Some questions from a passer-by

Reneza wrote: Why do you devoutly follow something in which the primary focus of worship does such things?

I don't want to derail this thread any further (you're welcome to PM me if you want to continue discussing this), so I'm only going to address this part, but my short answer is simple: the primary focus of worship doesn't do those things. My long answer is not that of a seminary-trained theologian, so I encourage you to research this subject for yourself if you're interested, and take what I say with a grain of salt.

The Book of Joshua was heavily modelled on the terror propaganda of the Assyrian empire (using similar language and ideas), but there is also no historical/archaeological evidence that the genocides and ethnic cleansing depicted within ever took place. It's more likely they slowly moved into and occupied that land over a long period of time. In Joshua, however, Joshua and his followers conquer and pillage everything basically unopposed - because, the book says, they have God on their side. In contrast, the book that follows, Judges, shows the multi-level collapse of the kingdom Joshua and his descendants helped create - the suggestion being that they turned away from God, and therefore, without the strength of God, were impotent against forces that led to chaotic "days [where] there was no king in Israel."

It is considered likely by some scholars that both books were composed/compiled for the first time during or after the Babylonian exile (6th century BC.) For a people living under oppression, propaganda stories of kicking ass with God on your side would probably resonate really well - indeed, given that all these stories were part of an oral tradition originally, this is likely why they endured for so long. The chaos depicted in Judges, with the eponymous judges (which were more like warlords) unable to lead Israel to glory, carries a moralistic message befitting the times: "our failure is because we have turned away from God, and this is what it leads to." Tales of this past era without kings in Israel would have resonated powerfully with people whose fortunes had fallen considerably since a generation prior.

Do these lessons need to be taken literally today? No - otherwise all Christians would be obliged to murder non-believers and conquer their lands, "with the Lord our God on our side." But in their time, which is practically alien to our own, these stories carried powerful meaning in a world where might made right. Why are these in Scripture, then? One reason is probably because understanding the world of the Old Testament is extremely important for understanding the world of the New Testament. As a final note, in the U.S. Episcopal tradition, readings of Scripture during services usually end with "The Word of the Lord." But that's kinda hard to stomach when the "word" is "genocide." I much prefer the way the Anglican Church in New Zealand does it: "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church."

Right, now I'm out of here, since this is too far off topic - I don't want to detract from Jedi Stuff™. But like I said, you're welcome to PM me! All the best.

I admittedly have skimmed some of the longer posts here but I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet or not. Have you read our doctrine page?

While we all may have different interpretations of Jediism and it's doctrine it does actually have one. It might be a useful place to start and then ask questions about specific parts of that. Right now you're asking for a description of something that is, first of all, very vague and, secondly, is very difficult to define if it's even possible at all. Perhaps looking through that can answer some questions or at least give you more specific questions to get answers to.

Senan wrote: Required by who? Agreed upon by who? Christians have a commandment prohibiting murder, and yet went on crusades. Definitions, meanings and agreements certainly change over time. Jedi understand that. If I am to accept your definition of "Christian" being the one from thousands of years ago for the sake of this conversation, would you not then be expected to accept my definition of Jedi as I define it today?

It was agreed upon by Christians for almost 1500 years. Words need definitions otherwise they serve no purpose but terrible signs directing people to nowhere.

Senan wrote: I am a Jedi and I profess my belief in the Force. The Doctrine does not demand a definition in defense of my belief. It simply demands that I have one.

No, but by having something so fundamental, especially making it a proper noun such as "The Force" without defining it is absurd to say the least.

Senan wrote: Are we not allowed to see the Force as a reality? Are we not allowed to consider the Bible a collection of mythology?

Of course you are, I just want to know what you mean by it.

Senan wrote: Am I to accept the story of Noah's Ark as truth because all Christians "have to"? I'm sensing a double standard being applied here.

The Nicene Creed says nothing about the Bible as literal history. Jediism however says nothing about "The Force" at all.

Senan wrote: What is a cupcake? I can give you a dictionary definition if you'd like, but it will pale in comparison to actually eating one yourself. Be at peace, and you'll know. Have your peace disturbed, and you'll know. Or maybe you won't.

I just ask because I want to know what you mean by it so we can have a clear conversation.

Senan wrote: We're right back to defining terms rather than seeking truth. To say that I don't believe Jediism is a religion is to say that my definition of religion is the same as yours.

Governments have agreed upon definition and none of them except the US allow Jediism to be counted as a religion. The US only allows this because its liberty philosophy allows anyone to define themselves in any way they wish, even if it makes no sense.

Senan wrote: If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, we certainly can

No, just your definition would be nice.

