Sith

Ain't that what many Christian denominations do? If you don't believe the exact same way that they do, you're not really a Christian? It's sanctimony, at best.

And every denomination of Christianity would attack you if you created a Christian church in which "Christian" beliefs were significantly altered. If you don't believe Jesus was/is the messiah you're not a Christian because by definition "Christ" is in the name. So the definition of the religion is based on the teachings of Christ, not the teachings of Bilbo Baggins. If you wanted to teach Bilbo Baggins and not Jesus Christ, that's fine, but most people would choose a different name.

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

If you don't do this you can call yourself a Christian all day... but are you a Christian? The above is the definition. Christians mainly agree that other Christians (even if they have doctrinal differences) are "followers of Christ". To therefore take the name Christian means that your intent is to FOLLOW him; not create your own religion/path and use his name. That's not sanctimony. That's simply not being what you claim to be. Christians are imperfect people. As such they are imperfect followers. Although Jesus says "be ye therefore perfect" they're just not. But it's one thing to fail and fall short at being perfect. It's another thing to actually change what Jesus said in order to fit your imperfections. What I have heard in this thread is that real-life Sith aren't simply falling short of Sith teachings. They've actually changed them to be more like the Jedi to be quite honest. And while that doesn't seem so terrible in practice it's basically a hybrid. Now if they called themselves REVANITES... THAT would make total sense to me and it would be accurate enough that I would have the same respect for their religion as I do for the Jedi. It's just too much of a change to the Sith and their philosophy FOR ME.

Now... let's get real. If a girl came up to you in a club and you started dancing with her... You're having fun. You're touching her. She's grinding on you. You drink together. You talk. Conversation's good. She invites you to back to her hotel room and in the light you notice she has an Adam's apple...

What do you do?

ZealotX wrote:

Those that create and codify are the ones that get to set the definition.

But ironically, this is exactly the point I was making. And I will reiterate again, that my views of the Sith are my own opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This just happens to be mine.

Look, at the end of the day no one is forced to recognize what anyone wants to call themselves. If Rodney wants to call himself "Rodney the Magnificent" Rodney can call himself whatever makes him happy. That doesn't mean that I have to call him that.

The one who created and codified the Jedi and their philosophy was George Lucas. (I know that's the fiction. Hold on.)

Jediism doesn't really change that. It basically honors it and gets as close as possible within a real-world context. There's no real divergence or radical change in the Jedi code, its understanding, or Jedi philosophy. In other words, it doesn't just take the name. Jediism respects the definition of "Jedi" that was created by Lucas. It doesn't borrow the name and do away with the teachings or what it represents in SW. Jedi comes from SW. It is a trademarked property. Because it is non-commercial use Jediism can use it but I wouldn't be here if I felt it didn't give proper respect to the origin of the name and the mythological characters it belonged to. When I read the materials here... what I see is true to what I know about the Jedi. It's not a fan site just for people who want to cosplay or whatever. The focus is on the understanding and enlightenment. The definition of Jedi is already set. If someone suddenly said Jediism is about line dancing and retweeting the Kardashians I'd be out the door. Why? Because my opinion of what Jedi are isn't limited to a movie but rather it is the translation of their ideology into real-life. My opinion of the Sith is based on the same premises.

Except he did not create these as philosophical paths, he did not create these as religious paths. They were story elements and nothing more. Further, the Temple Jedi and those of Lucas's work are so vastly different that no Jedi of fiction would recognize us as such. So no he did not codify the Jedi philosophy or religion as we know it in this Temple or any other Jedi/Force studies group that I have seen. We view the code and rules vastly differently than the works of fiction.

The Jedi here took the various elements of the movies and eu and combined it with various other frameworks to create a path that they felt fit the spirit of the Jedi of fiction. But said path still deviates in vital ways. In fact, most Jedi here would likely be booted from the Jedi order of the fictional universe. Those that walk the path of the Sith did the same thing and face a similar fate if put into the fictional setting. Simply because it does not match YOUR view does not mean you should be dismissive. Such an act is not much better than those that say we are crazy fans and it's not a real religion or life path.

Frankly, this comes down to civility and respect. For you to tell an entire group that they are not what they claim to be when they created the path comes off best as pretentious and at worst blatantly disrespectful.

ZealotX wrote: Now... let's get real. If a girl came up to you in a club and you started dancing with her... You're having fun. You're touching her. She's grinding on you. You drink together. You talk. Conversation's good. She invites you to back to her hotel room and in the light you notice she has an Adam's apple...

