Strict adherence to doctrine.

Brenna wrote:

ren wrote: it explicitly says the death penalty is such a cruel punishment.

A (totjo) jedi who supports the death penalty, to me is as a Jedi as a chirstian who worships satan is christian. Many things in the doctrine are subject to interpretation, some purposefully so, this is not one of them.

Yes, but who made that decision? Someone who's interpretation of torture and cruel punishment includes the death penalty.

That person would be Br. John, founder of the order.

Br. John wrote: There are Jedi who don't belong to TOTJO or any other Jedi group.

This I understand so I guess to clarify.

Question: If I do not adhere to the TOTJO doctrine strictly, am I still a Jedi as defined by TOTJO?
My Answer: No, by way of the logical deduction in my previous post.

Would TOTJO legally recognise you as one of their Jedi without you following the simple oath that you have taken. If yes then why even take it? If no then where is my logic flawed?

I'm not being combative. I'm just trying to understand the doctrine and by extension the oath as it is an important next step for me.

SeventhSL wrote: I'm not being combative. I'm just trying to understand the doctrine and by extension the oath as it is an important next step for me.

Anyone who follows the teachings of Christ qualifies as a Christian, in the broadest sense. But individual churches have their own membership requirements, initiatory ceremonies, differences in doctrine, etc.

If you don't fit those, are you less of a Christian? No. It might disqualify you from being Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, or Pentecostal. But Christianity itself, raw Christianity, is not so easily defined. Jediism, for all it's kicking and screaming that it's nothing like this other faith, works exactly the same.

Are you a TOTJO Jedi?
No. You're a guest because you haven't completed the requirements for membership.

Are you a Jedi?
Well, I don't know. Are you? Because if you say you are, then that's all I have to go on, and unless I want to start belittling us both by judging you, I have to take your word on it.

Many of the people here would argue they were Jedi before they knew other people self-identified as such. I've been a Jedi for a long, long time; I just wasn't an "official" Jedi, because the movement as it is didn't exist then. That didn't stop me from trying my best to live up to the ideals I felt resonated with the title and lifestyle.

Thanks mate. That answers exactly the questions I was asking.

Approach any "doctrine" like this ... One can neither write 'absolute truth' into nor get 'absolute truth' out of a book. Books are static. Circumstances of Life are not. What is fluid and dynamic cannot have a definite 'if ... , then ...' consistency to it. All attempts to do so result in comparisons of oneself to impossible ideals that yield only guilt and shame. Wouldn't it suck if someone went around feeling crappy because s/he couldn't get their head around Teaching N° 10 (for example) ?

The Doctrine makes for a good set of guidelines should we give ourselves a pretty wide berth about it. Leave some breathing room, so to speak ...

If you want to know what to do in any given set of circumstances : look around, notice what is going on -- and then look inside as to tap into your natural empathy. What is going on inside as a reflection of what is going on 'out there'. And then do what shows up as the right thing to do ...

You don't even need to know how to read books to do that.

In a recent interview I gave for an Irish online news site, http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/jedi-in-the-news/108572-totjo-on-newstalk-radio-ireland I was asked the question about marriage equality and what would happen if a Jedi thought homosexuality was abhorrent. My response was that they would be at odds with the vast majority, and seeing as it was listed as a "belief" of all Jedi at TotJO, when such a person came to be apprenticed then it would most likely be looked into so that person can better understand their position.

At the same time however I said that people don't arrive here being perfect Jedi, that these views develop over time.

It does make a rather interesting point though, the death penalty isn't as "big" a deal in modern society (at the moment at least) as homosexuality is. Can one be a TotJO Jedi and still be prejudiced against homosexual people? And if they could be a Jedi - in that they are still learning and challenging this view - could someone who hates homosexuals be granted Knighthood by TotJO?

Are there some parts of the Doctrine that are more important to abide by than others?

I used this analogy elsewhere recently, but I believe that doctrine is similar to a walking down a path with a group of people.

You may not know them. You may not care a whit about them. But you can walk the same cobble path, maybe catch up to them and discuss the weather or the day. Ultimately, though, walking with this group doesn't have to change your destination. When your turn comes by, you'll still part where you need to (unless they invite you to the bar.)

I feel that adherence to doctrine is the same. People will walk with us because they agree for the most part, but they'll still part ways (and opinions) where they will. Everyone's allowed to have their own opinion--even if we think it's wrong, or dumb, or ill-informed--because without that ability, the ability to disagree with doctrine, the doctrine can never change. Without that ability we aren't a religion, or a philosophy, we're a cult.

And we are not a cult.

Adherence to the doctrine, for me, is like adherence to the rules of a Dungeons and Dragons by the Dungeon Master.

As the Dungeon Master I look at the rule book and ask myself, "Do I think this rule makes sense in my world?" If it does then I use it, if not I may modify it or get rid of it all together. (This is why I enjoy older D&D where there were fewer rules, more freedom, but I digress).

In this analogy I am the DM of my own world (my life) and the rules are the doctrine of the Temple. I have them so that I don't have to take the time to come up with them on my own, but if there's one I don't agree with I can modify it or get rid of it to fit my life.

If other people disagree with my modifications then I'd like to discuss why with them. If we can't reach an understanding then that's fine, they understand the rules differently, but we probably won't play together.

Well then, ultimately the doctrine isnt really a doctrine at all.

Which is absolutely fine, except calling it such will create the interactions ad nauseum that it does here.

Is it simply called doctrine to fit within the parameters of a religious sect?

As the ranks are also in that vein.

You see, if one has a doctrine, then I would expect one to adhere to it, and the ones that speak against adhering to it seem to feel that they are less an individual for doing so.

I am always amazed at how people perceive individuality, or what being an individual is.

In the Dark, it comes up even moreso than in Jedi sites.

I am wondering if the doctrine is all that hard to adhere too.

I think, if it is so hard to adhere to, and is nothing more than guidelines, and the way people talk about it, it not even that, why isnt it rewritten, or done away with completely.

I am also wondering if Jedi is simply a path for those that simply want to have there cake and eat it to.

That is to say, that if you only have to change if you feel like it, and can ignore pretty much anything you dont agree with, then how are you challenged on this path to grow? In truth, you dont, and can still be a Jedi. It ultimately requires nothing of you.

Many times, its the stuff I havent agreed with, or wanted to ignore that has given me the most benefit.

Had I been left to my own devices, and not been able to adhere to something, I would have missed out greatly.

But, for the wellbeing of the Temple, those items of contention with doctrine should be discussed openly. Perhaps between Master and apprentice? Not for the purpose of compliance per se, but for the growth of the student.

To not bring it up strikes me as dishonest and, perhaps, cowardly. Certainly, no one is served by taking vows to hold up a body of teachings with which one does not agree.