Jediism and drinking

That being said he did say his "version" if you will was supposed to be a religious movement so maybe that's where your distaste for it comes from.

Granted I will also agree he does to seem to be somewhat ego driven, and does admit he was in the beginning so I hope he's either working on that or has already fixed that part of himself.

For me there were some good things, but as stated in a previous post I prefer Opie's pretty much because of what the above review said about Daniel. No offense to Daniel, but not fully my cup of tea as it were.

This is an online church and ministry. It was intended as a religion from day one. Some people have issues with the word religion because it's diabolically difficult to define. They have a particular notion of what it 'must' mean so if a member wants to view Jediism as a way of life or philosophy that's fine.

I agree with Kahlil Gibran on Religion

Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,
And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?
Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?
Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?"
All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self.
He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked.
The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin.
And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage.
The freest song comes not through bars and wires.
And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn.

Your daily life is your temple and your religion.
Whenever you enter into it take with you your all.
Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute,
The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight.
For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures.
And take with you all men:
For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair.

Deimos wrote: So I finished Become the Force by Daniel Jones and in it he says Jediists stay away from stimulants and alcohol because being in tune with the force is the only high they need. Not the verbatim quote but that is the general idea. Thoughts?

I tend to agree with Mr. Jones but I wouldn't go so far as to say you can't be a Jedi/Jediist if you still use those substances.

Those substances spring from the Force do they not? As long as they aren't dominating you, use them wisely.

Br. John wrote: This is an online church and ministry. It was intended as a religion from day one. Some people have issues with the word religion because it's diabolically difficult to define. They have a particular notion of what it 'must' mean so if a member wants to view Jediism as a way of life or philosophy that's fine.

I agree with Kahlil Gibran on Religion

Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,

Agreed, however most religions have some variation of a "5 year" plan.

For Christians, this comes in the form of the rapture and final judgement. For Muslims, it is signified by يوم القيامة (day of judgement) and the arrival of بْلِيس (Iblis / Eblis). For Buddhists it comes in the form of (“จุดจบของโลกอยู่ที่ ๖๐๐๐ ล้านปี และ จุดจบของโลก กับ จุดจบของสัตว์ที่มีวิญญาณครองต่างกัน”) the worlds end at the 6 billion year mark, when 7 suns will circle the earth and burn it to ashes.

I mentioned in an earlier comment that TOTJO is great, in the regard that it does not promote or otherwise focus primarily on religious governance. However, in that same spirit we also fail to promote any form of long-term investment within the faith where a unified and commonly shared vision of an afterlife or post-death existence is concerned.

TOTJO for me has been a sort of Atheist philosophy club, or non-secular monastery. We have no universal beliefs shared between membership, uncounted variations of the doctrine and adherence to it, a variety of different codes and special interest groups with their own unique beliefs, etc...

Summarized, I suppose the question remains; If TOTJO is and has been intended as a religion and ministry, what is our plan & purpose in being so?

Kohadre wrote:

Br. John wrote: This is an online church and ministry. It was intended as a religion from day one. Some people have issues with the word religion because it's diabolically difficult to define. They have a particular notion of what it 'must' mean so if a member wants to view Jediism as a way of life or philosophy that's fine.

I agree with Kahlil Gibran on Religion

Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,

Agreed, however most religions have some variation of a "5 year" plan.

For Christians, this comes in the form of the rapture and final judgement. For Muslims, it is signified by يوم القيامة (day of judgement) and the arrival of بْلِيس (Iblis / Eblis). For Buddhists it comes in the form of (“จุดจบของโลกอยู่ที่ ๖๐๐๐ ล้านปี และ จุดจบของโลก กับ จุดจบของสัตว์ที่มีวิญญาณครองต่างกัน”) the worlds end at the 6 billion year mark, when 7 suns will circle the earth and burn it to ashes.

I mentioned in an earlier comment that TOTJO is great, in the regard that it does not promote or otherwise focus primarily on religious governance. However, in that same spirit we also fail to promote any form of long-term investment within the faith where a unified and commonly shared vision of an afterlife or post-death existence is concerned.

TOTJO for me has been a sort of Atheist philosophy club, or non-secular monastery. We have no universal beliefs shared between membership, uncounted variations of the doctrine and adherence to it, a variety of different codes and special interest groups with their own unique beliefs, etc...

