...
I would advise writing your own scriptures based on what Satoshi wrote in different areas.
Using the Whitepaper as a form of scripture will lead to major issues later, for your Church.
...
It looks like you may disagree with some of our core vision. While you raise some interesting points, the whitepaper is our core document, and Satoshi Nakamoto is our prophet. His words and code may not have always been 100% consistent (as you'll find in the scripture of many other religions) but we stand by our original statements about them.
In cases where the whitepaper conflicts with later statements or code written by Satoshi Nakamoto, we would try our best to reconcile these differences by understanding that Satoshi is the prophet and was clarifying or rectifying His original statements, and would in most cases consider more recent statements to supersede the original statements in the whitepaper. Our core document is the whitepaper, as stated, however, our Bible is still being developed, and will likely include most of Satoshi's recorded statements, as well as other testaments and other gospel. The research and development of the Bible of the Church of Bitcoin is already underway and when complete, we intend to print copies of our holy book.
If you look at other religions, you will find that most do not claim that their bible is literally the words of their god; most bibles are collections of writings by prophets and testaments by individuals telling their stories, that relay information handed down from god, or show through events how their god showed himself. We feel that this situation is similar. Satoshi Nakamoto is our prophet, but our bible may not be limited to his words alone.
If you would like to be involved in the editing and selection of the documents in our scripture, please join the church and verify your membership first, and come speak with us in our IRC channel on freenode at #churchofbitcoin , and we may consider your suggestions and inputs.
...
I don't really agree or disagree with your core vision, I guess I did not
properly articulate what I was trying to convey. From a theological point
of view, "prophets" are well defined and there are tests that certain
religions have on how to prove whether a prophet is "real".
If the prophet (Satoshi) prophecizes the coming kingdom of cryptocurrencies,
made possible from him being able to solve certain problems with the answer
of "blockchain" plus other previously devised systems, that is acceptable. But
if you say that the Bitcoin Whitepaper was scripture that was literally written
by the prophet's hand (remember that scripture is usually written well after
the teacher/prophet/messiah/God's life/existence by followers after the fact,
not by the person himself in most cases), but later the prophet revises his own
scripture in any form, it automatically makes him a "false prophet", from a
theological point of view.
For example, in Judaism, when Moses "received the Ten Commandments",
if later those commandments were revised in any way by Moses or even God,
it would mean a contradiction that would prove that Moses or God was false.
Those commandments must be consistent through time for humanity. Another
example, in Christianity, when Jesus preached to the crowds and fought with
the corrupted Pharisees, he specifically advised that he did not come to change
the laws/rules or abolish them, but to reaffirm them. Thus, Jesus does not
contradict or change the old beliefs, rules, or teachings prior to him, since
they were all from God and thus consistent and complementary, from a
theological perspective. Jesus does not declare the prior teachings or prophesies
to be wrong, but if there is perceived contradiction in them, he clarifies the
teachings and explains why the perceived contradiction is a misunderstanding
by the people. He can not reverse positions if he is a true prophet and his
teachings come from God.
Changing positions in theology is very bad, since all things are already known by
God, because he resides in a higher dimension where the information has already
occurred. So if God changes his mind or is wrong with something, it is because
he is a false god. True God is never wrong and his real statements will be proven
to be true at the very end of existence, even if considered wrong through human
existence. God (or his actual prophets) can not be made wrong or contradicted.
God's word, which is enforced over time by prophecy, is the only trustless truth
that humans can verify (in relation to a higher being's existence), and if he is
proven to be a liar, existence and consciousness does not manifest as it has since
it is reliant upon that trustless truth of his word, which formed the beginning and
his own paradox ("I am who I am." or "I think therefore I am".).
That is why I made the comment I did previously. You could argue that Satoshi
was "divinely inspired" to write the Whitepaper and so revisions or additions or
subtractions are acceptable since he was a proxy only to move a larger aspect/goal
forward at the time that it was designated. But, if he was indeed a "prophet", he
would have received that message (the Whitepaper) from God (whatever form
your church will believe God takes) and if later there are indeed changes to the
design of the system because the Whitepaper was lacking or wrong, that would
prove the prophet or the God as false, and thus the "scripture" was "a false
teaching". Personally, I believe Satoshi was not infallible and all knowing and
thus was "divinely inspired" to perform the work that he did.
So my original point was that Satoshi as a "prophet" is dangerous to the Church and
its future since eventually there will be such large conflicts in theory and theology
that eventually your Church will either split into multiple parts or dissolve. I do
not have a problem with religion or creating a Church, my only issue is that if
you are being very serious and not creating a joke church for fun, there is a higher
responsibility that you are taking on since you are intentionally making it fall within
other world religion theories. My simple advice is to not make Satoshi a prophet and
then you can argue and theorize almost anything. If you must make him a prophet,
you may be purposefully creating a theological contradiction that other people
who hate what you are doing can use as an easy attack vector to discredit your
church and its work.
In certain ways, religion can be as strict as science. Just as there can be
Pseudo-science, there could also be pseudo-religion. That is all I'm trying to convey.
There may be larger issues later by arguing that Satoshi was an actual "prophet",
as opposed to being "divinely inspired" to solve a puzzle that moves humanity to
another stage of evolution and understanding. Sometimes God uses people in ways
in which they fulfill the greater plan, but are not actual prophets for God. But in truth,
I really do not know and I am just providing my opinion for something to consider.
I don't use IRC and will not participate only because I don't want to influence what
you will create and I am interested in what will come of it. I only wanted to point out
the Satoshi=Prophet aspect because depending on how it is done could make or
break the church or its theology. Either way good luck, I eagerly await to see
what you guys will come up with, since Bitcoin in the context of theology is an
interesting angle/viewpoint for me. What I enjoy most is seeing unconventional
connections to things that I didn't see or understand before.
Edit: spelling errors and elaborations
