This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No)

Moderators: Adder, Adhara

This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 02 Jul 2011 06:03 #40114

  • Br. John
  • Br. John's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Councillor
  • Bishop
  • ID: 523
While The Council would need to vote on this change I feel that input from all interested members is necessary for informed consideration.

For some time I've felt that calling this Special Interest Group Abrahamic is silly and not reflective of its contents at all. The content of the forum is 99.9%+ Christian.

History and the numbers don't support the current name. In the entire history of TOTJO I'm only aware of one member who nominally practiced the Muslim faith and only one or two who claimed the Jewish faith. I'm not attesting there are not more but stating this from my personal memory and experience.

Contrast this to the significant number of active members who are Christian Jedi. I believe the forum suffers from its current name and would be much more lively and used if we call it what it is - Christian Studies.

This is not to put off any potential member who may be Muslim or Jewish but to enhance a real need that we actually have now. We have a significant Christian population. We have a physical congregation in Minnesota with Zanthan Storm as it's Pastor and Bishop. They are Christian Jedi.

To have a group you have to have ... well ... a group.

In the future if there develops a real demand for an Islamic Studies forum or a Jewish Studies forum (and so on) we can make them.

In the beginning this forum was called The Christian Rite and it was changed on the theory of being more inclusive. That was a mistake. By trying to cast so large a net it's alienating the persons who'd actually use it.

Anyone be they guest or member is most welcome to express his or her ideas about this if interested.
Founder of The Order

Re: This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 02 Jul 2011 09:41 #40117

I think Christian studies or something along that line would be a more suitable name. I believe it would be a better description as well and would reflect the content better and would possibly be used more with a name change. As you stated, the Abrahamic religions vary greatly from one another, so it is hard to lump them all into one.

Re: This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 02 Jul 2011 10:38 #40121

I see no issue, though a sticky about the change, why, and how we are not trying to put off the other abrahamic faiths might be a good idea if the change is done.

Re: This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 02 Jul 2011 21:54 #40127

I have met one Muslim Jedi and one Jewish Jedi. To refer to this group as just Christian really does seem to snub the other two groups. If we changed this to "Christian", then why not change the Pagan group to "Wiccan". To do so with the latter would estrange a number of other groups which do not adhere to Wicca (for example, Hinduism).

If the subject was to change both groups from their names to something a bit more broad (Abrahamic becomes Monotheistic and Pagan becomes Polytheistic) then I might be more willing to accept the idea.
Alethea "Setanaoko" Thompson
Apprentice to Br. John

"Stop praying. Praying is a sense of false accomplishment, thus leading you to inaction. If you stop praying, you will be driven to take action, which in the end will prove more effective." - Nathan Thompson

Re: This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 02 Jul 2011 23:12 #40129

As Br John stated though, if needed a group for Jewish, Muslim or other monotheistic religious people could be made. I don't think it would be snubbing them, as they are still welcome and another group can be made if the need or want arose. From how I see it, it is just hard to fit all God or monotheistic based religions under the Abrahamic group. Seeing as each of these often have very differing views on some stances. Also, newcomers might would be less hesitant to join if there was more of a specification of what religion. Not to stereotype, but people can be very protective of their faiths even down to how it is categorized. So in that aspect I see it as more of a help.

Re: This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 03 Jul 2011 02:45 #40132

  • Akkarin
  • Akkarin's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Councillor
  • Priest
  • ID: 484
As a non-Christian/Abrahamic Jedi I don't really have any issues other than what Jasper said.
Jasper_Ward wrote:
I see no issue, though a sticky about the change, why, and how we are not trying to put off the other abrahamic faiths might be a good idea if the change is done.

The only thing I would add is maybe to edit the FAQ with the question 'Why is there no Judaism/Islamic special interest group?' That way if anyone ever asks then we have the thread about it and they can see it in the FAQ as well.

The worst thing that can happen is that someone accuses us of being insensitive or otherwise when regarding the views of Islam or Judaism or indeed any other religion.