Summarized, I suppose the question remains; If TOTJO is and has been intended as a religion and ministry, what is our plan & purpose in being so?

Which of these, if any, is the correct one? Or if you know, or have your own idea, what is the deal with the afterlife?

Br. John wrote:

Kohadre wrote:

Br. John wrote: This is an online church and ministry. It was intended as a religion from day one. Some people have issues with the word religion because it's diabolically difficult to define. They have a particular notion of what it 'must' mean so if a member wants to view Jediism as a way of life or philosophy that's fine.

I agree with Kahlil Gibran on Religion

Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,

Agreed, however most religions have some variation of a "5 year" plan.

For Christians, this comes in the form of the rapture and final judgement. For Muslims, it is signified by يوم القيامة (day of judgement) and the arrival of بْلِيس (Iblis / Eblis). For Buddhists it comes in the form of (“จุดจบของโลกอยู่ที่ ๖๐๐๐ ล้านปี และ จุดจบของโลก กับ จุดจบของสัตว์ที่มีวิญญาณครองต่างกัน”) the worlds end at the 6 billion year mark, when 7 suns will circle the earth and burn it to ashes.

I mentioned in an earlier comment that TOTJO is great, in the regard that it does not promote or otherwise focus primarily on religious governance. However, in that same spirit we also fail to promote any form of long-term investment within the faith where a unified and commonly shared vision of an afterlife or post-death existence is concerned.

TOTJO for me has been a sort of Atheist philosophy club, or non-secular monastery. We have no universal beliefs shared between membership, uncounted variations of the doctrine and adherence to it, a variety of different codes and special interest groups with their own unique beliefs, etc...

Summarized, I suppose the question remains; If TOTJO is and has been intended as a religion and ministry, what is our plan & purpose in being so?

Which of these, if any, is the correct one? Or if you know, or have your own idea, what is the deal with the afterlife?

Objectively correct?; despite the lack of evidence to counter claims and evidence brought forth against said faiths?

None.

However, if you reexamine the question posed at the end of my post; I wasn't inquiring (exclusively) as to TOTJO's post-death philosophy or beliefs concerning an afterlife. That particular mention was meant as a comparison per-se to other established and widely practiced faiths. My question was intending to ask that if we are a ministry, and established religion; what warrants said ministry and religions existence? What warrants our investments of time, effort, and faith in said beliefs?

Why should membership here apply themselves, as opposed to other debate clubs, philosophy communities, or community service charities?

---
As far as an afterlife is concerned in my personal beliefs, there is none. All available evidence points to no continuity of conscience, memory, or person-hood after physical death occurs. Also, since there has been no audible, measurable, or tangible evidence produced by any god, deity, essence, or "force" as to their existence and legitimacy of rule; it must also be deducted that such deities do not exist.

Why should membership here apply themselves, as opposed to other debate clubs, philosophy communities, or community service charities?

I hope members here are part of other other interests / organizations, maybe the ones you mention, and probably a great many more. You're defining religion as having a check list of must haves. Many do so. And if you can make a list that covers all recognized religions you'll be the first. I can show you a religion that defies your list.

Jediism is a religion of right action.

WHAT RELIGION IS NOT ~ John Gray. Seven Types of Atheism

The idea that religion is a matter of belief is parochial. What did Homer ‘believe’? Or the authors of the Bhagavad-Gita? The web of traditions that western scholars have described as ‘Hinduism’ comes with no prescribed creed, any more than does the mixture of folk religion with mysticism that western scholars call ‘Taoism’.

The notion that religions are creeds – lists of propositions or doctrines that everyone must accept or reject – emerged only with Christianity. Belief was never as important as observance in Jewish religion. In its earliest biblical forms, the religion practiced by the Jewish people was a type not of monotheism – the assertion that there is only one God – but of henotheism, the exclusive worship of their own God. Worshiping foreign gods was condemned as disloyalty, not as unbelief. It was only some time around the sixth century bc, during the period when the Israelites returned from exile to Jerusalem, that the idea that there is only one God emerged in Jewish religion. Even then the heart of Judaism continued to be practice, not belief.

