Regarding Christianity and other religions in relation to The Source Code

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sidian M.S. Jones on June 20, 2009 at 1:44pm

Of course any proposition from any religion must undergo the same verification process for VALIDITY to The Source Code and LOGIC CHECKS.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sidian M.S. Jones on June 21, 2009 at 10:31am

Bumping this again. Gimme some thoughts guys.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by doone on June 21, 2009 at 10:41am

How about a comparison chart between the main concepts of the Buddha and modern science? You can have one column with the concept, one column with the current concept and one column with the differences between Buddha and modern science?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on June 21, 2009 at 1:47pm

That was my proposition... To have the various paths of thought added to the single single source code. Buddha could go under there is no God, and the process of enlightment could be detailed. Those who find faults with any path could either be provided a type of box to propose questions about the logic, or to by concensus drop in logic boxes that must be addressed in the logic fields.

MUwaM said:

How about a comparison chart between the main concepts of the Buddha and modern science? You can have one column with the concept, one column with the current concept and one column with the differences between Buddha and modern science?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James S Saint on June 21, 2009 at 3:33pm

MUwaM said:

How about a comparison chart between the main concepts of the Buddha and modern science?

Trying to compare religions is a task far beyond simple thought. Merely talking about two of them is mixing Metrics and English units. In trying to compare them, you would be asking, "how many pounds is a light year?"

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by doone on June 21, 2009 at 3:38pm

I did not imply that we should compare religions, merely that Buddha stated certain facts or assumptions about the universe. How do those facts or assumptions match up with our current perception of reality.

James S Saint said:

MUwaM said:

How about a comparison chart between the main concepts of the Buddha and modern science?

Trying to compare religions is a task far beyond simple thought. Merely talking about two of them is mixing Metrics and English units. In trying to compare them, you would be asking, "how many pounds is a light year?"

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Woody on June 21, 2009 at 6:11pm

Yes.

We want RG to be viewed as the place to go to see what the evidence is for various beliefs held by various religions.

This is not a comparative religions anthology. Each belief is weighed based on "scientific" evidence, not who or how may say they believe it. At RG, the belief is proposed for debate. Pro and con arguments are recorded. Note: these "arguments" are not sophisticated opinions. They are ideally 1st hand (eyewitness) accounts by more than one witness to controlled experiment(s) or some other verifiable event(s) that form the basis for the proposed belief (or refutation of that belief).

Because we don't (yet) have a huge number of members at RG, 1st hand accounts will need to be supplemented by 2nd hand references to reputable sources that have documented such experiments and/or events.

In any case, at RG there is no comparison of one religion's belief about God, or purpose, or origin of the human species with another's. Only a logical analysis of scientific/documented evidence for a proposed belief.

After all the evidence available has been submitted in the debate for a proposed belief, a Source Arbiter states a conclusion on whether or not the proposal (which may have been reworded significantly as a result of the dialog that took place during the debate) is valid, based on this evidence. This debate ends and the result is recorded by a Source Scribe into The Source Code.

Sincve RG is an Open Source Religion, if someone has new evidence to challenge anything in The Source Code, a new proposal will be submitted and go through a new Resolution Debate.


Jeff H said:

That was my proposition... To have the various paths of thought added to the single single source code. Buddha could go under there is no God, and the process of enlightment could be detailed. Those who find faults with any path could either be provided a type of box to propose questions about the logic, or to by concensus drop in logic boxes that must be addressed in the logic fields.

MUwaM said:

How about a comparison chart between the main concepts of the Buddha and modern science? You can have one column with the concept, one column with the current concept and one column with the differences between Buddha and modern science?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on June 21, 2009 at 6:16pm

Woody said: "Only a logical analysis of scientific/documented evidence for a proposed belief."

If you put the logical evidence for each proposed belief on the same logic flow chart, it would naturally breed comparison of logic between them. That isn't a bad thing.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Woody on June 21, 2009 at 6:28pm

Agreed. But this would be informal, not part of TSC. At the end of the day, people will believe what they want to believe.

Each person will value the evidence recorded by the Source Scribe for a belief somewhat differently. Some will say the evidence is overwhelming and convincing. Others will say that the data is inconclusive or fabricated to make a point, e.g., Mendel's experimental data on genetic inheritance of dominant versus recessive traits.

Jeff H said:

Woody said: "Only a logical analysis of scientific/documented evidence for a proposed belief."

If you put the logical evidence for each proposed belief on the same logic flow chart, it would naturally breed comparison of logic between them. That isn't a bad thing.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by The Kernel on June 21, 2009 at 6:29pm

Sidian you say, perhaps other religions have a place in TSC project. Under what circumstances to you think they would agree? Religious concepts are constantly trying to capture or encompass other religious thoughts. We better come up with something that is comprehensive, coherent, timely and irresistible if established religions, or anyone for that matter, will pay any attention. Are RG members beginning to show more interest in redefining god?