So I think it is just prudent to cover all of the bases.
Apprentices: discorder, hellisforhorses, Red Lila
Former Apprentices: Desolous
Former Master: Br. John

Councillor
Head of Public Relations and Marketing
Librarian
Associate Pastor

Senior Knight and Priest of the Temple of the Jedi Order

Re: This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 03 Jul 2011 05:33 #40133

I know that I'm not an experienced member, but I'd like to point out that I myself don't see a need for that. It will probably only cause some minor future problems (like others said: "Why is there no Islamic/Judaism group?") and the people who use this forum know that it's mostly Christian either way. It will close the door for other Abrahamic religions - not forever, of course, but might be some disappointment for new members.

Re: This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 03 Jul 2011 05:43 #40134

  • Xiam
  • Xiam's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Member
  • ID: 1027
Randi Oxford wrote:
I have met one Muslim Jedi and one Jewish Jedi. To refer to this group as just Christian really does seem to snub the other two groups. If we changed this to "Christian", then why not change the Pagan group to "Wiccan". To do so with the latter would estrange a number of other groups which do not adhere to Wicca (for example, Hinduism).

If the subject was to change both groups from their names to something a bit more broad (Abrahamic becomes Monotheistic and Pagan becomes Polytheistic) then I might be more willing to accept the idea.
This was my thinking as well. I would have agreed to switch to Christian Rite had there been nothing but Christians, but as it was mentioned that there were a small few of the Abrahamic Rite that are not Christian, I am much more wary about it. A minority is still a number. It doesn't seem right that they should be ignored just to make the majority more comfortable (and really, how much of a change in comfort is it anyway? Christianity is an Abrahamic religion).

Plus, there's the issue of how to deal with those who aren't Christian and are looking for a place where they fit (i.e. the hypothetically nonexistent Abrahamic Rite). You can talk about placing disclaimers or answers in the FAQ or waiting for complaints, but that still takes effort on their part, when all they're wanting is to find a place where they can be comfortable, and feel a bit nervous when they can't find it.

Maybe I'm overthinking things in assuming that would be their reactions, I don't know. It just seems like a needless change. And again, .1% may be small, but it's still something worth considering.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Qui-Ran Demera

Re: This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 03 Jul 2011 06:37 #40136

  • Br. John
  • Br. John's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Councillor
  • Bishop
  • ID: 523
I'm looking at this from the perspective of mislabeling or false advertising. What's actually in that forum? I'm not finding any Jewish or Muslim discussions but plenty of Christian discussions including prayers and ceremonies for a multitude of occasions.

I frequently eat and get take out from a local Black Eye Pea restaurant. The food is very good and so it the service. Several months ago my mother and I went there and the special was Chicken and Dumplings. We ordered it. What a letdown. It was Chicken Soup with dumplings thrown in. Even Campbell's Soup gets this right. They have a Chicken Soup with Dumplings and then they have Chicken and Dumplings which (I hope) you all know is a rich creamy sauce with plenty of chicken and dumplings made from biscuit batter.

So while I don't know how a Muslim or Jewish person would feel if they go in this forum I do understand the disappointment of expecting something and not getting it.

Nobody's saying we cannot have and add forums labeled Muslim Studies and Jewish Studies.

What I'm saying is that we properly label that forum to reflect what's actually in it.
Founder of The Order

Re: This Should Be Christian Not Abrahamic (Yes / No) 03 Jul 2011 21:31 #40149

Then perhaps it would be a good idea for people who are in that forum to help bring about more teachings from the other two systems. Just to help even things out. After all, Christianity sprung forth from Judaism, and Islam sprung from Christianity. It helps bring about a more well rounded view of how the system has evolved in the three systems.