Christianity has been a religion of belief from the time it was invented. But there have been Christian traditions in which belief is not central. Eastern Orthodoxy holds that God is beyond any human conception – a view fleshed out in what is known as negative or apophatic theology. Even in western Christianity, ‘believing in God’ has not always meant asserting the existence of a supernatural being. The thirteenth-century Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) was explicit that God does not exist in the same way that any particular thing exists.

In most religions, debates about belief are unimportant. Belief was irrelevant in pagan religion and continues to be unimportant in the religions of India and China. When they declare themselves unbelievers, atheists are invoking an understanding of religion that has been unthinkingly inherited from monotheism.

Many religions that feature a creator-god have imagined it very differently from the God that has been worshipped in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Since the rise of Christianity the divine mind that is supposed to have created the world has often been conceived as being perfectly good. However, Gnostic traditions have envisioned a supreme God that created the universe and then withdrew into itself, leaving the world to be ruled by a lesser god, or Demiurge, which might be indifferent or hostile to humankind. Such Gnostic ideas may seem to us far-fetched. But they have some advantages over more traditional conceptions of a Supreme Being. For one thing, they resolve the ‘problem of evil’. If God is all powerful and all good, why is there evil in the world? A familiar response has it that evil is required by free will, without which there can be no true goodness. This is the central claim of Christian theodicy (in Greek, ‘justifying God’) – the attempt to explain evil as part of a divine design. An entire tradition of atheism has developed against theodicy, memorably articulated by Ivan Karamazov, who in Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov declares that if a tortured child is the price of goodness then he will hand back to God his entry ticket to the world. I consider this type of atheism – sometimes called misotheism, or God-hatred – in Chapter 5.

Taking monotheism as a model for religion is misleading. It is not only animism and polytheism that are left out of the picture. Non-theist religions are ignored as well. Buddhism says nothing of any divine mind and rejects any idea of the soul. The world consists of processes and events. The human sense of self is an illusion; freedom is found in ridding oneself of this illusion. Popular Buddhism has retained ideas of the transmigration of souls that were current in India at the time when the Buddha lived, along with the belief that merits accumulated in one life can be passed on to another. But the idea of karma, which underpins these beliefs, denotes an impersonal process of cause and effect rather than reward or punishment by a Supreme Being. Nowhere does Buddhism speak of such a Being, and it is in fact an atheist religion. The smears and fulminations of the ‘new atheists’ make sense only in a specifically Christian context, and even then only within a few subsets of the Christian religion.

John Gray. Seven Types of Atheism (Kindle Locations 118-149). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

John Gray. Seven Types of Atheism (Kindle Locations 149-150). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

(If you're interested in the entire book I can send you a link)

Br. John wrote:

Why should membership here apply themselves, as opposed to other debate clubs, philosophy communities, or community service charities?

I hope members here are part of other other interests / organizations, maybe the ones you mention, and probably a great many more. You're defining religion as having a check list of must haves. Many do so. And if you can make a list that covers all recognized religions you'll be the first. I can show you a religion that defies your list.

Jediism is a religion of right action.

WHAT RELIGION IS NOT ~ John Gray. Seven Types of Atheism

The idea that religion is a matter of belief is parochial. What did Homer ‘believe’? Or the authors of the Bhagavad-Gita? The web of traditions that western scholars have described as ‘Hinduism’ comes with no prescribed creed, any more than does the mixture of folk religion with mysticism that western scholars call ‘Taoism’.

The notion that religions are creeds – lists of propositions or doctrines that everyone must accept or reject – emerged only with Christianity. Belief was never as important as observance in Jewish religion. In its earliest biblical forms, the religion practiced by the Jewish people was a type not of monotheism – the assertion that there is only one God – but of henotheism, the exclusive worship of their own God. Worshiping foreign gods was condemned as disloyalty, not as unbelief. It was only some time around the sixth century bc, during the period when the Israelites returned from exile to Jerusalem, that the idea that there is only one God emerged in Jewish religion. Even then the heart of Judaism continued to be practice, not belief.

Christianity has been a religion of belief from the time it was invented. But there have been Christian traditions in which belief is not central. Eastern Orthodoxy holds that God is beyond any human conception – a view fleshed out in what is known as negative or apophatic theology. Even in western Christianity, ‘believing in God’ has not always meant asserting the existence of a supernatural being. The thirteenth-century Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) was explicit that God does not exist in the same way that any particular thing exists.