Senan wrote: This is a great question for you to explore for yourself, just as many of us do every day in this Temple.

So why then doesn't anyone wish to explain what they mean by their own claims? Why is this so difficult?

Adi Vas wrote: (entire post)

I'll discuss this with you later via PM

Goken wrote: While we all may have different interpretations of Jediism and it's doctrine it does actually have one. It might be a useful place to start and then ask questions about specific parts of that. Right now you're asking for a description of something that is, first of all, very vague and, secondly, is very difficult to define if it's even possible at all. Perhaps looking through that can answer some questions or at least give you more specific questions to get answers to

I have read it and by almost every definition of religion except the most modern and loosely defined ones set by individuals themselves, it isn't a religion and raises more questions than answers.

Thanks Goken - that has reminded me of something else that might help here.

Reneza - if the terminology of our actual Doctrine is impenetrable - try this - it won't help with the definitions much but it communicates the spirit of what we're about very well, in my opinion.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/47-Journals/105619-book-of-proteus-personal-log?start=47

perhaps you should stop using archaic definitions...jediism is a modern thing, and is more readily defined with modern thoughts, not ancient mandated definitions....

just because it doesn't match the old definition of a religion doesn't mean it's not a religion...times change, the meaning of words change...let go of attachment and flow with the changes of time...

Loudzoo wrote: Thanks Goken - that has reminded me of something else that might help here.

Reneza - if the terminology of our actual Doctrine is impenetrable - try this - it won't help with the definitions much but it communicates the spirit of what we're about very well, in my opinion.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/47-Journals/105619-book-of-proteus-personal-log?start=47

Thanks, I'll read it and get back to you later

RyuJin wrote: perhaps you should stop using archaic definitions...jediism is a modern thing, and is more readily defined with modern thoughts, not ancient mandated definitions....

just because it doesn't match the old definition of a religion doesn't mean it's not a religion...times change, the meaning of words change...let go of attachment and flow with the changes of time...

So if the definition of "religion" has changed what is it now?

per merriam webster's dictionary
Full Definition of religion
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

it is by these that i feel jediism can be seen as a religion, and while i can't speak for everyone, i'm sure most will agree...

a personal set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices... a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith....

Reneza wrote:

Jestor wrote: Im sorry, "whats about"?

"Jediism"

"Jediism"" It's clearly not about that though. It's about a self-proclaimed religious organization defining what its members actually believe."

Crazy, I was talking about TOTJO, and somehow you flipped it to that? :blink: :dry:

Jestor wrote: Well, thank you for letting us know our motives...

Well, few others wish to tell me, so what else am I supposed to do other than deduce from what I read here?

You know what happens when you assume, "right"?

Jestor wrote: syncretic ideology... Need ideology too?

That makes more sense, thank you. No need for the latter part.

Jestor wrote: IM not worried about labels...

You sure are, lol...

If by labels you mean words with definitions then yes. I prefer if when people claimed they were something, they were able to define it.

Yea, thats part of your trouble, lol...

Gotta define everything, gotta figure out the puzzles, gotta know, gotta seek... lol...

Jestor wrote: Jediism is however you are defining it for you... Its why you wont understand from the seat you are in, lol...

By what you say, it literally has no meaning.

Right...

Life doesnt, you are aware of that too, right?

The only meaning in anything, is that which we give it... lol...

Jestor wrote: Thats twice now you have suggested I was insulting...

The text speaks for itself.

Well, two thoughts...

One, maybe I need to work on speaking with those who are easily offended... I used to put a disclaimer in my signature for those with weak consittutions...

Two, you are just having fun with us...

Three, actually, you suffer from an 'interrogator drama major', with a 'poor me drama minor'...

Jestor wrote: Cause you would fall into the "non-jedi' people... and I would fall into the other...

So what is the line between Jedi and non-Jedi?

Similar to the line between sunup, and sundown...

Jestor wrote: No, you need to try heroin to understand what it feels like...

So how do I "try" Jediism?

Act like a Jedi...

Picture the perfect Jedi in your mind...

Be that person...

Jestor wrote: There are plenty of studies that tell show you it can kill you...

There are also countless things online that would suggest that Jediism is not much more than playing dress-ups and role playing but I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt by asking you people what you believe.

True...

And I think we are accomidating you, lol...

Cause,you know, if I can influence one life positively, yada, yada...

You may be 'the one' for me...

Jestor wrote: You have to figure that out for yourself, lol...

Then it's meaningless. But plenty of people have given vague definitions at least. Is it difficult for you to give at least one?

Yes...

Sorry...

One? "Dont be a dick..."