You know, so long as they remain respectful when researching and posting.
Alethea "Setanaoko" Thompson
Apprentice to Br. John

"Stop praying. Praying is a sense of false accomplishment, thus leading you to inaction. If you stop praying, you will be driven to take action, which in the end will prove more effective." - Nathan Thompson
The following user(s) said Thank You: Nameless3450
Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • The Balance (Last post by Rickie The Grey)
    • Balance is dynamic. We're never perfectly balanced but waver over the balance point. We may be still for a moment but soon move off center. We're complex creatures, it's the nature of life. Striving for balance in ones life is always a work in progress. What I attempt is not to tilt my balance to the extreems, one way or the other. As you live , learn and gain experience (learn from your mistakes) the fluctuations in life are less extreme. Some may call this mellowed out or at peace with the world. Lifes a journey. :(
    • Talent (Last post by Revan Falton)
    • My hands hurt and fingers are all cramped up just from watching these unbelievably talented individuals!
    • Becoming a member.. (Last post by Jestor)
    • It does tell you it fan take up to two weeks to get processed...;) I've had some things pop up but should get done this week...:)
    • Martial Arts as a metaphor of Personal Behavior? (Last post by rugadd)
    • I'll save Shaolin philosophy for another thread. Martial Arts wiped away misconceptions and delusions I had. Shaolin is a very unforgiving art in that you don't get to stop until you have too. Reality comes crashing in very fast because of this. What we are capable of, those wispy dreams born from fantastic stories, are gone the instant you realize you can only do 7 pushups. Gone are the fictitious flips as you struggle with a simple bear crawl. No more does one say to themselves "I would see it coming, know and do just the right thing" in a fight after one 2 minute round. Training for me taught me humility. It is the first lesson and an important one. After a few years in martial arts, one does not WANT to have to fight. They have to much experience with their own body to want to put that harm on anyone, or suffer it themselves. It is about being forced to see who you really are instead of what you think of yourself to be. One of the reasons I think everyone should be beat up at least once in their lives.
    • What is TOTJO? (Last post by Akkarin)
    • I'm a bit late to this party, but with regards to the defining thing brought up earlier, at TotJO we officially don't ever take any authoritative position on the definition of a Jedi. We say "This is what makes you a Jedi by our standards" and don't take much interest in what other people think, because why should we be beholden to them for our definition? We do not expect them to be beholden to us by our definition (which for TotJO is: "You are a Jedi if you complete the application and take the Simple Oath - which is a demonstration of your acceptance of our doctrine). On the Homepage: www.templeofthejediorder.org/ the text just above the Jedi Believe part was changed specifically to "If you wish to further your understanding of the Jedi Path then you can begin the Initiate Programme", because the training is supplemental to one's understanding of the doctrine which is what makes one a Jedi in our eyes. While the vast majority of members here do undertake the training it is not required. We are a gathering place of like-minded people who have taken on the name of Jedi as an umbrella term for our beliefs. Like-minded means that we will all come here, and stay here (or not), for a variety of different reasons. The Temple offers each of us something different, because it means something different to each of us. If people are worried that TotJO is ever trying to take some kind of authoritative position on what makes someone a Jedi then that person has perhaps missed the numerous instances in which we have always stated that we never do that - especially in official communication with non-Jedi news-people and students.
    • Further Religious Structure (Last post by Connor L.)
    • All we can be sure of is that nobody knows everything. Carlos was not there when the book was written. So, he can't know what the right answer is, EVEN IF HE GETS IT RIGHT. :O It's a crazy thought, isn't it?
    • American men, American media, and the villificatio... (Last post by Oneiros)
