it in another Goddess.
As for my ideas, I feel no need for a rush in writing them down, they're also still developing, but basically, I believe that a Goddess created both the good and evil parts of the universe. As Epicurus put it: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" I believe the existence of any god cannot be proven (agnosticism), but at the same time, I feel that the world just has to originate from a higher being (it's an axiom). Following from this, I ended up with Epicurus's second option: a malevolent Goddess.
She created the world because She felt a great desire to give, and people so that there was someone to give to. To the Goddess, everything is neutral, and it's us who decided to call certain things good, and other things evil. We do this because it's a useful way to express yourself, people know what you mean. But we've taken it rather far, to the point where we have to call the Goddess evil. She wanted to give us humans a taste of Her complexity through the issues of life that we experience, but we fail to appreciate it, we aren't being thankful. The goal in Asheranity isn't to forcefully eradicate evil through denial, nor is it to surrender to evil and stop trying to solve problems, but rather, to come to peace with it, realize that everything happens for a reason, and to become one with the cosmos.
I'd like to thank you for creating this site and for encouraging me to finally start writing things down. There's a lot more to it and I'm planning to slowly start publishing it. If any of my views seem troubling to you, critique is very welcome.
Thank you so much for the response Sidian, it means a lot that you would take time out of your day to help me fully understand this new movement. I read the slides and this seems very thought out, relative and hopeful.
Again, thank you for your time. I'll be letting everyone close to me know about this wonderful page.
Hi Sid, you posted a "status" "How do you guys like the new forum look?"
Should I respond to it here?
Things look great and seem more infiting, I think. I do have a question, why are the posts in the Believe Module named or indicated as 'discussions'?
If someone has a question, great but that is not why I would post a belief. I cannot change a belief of 'my' religion because I'm not in charge.
This may be more on the subject of code. When posting a module, and selecting "preview" it says to go back to the discussion to edit or post it. Could it be so that those options are 'listed' as links on the preview page? Maybe something for the future.
Keep up the great work!! this has been quite a change for the better.
Once again that religious attitude of "What is it about "MY" mind that "I cannot understand" how OSR works.
Maybe there is something wrong with your mind that you cannot comprehend how my mind works.
As soon as some one presents ideas that do not "fit" into a religions rules, there is something wrong with that person and they suggest maybe the person should just "leave". Gee whatever happened with the we accept everybody bullsh*t these relgions spout?
Okay so let's see if you can comprehend what it might be about my mind that you seem to think I cannot comprehend what OSR is about.
Kernel has noticed I have a tendency to play devil's advocate. The reason I do so is that I DO want to see all sides of an issue. So when someone like kernels says there is a wonderful group of people called the BK who are the last and greatest spiritual group there will be, I think this is wonderful.... but .... does everyone feel so warm and fuzzy about this group. So I do a little research and lo and behold I find thousands of people who disagree. I come back and present my findings, only to have this Kernel guy who claims to be so accepting of other beliefs, making personal attacks on me , questioning my intelligence, insulting me making false claims about me. Guess what? That is the same kind complaints I heard about his religion. They like all religions claim to be accepting but after they get the hook into you they start pressuring you to adopt all of their tennants and become a slave to their religious rituals.
Now I come here and hear the same claim, we are so accepting. Next thing I know it is suggested "I can leave" that there is something about me that I cannot comprehend.
If it walks like a duck (religion) and sqawks like a duck (religion) then it must be a duck(religion).
And yes I see any kind of censorship or pressure (like shunning or ridicule for example) to conform to a concensus as tools used by the religious establishment to control their subjects and make them toe the line.
So when I make an observation that a belief module someone presents is contrary to a previous claim of belief I have to question how that person can hold those two contradictory belief modules. Now some people criticize me for not having a belief system (perhaps so they can attack it).
I have constantly stood by this belief system
1. Love truth and righteousness above all else
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
I have also pointed out many times that I am just like everyone else, which some people object to by saying "I am not like you" or "you are not like me", but that is their belief module, not mine.
So if I accuse you of being sarcastic, or deceitful, or uncomprehending, I realize I also have all those failings in myself. So if I present contrary belief modules, it is not because I hold them but because I recognize them as equal. I may question how one can hold contrary belief modules, and I myself as I said have suggested there is no Satan, but at the same time I understand that there is a Satan and I am more than willing to explain how these seemingly contrary belief modules can be accomodated by simple different points of view of the same entity/nonentity.
Do I really not understand how OSR works? I am sorry if I was wrong in thinking and wanting to and being able to see how all ALL the belief modules can be accomodated was a part of how OSR worked.
In summary, I am not "debating" whether or not a belief module is valid or invalid, I am asking how what seem to be contrary belief modules can co exist and both be valid, not only within an individual as I asked Kernel about Jesus and Satan, but also between my own belief modules and other peoples belief modules, that may be contrary to mine.
This is a bit of the way my mind works ... also it works on the fly, it may change tomorrow depending on what I learn today, so yes trying to nail me down to a solid belief system is like trying to nail jelly to the wall so to speak.
I hope this helps you understand how my mind works so just maybe you might have more insight into my comments and replies, unless you think my mindset does not fit in here with what you are trying to accomplish. I have enjoyed being here but I am sure I can find another place to share my ideas if you feel this is not the place for me.