Jestor wrote: The founders of this temple did..

Ok, but then it doesn't sound really universal then but rather chauvinistic.

Hows that?

Jestor wrote: Please tell us what a religion is, from a agreed upon source...

I didn't start this thread to do so and I don't see how it would help at all.

[/quote]

YOu said we were not a religion, we say we are...

Reneza, you have received many explanations, and many kinds of definitions. None of them have satisfied you. We have stated that many things in our Temple are non-specific. You asked that they be made specific. They aren't. You wanting them to be won't change that.

You have been, quite frankly, rude and dismissive in a way that is either deliberate or smacks of an astonishing lack of self-awareness. I realize you may find this insulting, but there it is. I would like you to try to understand something:

We do not go looking for converts. We do not evangelize. When people come, we welcome them. When they leave we wish them well. Each of us serves in the world in our own way, led by our own consciences. We did not come looking for you. When you showed up and demanded answers without being willing to put any discernable work into understanding what goes on here, a great deal of time was spent explaining our endeavor. We did it because the subject matter is dear to us and because we are sympathetic to curiosity and the desire for insight. We all started as seekers. We are all still seekers. We gave you the answers we gave you. If you don't like them, we do not owe you answers that suit your preferences. Strictly speaking, you were not owed the answers that you did get.

I may be wrong (I often am), but you give no appearance of any sincere effort to understand. You seem to have come to argue. If you did sincerely try to understand, and failed, then I apologize. Between you aparent unwillingness to meet us halfway and your general lack of civility, I do not see how this can go any farther. And it is a shame. You seem both bright and driven. I'm sure we all could have learned a great deal from each other. Just, not today.

Take excellent care of yourself, Reneza. When you actually want to talk and listen, I look forward to it.

Reneza wrote: The search engine says this which I'm rather happy with: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods or a particular system of faith and worship.

the search engine gave you something convenient, but not comprehensive

it is accepted by scholars that there is no single definition of the word "religion"

well, the scholars that teach at my community college anyway, primarily this guy (why he got such a low score for "easiness" i dont know - all you had to do was show up, pay attention, and read what he told you to read)

but if you dont trust him, what about this place?

"Definitions of religion tend to suffer from one of two problems: they are either too narrow and exclude many belief systems which most agree are religious, or they are too vague and ambiguous, suggesting that just about anything and everything is a religion."

and

"Mircea Eliade defined religion in reference to a focus on "the sacred," and that is a good replacement for "supernatural beings" because not every religion revolves around the supernatural."

anyway, to say "this is not a religion" because it doesnt meet the standard that you yourself have set, which is not a standard accepted by those who have spent their entire lifetimes studying religions, does not actually negate that it fills the role of religion in the lives of many people

if something fills that role, who am i, or who who are you, to say that its not a religion?

you mentioned the nicene creed - what you didnt mention was that it was established in 325 aka close to 300 years after the estimated death of jesus

(i dont think totjo has had even 30 years to sort itself out, so we're doing ok)

nor did you mention the reason it was necessary - because of the varied interpretations of what it meant to be christian at the time, by the people who were alive during the early years of christianity

imo, and i think history does not much contradict this, the fact that rome itself had a vested interest in the final results was as relevant to the chosen interpretation as any individuals religious piety or scholarliness

and for that matter, a religion's doctrine is codified by the people who practice the religion: they could just as easily say "our god is beyond precise definition, but we use such and such language to relate to it because it is functional and convenient for us to do so" and that would be accepted today

fundamental to the idea of the tao is that it is not definable - this is like the first page of the tao te ching

i take a slight exception to your definition of "myth"

you say:

Reneza wrote: I understand what you're coming from so perhaps I can define what I mean by myth as it means to most modern people in English, although not the strict original definition: "fictional story that may or may not contain actual historic fact, but used to explain a particular concept." This is the definition used by Campbell in his book.

my objection is the use of the word "concept" - i feel this is not hitting the heart of the matter

myths are used to express existential truths - all myths are true

in the sense that they tell us something that is true about ourselves, or our times, or at least, the about people who created them

its bigger than mere "concepts"

and no here really needs the benefit of your doubt - some of the things youve said are easily taken as insulting, maybe you dont mean them that way

i am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you dont

but i am curious where you want to go from here

youre not going to convince anyone here of -- anything probably

are you trying to?

what?

if you dont think "jediism" is a valid religion, then by all means, dont adopt it

i do believe the questions and points you raise are good for totjo to face - im curious however if youre open to the possibility that what we have here actually works, imperfect as it may be?

and if it does work, are you just taking an opportunity to tip someones cart and spill their goods?