Not judge, that's what. Her identity is her own. I would notice this is the second time you've made an example using those that identify differently as false, though. And the latter is what digusts me.

And let me make something clear...

In my opinion the Sith are defined by the code and their philosophy. These are like ingredients. If you mix these ingredients and bake at 350 what comes out is what we call Sith. But what comes out is a reflection of what goes in. If what usually comes out is a pyramid shape then we identify that pyramid shape with the Sith (this is a metaphor). What I'm hearing is the same ingredients (code) but a different temperature (philosophy) and what comes out is a cone. And you want me to call that Sith. I would call it something else because it, to me, it is something else. This is just my opinion.

ZealotX wrote:

Ain't that what many Christian denominations do? If you don't believe the exact same way that they do, you're not really a Christian? It's sanctimony, at best.

And every denomination of Christianity would attack you if you created a Christian church in which "Christian" beliefs were significantly altered. If you don't believe Jesus was/is the messiah you're not a Christian because by definition "Christ" is in the name. So the definition of the religion is based on the teachings of Christ, not the teachings of Bilbo Baggins. If you wanted to teach Bilbo Baggins and not Jesus Christ, that's fine, but most people would choose a different name.

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

If you don't do this you can call yourself a Christian all day... but are you a Christian? The above is the definition. Christians mainly agree that other Christians (even if they have doctrinal differences) are "followers of Christ". To therefore take the name Christian means that your intent is to FOLLOW him; not create your own religion/path and use his name. That's not sanctimony. That's simply not being what you claim to be. Christians are imperfect people. As such they are imperfect followers. Although Jesus says "be ye therefore perfect" they're just not. But it's one thing to fail and fall short at being perfect. It's another thing to actually change what Jesus said in order to fit your imperfections. What I have heard in this thread is that real-life Sith aren't simply falling short of Sith teachings. They've actually changed them to be more like the Jedi to be quite honest. And while that doesn't seem so terrible in practice it's basically a hybrid. Now if they called themselves REVANITES... THAT would make total sense to me and it would be accurate enough that I would have the same respect for their religion as I do for the Jedi. It's just too much of a change to the Sith and their philosophy FOR ME.

Now... let's get real. If a girl came up to you in a club and you started dancing with her... You're having fun. You're touching her. She's grinding on you. You drink together. You talk. Conversation's good. She invites you to back to her hotel room and in the light you notice she has an Adam's apple...

What do you do?

Not what I was referring to, at all. I was talking about denom's that look at other denom's and say that they aren't really Christian, according to their own way of belief. That's sanctimony. I'm beginning to think you're just a troll.

I didn't say false. You did. I just said she had an Adam's apple. I didn't say what she should or shouldn't identify as.

What she says or does is her own choice. What YOU say or do is yours.

Luthien wrote: Not what I was referring to, at all. I was talking about denom's that look at other denom's and say that they aren't really Christian, according to their own way of belief. That's sanctimony. I'm beginning to think you're just a troll.

That's interesting. So if you think I'm a troll and I say I'm not, then what? Do you have the right to call me a troll if that is your opinion?

ZealotX wrote: And let me make something clear...

In my opinion the Sith are defined by the code and their philosophy. These are like ingredients. If you mix these ingredients and bake at 350 what comes out is what we call Sith. But what comes out is a reflection of what goes in. If what usually comes out is a pyramid shape then we identify that pyramid shape with the Sith (this is a metaphor). What I'm hearing is the same ingredients (code) but a different temperature (philosophy) and what comes out is a cone. And you want me to call that Sith. I would call it something else because it, to me, it is something else. This is just my opinion.

Their philosophy? You mean one that has changed time and again throughout the EU? One that has become radically different from the time of pure blood sith to the dark brotherhood to the era of Bane to the era and philosophy if Sidious? Yet somehow despite all the change it can't evolve to fit the real world like the code/philosophy f the Jedi did?
This short clip dictates how drastically the ideals of the Sith changed from the original Sith empire to the death of Sidious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bse7F7De5EA

ZealotX wrote:

Luthien wrote: Not what I was referring to, at all. I was talking about denom's that look at other denom's and say that they aren't really Christian, according to their own way of belief. That's sanctimony. I'm beginning to think you're just a troll.

That's interesting. So if you think I'm a troll and I say I'm not, then what? Do you have the right to call me a troll if that is your opinion?

Of course I have the right to do so, but that doesn't necessarily make me correct.

Is this one of those "It's all in the IP - Do that then discuss the finer points of what we do here or elsewhere" type situations?