Build Your Own Religion

Commendable.

Sounds reasonable.
If I may diverge for a second though, taking up your point on the non-biblical materials you were reading, would that include the controversial Judas Gospel? I had a read of it a few months back, and it was completely different in tone from common Gospel and other biblical literatures. In fact, if I didn’t know any better, I would say the 7 page content was lifted out of the Bhagavad Gita and rewritten by a non native, as Jesus sounded very ‘metaphysical’ and a reference to Judas’ progenies residing in the distant stars being of particular highlight. Back to the topic; I have no particular religion to set aside, being an agnostic, but my leanings will be held in check for this *useful project*

Your analogy has a valid foundation, and fairly accurate, I must say. However, you must also consider that the parasitical nature you classified it under does not take into account the denominational evolution of religions, as once new power centres or personalities are established, it will inevitably lead to a minor divergence in the religion’s identity - as means of establishing their individuality/freedom, personality conflicts and/or interpretational issues

This looks fine. However, what are the incentives for adherents, and of course, the disincentives, for rebels or non-conformists? I think this is important as humanity are naturally preconditioned (an evolutionary/architectural deficiency?) to seek the route of least resistance towards achieving their objectives as well as being motivated by ‘cheese’ - this could expose some fundamental design flaw of the new religion.

Whoa, dude. Think it over. Empowering humanity to ‘awaken their giant within’? You better think this through…too many chefs and all…

A democratic religious structure, I figured as much. You don’t have much of a choice here, to be honest. Perhaps a proportional representation model? That said, here’s a question: how do you prevent the emergence of politics, lobbyist, special interest groups and brown baggers in the electoral framework? If you recall, you don’t have a disincentive yet, so be prepared for this. Otherwise, you’re looking at a rehash of religion as a political tool.

I disagree on one point. Atheism also attracts the demographically displaced. Having said that, the communal camaraderie which you’re alluding to can be modeled along the old shared-vision propaganda. In which case, a vision/objective/target could be looked into.

Well, the church will be rather diversified, so the appeal may resonate with others as well. lol

Precisely. Question: A centralized or a decentralized power structure? Both carries its equal share of pros and cons. While a centralized bureaucracy offers a more efficient administrative model, it also creates the risks of fringe movements owing to the distant power center. On the other hand, decentralization, while offering greater flexibility and closer contact to the community, carries the risk of kiddie warlords, bureaucratic red tape, etc. Both of this concepts are practiced on some level by all organized religion in present day.

You definitely won’t, but a counter symbolism is needed for such days. A spiritually based one, I would assume?

But that's my new religion. What about yours?[/QUOTE]
As to my thoughts, may I revert back in a day? This has been a particularly long day, and I am leaving for a trip in about half an hour. No rest for the wicked…

 

Nah... stuff like The Books of Enoch and the Acts of Barnabus and Epistle of Barnabus. The Gospel of Barnabus is another forgery, like the Judas Gospel or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Power struggles will exist as long as humans exist, or at least until we find a perfect method of dividing authority. I mean, look at the Restoration Movement -- even the Church of Christ and the Christian Church had to break up.

But really... is this really different from an open-source project forking? Can it be handled with equal civility? The Restoration Movement did. The Mormon split from Christianity... not such a great example.

By and large, I think I can paint each denomination as "just another parasite seeking to be dominant over a small group of hosts." Sure, it's overly negative, as the vast majority of clergy really do think they are doing the right thing. They intend to be just rulers, but they intend to rule.

This is a real bear of a problem, because I cannot offer eternal life -- the big cookie behind most religions. The most this new religion can offer is informed guidance to achieving happiness in this life and companionship along that path.

For rebels and non-conformists, the disincentives are simply the natural withering of social ties. If a church member decides to espouse luddism, for example, the other church members may lose interest in sharing their time with him. In the words of Don Henley, he will have to eat his lunch all by himself.

Experience has taught me that it is so difficult to help people become greater than they are that I need never worry about achieving too much success.