In most religions, debates about belief are unimportant. Belief was irrelevant in pagan religion and continues to be unimportant in the religions of India and China. When they declare themselves unbelievers, atheists are invoking an understanding of religion that has been unthinkingly inherited from monotheism.

Many religions that feature a creator-god have imagined it very differently from the God that has been worshipped in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Since the rise of Christianity the divine mind that is supposed to have created the world has often been conceived as being perfectly good. However, Gnostic traditions have envisioned a supreme God that created the universe and then withdrew into itself, leaving the world to be ruled by a lesser god, or Demiurge, which might be indifferent or hostile to humankind. Such Gnostic ideas may seem to us far-fetched. But they have some advantages over more traditional conceptions of a Supreme Being. For one thing, they resolve the ‘problem of evil’. If God is all powerful and all good, why is there evil in the world? A familiar response has it that evil is required by free will, without which there can be no true goodness. This is the central claim of Christian theodicy (in Greek, ‘justifying God’) – the attempt to explain evil as part of a divine design. An entire tradition of atheism has developed against theodicy, memorably articulated by Ivan Karamazov, who in Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov declares that if a tortured child is the price of goodness then he will hand back to God his entry ticket to the world. I consider this type of atheism – sometimes called misotheism, or God-hatred – in Chapter 5.

Taking monotheism as a model for religion is misleading. It is not only animism and polytheism that are left out of the picture. Non-theist religions are ignored as well. Buddhism says nothing of any divine mind and rejects any idea of the soul. The world consists of processes and events. The human sense of self is an illusion; freedom is found in ridding oneself of this illusion. Popular Buddhism has retained ideas of the transmigration of souls that were current in India at the time when the Buddha lived, along with the belief that merits accumulated in one life can be passed on to another. But the idea of karma, which underpins these beliefs, denotes an impersonal process of cause and effect rather than reward or punishment by a Supreme Being. Nowhere does Buddhism speak of such a Being, and it is in fact an atheist religion. The smears and fulminations of the ‘new atheists’ make sense only in a specifically Christian context, and even then only within a few subsets of the Christian religion.

John Gray. Seven Types of Atheism (Kindle Locations 118-149). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

John Gray. Seven Types of Atheism (Kindle Locations 149-150). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

(If you're interested in the entire book I can send you a link)

Thank you for the reply John, and the effort you seem to have put into it. Initially I thought my reply had been overlooked or buried within the "Latest Posts" queue.

As far as making a list of "must haves" for religion, I disagree that I would be the first. Additionally, I don't think a list really needs to be in depth or all encompassing. Such a list would really need to address simple matters of logical inquiry which most practicing faithful have at some point or another.

Ex.

[] 1. Can your claim to faith be verified with repeated and documented results / outcomes?
[] 2. Can your claim to faith be validated (I,e ; Prayer for money results in money, Prayer for cure of illness cures illness, Prayer for audible life advise results in audible life advice)
[] 3. Can your claim to faith be reproduced / replicated by other practicing faithful?

At the moment, no faith (I'm aware of) is capable of ticking those boxes. So the only logical, rational outcome is to follow a policy not of Atheism (disbelief in gods / religion) but instead of Anti-theism (opposition to theism and belief in spirituality).

The historical damage of theism (cross-faith) is staggering. Multiple Crusades, Ji·had's, inquisitions, pogroms, systemic suppression of knowledge & learning, pedophilia and ephebophilia in priesthood of multiple faiths, etc.

Atheists are kind of like the emo or goth kid within a group of friends. They claim to disbelieve in theism however are still centered within spiritual, superstitious stupidity. Despite disbelieving in god(s), they may retain some belief in an afterlife, post-death continuity, or other spiritual practice.

Anti-theists oppose spiritual practice and supernatural beliefs in all forms, due to the lack of supporting evidence and societal damage said practice and beliefs cause.

@kohadre, how are you defining the word "faith"

@Kohadre Here's something I'm not understanding based on your recent post at the time of this post.

If you are anti-theist, like I assume you are and feel free to correct me if not, then why did you join TOTJO? I don't ask to be an ass I ask because it seems contradictory as I view Jediism as something spiritual so it seems like it would be something you'd be against in concept.