Is the light and dark?

If I'm following you correctly Carlos I think I agree. You don't have to tolerate anything you don't want to. And Neither do I. We each define for ourselves what a Jedi is and we each carry those standards into the world we interact with. I cant tell you what a Jedi is or does and you cant tell me because we each define that for ourselves. I accept your definition and you accept mine in this. But what this means is that the following statement would become invalid because no one Jedi can speak for any other in what they believe. Would you agree?

Avalon wrote: Just as a general disclaimer, no member of this organization is ok with murder or rape. The Doctrine should let on at least as much.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: So if a member of the Hamar tribe came here to study as a Jedi but kept his ancestral practices would he be accepted as a Jedi? What about one that practices ceremonial rape as part of an ancestral religious or spiritual custom? Their interpretation of the current doctrine would make their practice just as valid as yours. This is really where religion starts to get in trouble because without a detailed dogma almost anything can be interpreted in a subjective manner and in that case one cannot say that something like rape or beating your sister would never be condoned.

The thing that is changing in the scenario is the individual member of the Hamar tribe, who is freely choosing to follow the religion of Jediism. Membership of a specific Jedi community requires acceptance of it's doctrine. Without that acceptance of doctrine, there would be no "following of the religion of Jediism". In order to be able to keep her/his ancestral practices, and still be able to call themselves Jedi, the member of the Hamar tribe would have to be able to make a rational argument from the doctrine of her/his chosen religious Jedi community, to allow herself to be beaten/to participate in the beating of his sisters. It's not about whether they would be accepted here as Jedi, so much as whether they are able to accept themselves as Jedi - without that choice to become Jedi being an irrational decision on their behalf.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: If I'm following you correctly Carlos I think I agree. You don't have to tolerate anything you don't want to. And Neither do I. We each define for ourselves what a Jedi is and we each carry those standards into the world we interact with. I cant tell you what a Jedi is or does and you cant tell me because we each define that for ourselves. I accept your definition and you accept mine in this. But what this means is that the following statement would become invalid because no one Jedi can speak for any other in what they believe. Would you agree?

Avalon wrote: Just as a general disclaimer, no member of this organization is ok with murder or rape. The Doctrine should let on at least as much.

Who makes it invalid ?

The very fact that some members may be ok with an aspect of those things, Carlos.



@twigga, the problem comes in the fact that one is not required to accept the doctrine to be a member here or required to accept any specific interpretation of it as set forth by leadership etc. I have been a member here for over 2 years. I have gone through AP and IP and actually rejected much of the doctrine in favor of one I have written for myself. I have not been required to justify this to maintain my membership.

The doctrine is probably not worthless, and if any breaches to it come to the attention of Council that are serious enough then it will likely see action taken. As per my post , the doctrine is relevant, but ones efforts to interpret it are more open to allow progress in their path. So to answer Carlos, I would simply point to the doctrine and say murder or rape would be egregious acts against various parts of the doctrine and sufficient enough to have one removed from the Temple - but what that person calls themselves is up to them.

We get into these kinds of ethical and moral gray areas quite often here, mainly because as Kyrin points out, we have a very loose way of interpreting the Doctrine. We allow each Jedi to read it and apply it to their own Path in a way that provides them some sort of meaning. That means that sometimes parts of the Doctrine don't mesh with our real world experiences so we abandon them or modify them. In fact, it is pretty common for Apprentices here to write their own version of the Doctrine as part of the Path to Knighthood.

As for the rape and murder part, again, it all comes down to a matter of perspective. While this example is pretty extreme, it demonstrates that what I might consider murder (the death penalty) could be considered justifiable by others. What I consider to be "rape" in my culture may differ wildly from what other cultures define it as. My definitions will inform my own behavior, but I can't necessarily force others to conform to my definitions unless they have been agreed upon by society and have been codified in some sort of law that is enforceable.

As Jedi, it becomes our individual responsibility to act with discretion when deciding what battles are worth fighting and when we need to live and let live. We have to be true to our Path and defend our beliefs, but we also have to remain open to those that would challenge our beliefs and cause us to reconsider our own position. That is the only way we can avoid becoming entangled in a dogmatic version of Jediism that would become restrictive to personal growth.

Just for the sake of the philosophical debate, part of my personal code Includes the right to vengeance if so warranted and one is willing to accept the consequences. Now I don't call myself a Jedi, but a Jeda'ii but I also still consider that very much a valid path in force realism. So, as a member of this temple, if I were to take vengeance on someone who had, say killed my father in a home invasion, and i tracked him down and killed him, would that be considered murder by other Jedi? Would I be judged and summarily removed at that point? If so then what was it that kept me a member before as one that just claimed that right versus one who actually committed that act?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: @twigga, the problem comes in the fact that one is not required to accept the doctrine to be a member here or required to accept any specific interpretation of it as set forth by leadership etc. I have been a member here for over 2 years. I have gone through AP and IP and actually rejected much of the doctrine in favor of one I have written for myself. I have not been required to justify this to maintain my membership.

I based my answer off: https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/faq#HowtoJoin

> How to Join TotJO
> Jedi here fulfill the following criteria:
>
> A belief in the Force. The Force resides within you, surrounds you and flows through you.
> Acceptance of our teachings and Doctrine. These serve as spiritual guidance for Jedi. You may hold other spiritual convictions along with being a Jedi.
> A completed Membership Application.

... so I thought Jedi DID need to accept doctrine to be members of this church.

In my interpretation of the above, using the definition of Jedi above, I see the responsibility lying with me for having decided to be Jedi; for me staying Jedi, and for me stopping being Jedi. I see the interpretation of doctrine being my own responsibility. I'd not relinquish control over my status as "Jedi" to some external court, asking me to justify my being Jedi! That's my job! To me, personally, I I'd not be able to see it as rational for me to carry on saying I am a Jedi by the above definition if I'm not accepting the spiritual guidance of the teachings and doctrine of this place.

The community DID come up with “these are the lowest common denominators we share” document. It’s called “The Jedi Compass”. A great deal of orders strive to increase the standard with their own doctrines.

If you can’t be bothered to meet the lowest standard, you’re just looking for a cool name.

Alethea Thompson wrote: The community DID come up with “these are the lowest common denominators we share” document. It’s called “The Jedi Compass”. A great deal of orders strive to increase the standard with their own doctrines.

If you can’t be bothered to meet the lowest standard, you’re just looking for a cool name.

Yes but no one is required to accept of even follow that "standard" as you have defined it. This leaves it not a standard at all but just a recommendation and you really have no grounds to say anyone is Jedi or not Jedi.