I have in mind more of a database. We "seed" the database with works that are approved by the church founders, to give it a predetermined bias. Then, each church member checks out works (books, pamphlets, podcasts, videos, movies) and uses them. Members may join together to evaluate chosen works, much like a book club. Then, when a member checks a work back in, they evaluate the work using a structured evaluation form. "Was the work approachable? Was the premise plausible? Do you believe this work will help you in your own life? Has this work helped you in your own life? Would you recommend this work to others?" As each member contributes evaluations, they "move up" in rank, much like the Scientlogists do.

The central computer becomes the ever-evolving bible of the religion. Heck, we could even program in "friends", so that the computer makes recommendations for your personal path to enlightenment by applying more weight to evaluation votes entered by your social group. There is no need for a uniform path to enlightenment for all church members. Heck, I think different paths are desirable based solely upon Jungian archetypes. If Alvin Toffler taught us anything, he taught us that one-size-fits-all is passé.

I am hoping that the system will work so well for members that this will drive conversions. That's probably insanely optimistic.

I think that the U.S. Constitution provides a good model of checks and balances to learn from. That lasted for almost a century before it got tossed into the dung heap. I think the key is restricting each component of the church only to a list of strictly enumerated powers. The vast majority of power won't go to the members as a whole either, it will go to members as individuals. The group won't be allowed to vote "Blue is evil", each member will only be able to decide for themselves.

And hey, if people don't like it they can always fork their own religion project.

Hmm... "spiritually" is such a dangerous word. It tends to be used as an excuse for unreason.

No! Now! Now! Now! The end is nigh!

I am a few years behind schedule just at writing down my thoughts, much less getting a building, coding software, and recruiting members.

 

building a new religion is actually a good business. image your brothers paying you tidings every month and you get to ditch them during gatherings..

the more you receive during election period. ha! it must be good to have your own religion

 

Except for all of those founders who were violently murdered by members of competing religions...

 

all types of sciences you have listed have just improved material life not inner world of the person. Religion can teach, peace, tolerance, love, affection, and many other good attributes of life. Science is rather destructive force without cool and balanced mind behind it.

 

To become the founder of a new religion one must be psychologically infallible in one's knowledge of a certain type of souls who have not yet recognized that they belong together.

- Nietzsche

 

Sort of how Reagan won in 1980 by adding religious Southern voters to the existing small government and fiscal responsibility Republicans. Or, how George Soros won in 2008 by forging a coalition of blacks, anti-war protesters, and Marxists. Politics and religion aren't so far apart.

My hope is to join together people from various existing religions who belong together because they believe in their personal ability to improve themselves as human beings.

 

As I am my own god, that relationship is pretty solid.

 

Search islam it is a peaceful religion in the world and Quran the holly book is complete code of life.

 

The statement implies a new religion is a goal rather than understanding the existing religion to its fullest extent as the goal.

Did Nietzsche accomplish the totality of knowledge in a pure state that transformed his spirit to a physical presence - is what the Edenist say is possible within a lifetime and is the goal.

Not new religions but greater understandings till the goal of life that already exists is reached. The Pyramid is an example - life begins at the base and progresses to the apex for those who accomplish the goals.

 

Blahahahahahahah! You're funny.

See the thread topic.

 

Build Your Own Religion

I have built not my own religion but have constructed the original religion in its proper role.

Knee jerk Atheism may satisfy individual needs but does not represent actual origins and purposes of the universe as fact than fiction any differently than any other misconstrued religion.

 

That's a pretty standard marketing spin for religions. The Muslims, for example, claim both that a) Adam was a Muslim and b) Monkeys are Muslims.

My take on this is that Evolutionary Religion uncovers the natural order of the evolutionary Universe and aligns human thinking to those principles.

 

No Spencer, there are no claims within the religion only the supports and facts used to ascend to a state long ago concluded necessary for the everlasting.

By the way, no text necessary.