    • Quote: I don't mean from the book itself but from the article. My experience of TV tells me it's rubbish, with the only guy on TV that looks normal to me being norm from "new yankee workshop". though I'm sure there are other instances of men not being mis-represented. I know of at least one show that makes fun of women ("real housewives of some town"), but i find it particularly distasteful, my wife is the one who watches this sort of rubbish (This stuff genuinely makes me feel like after 10 years free of TV I should never have hooked it up to an aerial) Well yes, I will absolutely concede the point that TV is 100% rubbish except for Looney Toons. That is just pure gold. I think my biggest problem with the points made in the article is that they are all based on the idea that (to put it simply) the media controls the way you think. I only believe this is the case if someone does almost nothing except immerse themselves in media. If all someone does all day is watch TV, then all they're going to know is what they see on TV and that will shape their world view. But by that logic I could say the same thing about a person who only reads books by a single author on a single subject. In both cases their perspective will be limited, but do we criticize publishing company's for printing books? No because that would be crazy and there are plenty of books to choose from so nobody is limited. That is why it is important to be mindful of our thoughts and strengthen our mental resolve so that we are not influenced by this outside noise, but rather stay focused on our internal clarity so our perspective can be open instead of limited. I understand the worry that children won't be able to maintain a clear enough mind to resist all the messages in the media, but that's why education is so important. If a child is well educated and well rounded, they will be able to see through all the rhetoric and labels and half-baked sound bytes and find the truth. This article only adds to the noise they'll have to cut through. It comes from the exact same place in someone's heart as the messages it's trying to counter: fear. Fear is not an appropriate tool to teach people. This brings me to my specific examples from the article. I need not read further than the first line to find one. The first thing the writer does is quote Orwell's 1984 and then talk about totalitarian societies. If you're allowed to quote Orwell, you don't live in a totalitarian society. I feel like that's the first book that would get burned. Another example is "Feminism is an ideology, or systematised way of thinking. Many influential feminists have been outspokenly angry about and encouraged violence to men." Aside from the grammatical errors and misidentification, the author doesn't even bother to define feminism. He just says it's an ideology and then jumps right into "violence to men." Through a blatant omission of information, he effectively associates feminism with violence against men. That is being purposefully deceptive in order to make a point. "While there has been some university study of men, it is taken for granted that this will be done from a feminist perspective." That's not what taken for granted means. It doesn't mean automatically assumed, it means to expect someone or something to be always available to serve in some way without thanks or recognition; to value someone or something too lightly. The misuse of a simple phrase speaks to the intellectual value of the article's author. "HOW MEDIA PUT MEN DOWN Some influential media images of men can be found in The Simpsons. The father character, Homer, is lazy, chauvinistic, stupid and irresponsible." I don't watch Simpson's often but I can name a few dad's on TV that are good men: Ned Stark-Game of Thrones, Jerry Stiller-Seinfeld, Jay Pritchett-Modern Family, Burt Hummel-Glee. I could name more. For every "bad" example there is also a "good" example. The article cites a single father figure TV and extrapolates a whole point from it, completely omitting (again) any information to the contrary. If someone is worried about being told how to think, they should steer clear of this article and Jim Macnamara's book because all it does it tell people how to think by focusing on and twisting things to fit a world view instead of looking at the totality of information and developing an unbiased viewpoint from it. the funny thing is, this is exactly the tactic used by the media to do exactly what this article is warning people about: controlling the way you think.
    • Is questioning one's faith inevitable? (Last post by Koffee)
    • It's as natural and inevitable as a snake shedding its skin, yo. In other words, humans are intrinsically metaphysical. As consciousness evolves, so must ones beliefs or "faiths" correspond to this evolution. Faith must decay before it can grow anew, and since growth is a a natural property of consciousness, it follows that all faiths must in some sense decay. This sense of "decay" could be elaborated further, but I would generally consider "questioning" one's faith to be either a kind of decay or a symptom of decay, depending on how you want to approach describing the phenomena. What is essential never really dies, however. So one may qualify my original answer with a few other distinctions and terms, etc.

There are 269 visitors, 7 guests and 44 members online (8  are in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, Zanthan Storm, Alethea Thompson, steamboat28, Jon, Jedi_Roz, ren, Kitsu Tails, Joe, Lightstrider, Brian, Wescli Wardest, Desolous, Gisteron, Proteus, rugadd, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, Clone_Warrior, Rickie The Grey, Archon, Kamizu, zeronycon, Edan, Silvermane, SilverWolf, tzb, Senan, microft, benedictveritas, Mathew Erickson, carlos.martinez3, Calanon, taidavrikaurvan, Acheron, Revan Falton, Quae-Do Lumen, Oneiros, Exarchias, danielhwhite, Damianmarcos.

Follow Us