Strict adherence to doctrine.

Im starting a new thread because this one was interesting and definitely about to derail.

Callan wrote:

ren wrote: I have felt a bit let down by that thread where a lot of people supported the death penalty. Perhaps if knights and clergy and such got a bit more involved, such discussions would benefit from the input of those better acquainted with the doctrine.

That thread continues to puzzle me.

When I queried the death penalty thing, I received considered and thoughtful answers along the lines of "the doctrine isn't meant to be swallowed whole, each must make up her or his own mind where they stand", which I accepted.

I have continued to wonder, though.

If something so apparently fundamental can be ignored by an individual just because it doesn't suit them in a particular case, then what's the point of having doctrine anyway?

I have an odd relationship with the doctrine, and while I dont "ignore" any parts of it, there are some that I dont agree with or cant reconcile myself with at this point.

The discussion about cherry picking has been touched on before, but I thought it worth going over again because I think it brings up another important conversation.

Mistaking the structure and doctrine of religion for the "thing".

If I do not adhere to the doctrine strictly, am I still a Jedi?

I find this one strange for me because I cannot think of a part of the doctrine I don't agree with...

But when I saw this post I thought of this under 'Jedi Believe'

...moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.

We have many cultures here.. and for some cultures, the death penalty is an appropriate response to some crimes.

Edit: I realise that my line above could mean that I think that we should accept every point of view... but the thread about what a Jedi is not is a good example of what I mean.. For some.. the death penalty is not a 'cruel or unusual punishment'. I've had the discussion about the death penalty with a few here and, while I personally am opposed to it, I understand why some Jedi agree with it.

Good topic.

I think the issue is one of dialogue. Let us say you have made an effort to understand the doctrine. You have done the due diligence of understanding how and why you cannot reconcile it with yourself. And you have taken I up with a teacher or counselor and had a frank discussion. And you are not doing anyone any harm. Then it becomes an opportunity for the temple to discuss doctrine and the role of doctrine as law, guideline, prompt for thought, etc. And, perhaps, evolve the doctrine.

If one simply shrugged off doctrine because one is lazy, or unwilling to grow, or afraid, then that certain would be a barrier for a Jedi. Perhaps a good angle of practice

And, certainly, shrugging off doctrine while going through membership, knighthood, etc., is pretty suspect behavior. I suspect that Jedi would not gain too much from the process. Kind of a waste.

Confronting issues with doctrine seems like an excellent opportunity for growth. Seems like Jedi work to me.

Cabur Senaar wrote: Good topic.

I think the issue is one of dialogue. Let us say you have made an effort to understand the doctrine. You have done the due diligence of understanding how and why you cannot reconcile it with yourself. And you have taken I up with a teacher or counselor and had a frank discussion. And you are not doing anyone any harm. Then it becomes an opportunity for the temple to discuss doctrine and the role of doctrine as law, guideline, prompt for thought, etc. And, perhaps, evolve the doctrine.

If one simply shrugged off doctrine because one is lazy, or unwilling to grow, or afraid, then that certain would be a barrier for a Jedi. Perhaps a good angle of practice

And, certainly, shrugging off doctrine while going through membership, knighthood, etc., is pretty suspect behavior. I suspect that Jedi would not gain too much from the process. Kind of a waste.

Confronting issues with doctrine seems like an excellent opportunity for growth. Seems like Jedi work to me.

I think youre right there. Understanding. And also interpretation.

Using the death penalty example. I don't personally believe that it falls under cruel or unusual punishment. So my interpretation of it is not the same as the doctrine. Though I wholly agree with being against cruel punishment or torture.

I was a practicing Catholic for 20+ years, but never once went to confession because I don't believe in it. Did that make me not Catholic? Maybe so, but I didn't feel less Catholic, and that didn't stop the priest from giving me communion each week, even though he knew I hadn't been to confession.

That depends, is Jediism your religion? A few may laugh at that question, but think about it for a moment, how many members here look to being a Jedi as a philosophy and path vs a religion? I'm betting far more of the membership here view Jediism as the former over the latter.

I view the Doctrine as more of a set of guidelines, not so much a strict "thou shall not," and I don't follow each piece of that Doctrine by the letter.

I've been here roughly three years, off and on. I had a rather interesting discussion with Rick lately about my being Sith/Jedi. He proposed several good arguments on my being Sith, he actually made me think twice, for briefly 3.5 seconds. It was enough to kickstart my thinking processes as to where I was going with my apprenticeship, why I bothered and what am I planning to do once I am Knighted.

Least to say I can't call myself a Sith Knight here once the hooplah is over with, I don't think the council and membership would take to that too kindly, lol. I am a grey as much as the next guy here, albeit a little on the Dark side, but I am neither one or the other (light or dark) as I am both. That's not cherry picking, It's knowing who I am, realizing my faults, seeing value in the Doctrine and attempting to make my life better by following it, er some of it anyways.

My point is, I could care less what others call me, I personally feel the name "Jedi" is in fact a title, and it should earned through actions, hard work and study. It is also my belief that I have yet to earn that title, and one day I shall If I live long enough. And your damn skippy I'll call myself "Jedi" when I've earned it, and I may still stick a little to my sithyness while doing so. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, that makes me human.

