Access Denied

You do not have permissions to access this page.

Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Definitions? (Last post by Brenna)
    • Quote: The Specifications of Standardizing was meant (In theory) to be Community Wide. During these meetings representatives from All of the communities would be there to define an "Overall" Standard. What is the point? Good questions....which is why there has been no success so far. In the end, you will always have those few who rush off and do their own thing anyways. Until we can all learn to play together, we will never have a community wide set of standards. Can we not all "play together" without adopting a one size fits all standardization? There has been no success because people will always hold differing beliefs. And Success will be shortlived if it ever happens. Quote: So yes. I am afraid of TotJO becoming the flag bearer. There are quite a few good communities and groups out there asides for this place, they should be given their chance as much as TotJO has theirs. Is this why some other members try so hard to get TOTJO to conform to their definitions. Being afraid of TOTJO? The existence of TOTJO does not prevent communities from "having their chance", and I think the assumption that people cant find out about other groups is unfounded. I came to TOTJO first, explored other communities, and still chose to stay here. Why do you think it is that TOTJO remains the flag bearer? Quote: I realize that TotJO "Will allow" but when you read the context in their pages it does sound very strict and one directional to the Church only. This goes back to my "Cosmetic" complaints of how some things are worded and displayed here. Things here are worded in the way they are because it is currently convenient, for us. Things evolve all the time. And it is "directional" because TOTJO can only be a representative of what IT represents Why do you put "will allow" in inverted commas. Quote: No? You don't think the Initates Program. Clergy. Knights. and Sermens are not all apart of defining and standardizing what Temple of the Jedi Order stands for? It seems that way to me, and from what I have seen just of recent...many feel the same way. No actually, I dont. The purpose of most of the training here is to learn how to consider the world from different perspectives. There is no hard and fast "this is what you must think". Which is why there are arguments, if there was no freedom, people would be shut down and banned almost daily. Myself included :whistle: Instead, we are asked to learn how to deal with and accept differing view points. Quote: Many of the older members here will repeatedly say how things are "Open" and "Free" here. But the structure of the website itself. The APPERANCE of it gives a different feeling. Many of the outside communities give off the APPEARANCE of just being role players. I realize that it not the case, but thats how it looks. I'm sure you can understand the value of not being judged by appearance alone.
    • What is TOTJO? (Last post by Oneiros)
    • Quote: Quote: ... thus we cannot just accept everyone... I find this to be counter to the professed teachings real-world Jedi adhere to. We can accept everyone. We're choosing not to. The only person who can truly decide if someone is a Jedi is the Jedi in question. None of the rest of our opinions matter, and by showing an intolerance to different viewpoints inside the Temple, we would rapidly become a cult rather than a place of learning. My only problem with this is that you seem to consider someone a Jedi just because they say, "I'm a Jedi." If someone claims to be Christian but then says that they don't believe that Christ actually died on the cross and that he was not resurrected, then they aren't Christian. If someone claims to be Muslim but doesn't pray and also worships Allah's wife and daughter from Pre-Islamic pagan Arab traditions, then they aren't actually Muslim. I don't think someone can just come into a religion believing whatever they want and still be considered part of that religion. We can accept everyone for who they are, but not necessarily as Jedi. I don't think that excluding people who do not believe as Jedi do will turn us into a cult. If we just let anyone in and let them bring in whatever ideas they want and accept it all, then being a Jedi will be reduced to just being a really really really accepting person. If that were the case then regardless of someone's dedication to spiritual growth, their intellect, or their moral compass they could call themselves a Jedi as long as they just accept everyone for who they are. I just started the IP so I am not the authority on what a Jedi is, but I was under the impression that a Jedi was not simply a nice person, but that they were mindful, balanced, and dedicated. If a person's character is lacking all of those things but they accept everyone for who they are, are they actually a Jedi?
    • American men, American media, and the villificatio... (Last post by Oneiros)
    • Quote: I think the main concern is about young boys being harmed. The asumption that young boys are being "harmed" by this is wrong because the basis for that article and that line of thinking is also wrong. The sort of paranoia that that article is based on and promotes is not healthy or helpful to righting any of the imagined wrongs that it claims to point out.
    • Taoism (Last post by Rickie The Grey)
    • This is for Alexandre. We spoke in chat the other day and I didn't have the likn available to show him; Enjoy
    • Forum Access Changes (Last post by Rickie The Grey)
    • Quote: Feel free to be dissapointed all you would like. Throw a temper tantrum too if you wish. While you do, we will still be here getting things done to improve matters just as we always have. This does not entail dismissing anybody, however those who scream and cry because everything did not happen the way they demanded will only be making things harder on themselves to be thoroughly considered. Going into threads protesting that the knights and council are all dismissive has no constructive basis and only contributes to the already existing conflicts that we are trying to settle. Seems strongly worded, maybe out of frustration? I'm not happy about this anymore now than I was when it first came out but I'm letting go of it. Maybe some/most of us should let this thread rest, take some time for the water to settle down and the air to clear? Peace :)
    • Course Comms (Last post by tzb)
    • Discussion 6 - The Road of Trials now available: PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THE COURSE COMMS THREAD

There are 148 visitors, 7 guests and 35 members online (5  are in chat): Br. John, Alethea Thompson, steamboat28, Firewolf, Jestor, Jedi_Roz, Karn, Kitsu Tails, Lightstrider, Nakis, Connor L., Learn_To_Know, Darren, Proteus, rugadd, Rosalyn J, Alan, Arcade, Brenna, Llama Su, Kamizu, Avalonslight, Silvermane, tzb, Pyrus Erath, carlos.martinez3, Cabur Senaar, SeventhSL, Goken, Korund Uku Luleko, Acheron, Revan Falton, Oneiros, Exarchias, j.ezra, dhaughewald, danielhwhite, Damianmarcos.

Follow Us