Do you think defining "God=Reality" is inclusive? Does it encompass other religious schools or does it create a new domain? I'm waiting to read the RG press release on God=Reality when it's finally ready. I wish I could have been there when Martin Luther or Moses chiseled out their theses.

* God = Reality
* Reality is Everything
* The Universe is Everything
* God is the Universe
* God is Everything
* The Universe is Reality

* If God is Reality, did God also create Reality? Where did reality come from?
* What is Reality? It's Something that changes - over time!
* Is God subject to the reality of change? Does God change? Does Reality Change - over time?
* If God changes (not constant - not absolute) then the definition of God will be a relative definition and change over time.

Claiming that there is room in TSC Project for "other religions", is presumptuous of the fact that people from other religions are interested in participating in TSC Project. Should others be involved at the formulation stage or should we wait until the project is pretty much complete before soliciting more input?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James S Saint on June 21, 2009 at 7:13pm

My 2 cents on this;

The objective of the TSC is not to compare religions, but rather to accept rational thought from ANY source that can logically back up what they claim. Science is expected to be the front runner in such an endeavor (assuming we can weed out the pseudoscience and politics).

To attempt to evaluate or compare the "truth value" in any religion, the first thing to do would have to be to make sure that the religion was truly understood. This means properly translating exactly what was meant by ancient writers. I seriously doubt that anyone on this site wants to go to that trouble. Rabbis argue for centuries over what Moses really meant by various things. Christians argue among themselves over what was truly intended and how much was parable or more important.

What the TSC can offer is for debates over these issues to take place from a starting point of specified axioms proceeded by logical argument. Two Jewish members can propose fundamental axioms of their belief and from there, TSC can offer to moderate logical discussion.

From that, TSC can then see what seems to also make sense from a science logic stance. TSC cannot proclaim that one religion is true and another false because it cannot go to such trouble with interpretations. TSC must create its own database of rational thought regardless of what anyone else has ever proclaimed.

TSC proclaims that Reality is TSCs concern. Logic is what must be consistent in Reality (by definition) and thus is the means for validation of thought concerning Reality. Other beliefs are a part of Reality whether true or false, but until those beliefs can be translated into logical sense, TSC can only record their discussions for those who wish to study those beliefs.

Personally, I can translate Judeo-Christian scriptures into a picture of Reality that makes perfect sense with Science, but that is not TSCs concern or goal. I think that trying to argue over what other religions meant by what they said is largely a waste of time. If TSC maintains integrity in open sourcing and logical moderating, TSC can catch up with and pass other religions including Science.

In addition, by this process, TSC will end up formulating a means of governing that has never been on Earth, yet will prevent ALL of the problems that past governing methods create. TSC is a long way from that point and cannot at this time be bothered with even the thought of it. Focus on the "now" is important.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Woody on June 21, 2009 at 7:36pm

John,
Please note the subtle capitalization syntax in TSC's The Source Lexicon:

GOD == Reality itself, the one and only. == ATWI.

God == ? Not (yet) defined at RG. It will be interesting to see what we at RG can agree on for this...I will be re-introducing my own proposal listed below at a later date.

god == an entity (masculine, feminine, both, or neither) capable of absolute control over the process and outcome of specific events in Reality. Such a god does not necessarily exercise absolute control over these identifiable parts of Reality, but could.

My proposal, which I made and then withdrew because I did not want to have an extended debate with James Saint until we have more RG experience wirh Resolution Debate, would be as follows (modified in response to previous Resolution Debate dialog with James)::

God == Universal Spirit (which includes all consciousness, transcends good and evil, is mysterious, and may influence Reality in unpredictable ways).
We need to make a distinction between God as a synonym for Universal Spirit == All Qi everywhere == Sum total of all vibrations everywhere (including Subtle Energy vibrations), and god as an entity whose Particular Spirit may be incarnated or re-incarnated anthropomorphically as e.g., a Messiah, Savior, or Guru.

James' counter-argument, which caused me to withdraw was: "My only concern was to not leave out those (Jeff H for example) who believe that "God" represents a spiritual AND anthropomorphic entity. A "Messiah","Savior", and "Guru" are all different things entirely.

I'm uncertain of the need to get into that much detail at this time. Although I don't object to having them defined."

After 10 more proposals go through Resolution Debate, I will probably re-introduce this proposal formally at: Members Proposals for Resolution Debate.

John S said:

...snip... If God is Reality, did God also create Reality? Where did reality come from?
* What is Reality? It's Something that changes - over time!
* Is God subject to the reality of change? Does God change? Does Reality Change - over time?
* If God changes (not constant - not absolute) then the definition of God will be a relative definition and change over time.

Claiming that there is room in TSC Project for "other religions", is presumptuous of the fact that people from other religions are interested in participating in TSC Project. Should others be involved at the formulation stage or should we wait until the project is pretty much complete before soliciting more input?

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page