Truth is not universal, no matter how bad some of us may long for it to be so. No, it's Individual, and only one person can truly decide if you're a Jedi or not, and that is you...

I view the doctrine as a least complex arrangement of values which define an idealised concept of Jedi. When something is held as an ideal it serves as an aspiration.

But I don't view the TOTJO Doctrine as being held to define what a Jedi is, rather what a "TOTJO Jedi" is - big difference of relevance because of the reasons I stated here .

Its why I liked TOTJO when I went searching for a Jedi community, it showed an understanding of the difference between another 'hobby' or 'occupation' and a spiritual/intellectual path of ones entire being.... with TOTJO being the later, and thusly allowing any nature of persons life to benefit from the Jedi way. TOTJO allows the room for individualism to be overlaid on that base doctrine, another important element of being a Jedi is finding your own path and truth.

It comes back to the difference between the movies and a view that we are all equal, in the movies the Jedi are gifted by powers and so different (unfortunately made manifest in the prequals), but in the real world it sits better with me that all people can be Jedi, even if they don't call themselves that - its just that we here focus on it as a path and therefore use the title, indeed the label is not so precious that it must be made a privilege - but ranking does serve to guide structured progress, facilitated training or organizational structure where we can easily use some of the fiction to achieve those benefits of rank.

So as I said in the other post, its the aspiration, the intent, which defines the direction one faces as they walk forward through time/life.... and if your genuine to that intent, you will find a path has been cleared behind you which enlightens the path ahead.

Sometimes we slip from the path sure, sometimes we doubt it too, but I support the doctrine so its easy for me to say all that :whistle: :lol:

Brenna wrote: If I do not adhere to the doctrine strictly, am I still a Jedi?

Do you call yourself a Jedi?

That's one of the reasons that I've been heavy on preaching that we should define terms more clearly. Who does TOTJO consider a Jedi? What does TOTJO consider the Force? Many find these kinds of questions (if given answers) oppressive.

I don't.

I don't find it oppressive or restrictive in the slightest, because I know, for a fact, without variance, that no matter what TOTJO decided on the issue, every one of its members would still carry their own opinions, thoughts, and beliefs that may equally agree or conflict with the official stance. Having definitions doesn't squelch individuality, because even in religions and philosophies that teach strict adherence, they'll never get it.

We can't, as people, be anyone but who we are. And no matter what ideology we ally ourselves with, the only one we will follow completely is the one we set for ourselves. Cherry-picking will happen. Differences will appear. Strict adherence to doctrine creates nothing but robots.

Knowing that, and knowing that we are the farthest thing from robotic, we should be willing to embrace that. Organizational mandates only help define what the ideal TOTJO Jedi would be, and none of us will ever live up to an ideal--the best we can do is be ourselves, and try to be better versions of that person, every day.

Brenna wrote: Im starting a new thread because this one was interesting and definitely about to derail.

Callan wrote:

ren wrote: I have felt a bit let down by that thread where a lot of people supported the death penalty. Perhaps if knights and clergy and such got a bit more involved, such discussions would benefit from the input of those better acquainted with the doctrine.

That thread continues to puzzle me.

When I queried the death penalty thing, I received considered and thoughtful answers along the lines of "the doctrine isn't meant to be swallowed whole, each must make up her or his own mind where they stand", which I accepted.

I have continued to wonder, though.

If something so apparently fundamental can be ignored by an individual just because it doesn't suit them in a particular case, then what's the point of having doctrine anyway?

I have an odd relationship with the doctrine, and while I dont "ignore" any parts of it, there are some that I dont agree with or cant reconcile myself with at this point.

The discussion about cherry picking has been touched on before, but I thought it worth going over again because I think it brings up another important conversation.

Mistaking the structure and doctrine of religion for the "thing".

If I do not adhere to the doctrine strictly, am I still a Jedi?

"Adherence to the Doctrine" is such a useless phrase to be honest.

If there has been one thing that has been emphasised upon me throughout my study of Christian Ethics at university, it is that one should never take the Bible and say "The Bible says...". The reason for this is because of something called hermeneutics, hermeneutics is the interpretation of religious/spiritual material. My lecturer did some research on people's interpretation of the Bible, and of all the people he interviewed, there was only one person who had a spiritual revelation because of the text itself, do you know what everyone else did? They had a spiritual revelation and then they looked for a justification of their beliefs in the Bible.

Any interpretation of spiritual or religious material is almost always going to be coloured by one's own personal bias, so saying "Well actually you'll find that our doctrine says..." actually tells us nothing more than your own personal interpretation of that particular part. As such claims like these are not really "authoritative" in that they ought to be adhered to.

Now for the caveat... If one chooses to belong to an organisation that does have a particular interpretation of some doctrine then of course that organisation can choose to expel you if you do not agree, membership is a privilege not a right.

Going back a couple of years, I disagreed with about 7 of the 16 basic teachings so decided to rewrite them, with some help, into what they are today lol

Akkarin wrote: Going back a couple of years, I disagreed with about 7 of the 16 basic teachings so decided to rewrite them, with some help, into what they are today lol

And assuming the process was thoughtful, rigorous, honest, etc., there is no reason why that couldn't happen again.