Some questions from a passer-by

Ask a group of Taoists to define the Tao. Some may provide personal definitions, others may merely smile and direct you to the first verse of the Tao Te Ching, which suggests all definitions of the Tao fall short. Is Taoism not a religion because of this? While Taoists largely believe definitions of the Tao fall short (and therefore their religion is about the frame we create around an necessarily doctrinally absent "presence"), Jedi believe definitions of the Force are necessarily personal. The small core of doctrine on our Doctrine page gives you the ideas and principles we generally agree on, which are for Jedi extrapolations of the meaning of the Force. What is the Force? That which by being true, all of the things on our Doctrine page would follow. See also the Tao Te Ching (agreed, theirs is better; ours is a start). Other religions (Sithism for example) have different interpretations of what the Force means, practically.

Do all Christians agree on every part of Christian thought? No. Could you sum up the major, agreed-upon principles of Christianity in a page about the size of our Doctrine page? I believe so, yes. You yourself say what it means to be Christian is defined in the Nicene Creed, which is rather shorter than our doctrine. Why does a Doctrine's concision or the fact a core element of it is personal interpretation make its definition as a religion problematic? All religious adherents are also "personal", in that they are persons. As such, all religious people express their faith in (at least subtly, often wildly) different ways. Suggesting otherwise doesn't strike me as sensible or desirable, and as such it's one of Jediism's strengths that it doesn't seek for a single "true" definition of the Force or become overly prescriptive in how one should express their faith in it, just some central ideas which we as Jedi agree make sense.

The latitude of Jediism is not so wide that it lacks this general "sense" of what it means to be Jedi. In terms of this Temple's expression of that, the wellspring from which all of the ideas and discussions flow is all there in our Doctrine.

The other element I'd like to respond to... does a course on Poetry have less meaning because the professor didn't write all the poems? The Initiate Programme is not our doctrine, nor is it spoken of as such. It's a training course in ideas of comparative mythology, meditation, some core critical thinking principles etc etc... I don't find any issue in our use of third-party materials in an optional study programme which is there to elucidate upon some of the central ideas and principles we believe may be useful to newcomers to our faith. The core ideas and principles of Jediism (reflection, service, compassion, harmony, unity) are not new; we could try and write our equivalent of Alan Watts' lecture on Meditation, for instance, but why should we when he already speaks perfectly well of the same wisdom? And so we seek sources which resonate now, have broad appeal, are easily understood by those who arrive, but get to the same points. It's one of the joys of establishing a religion in the digital age that we can get these things from existing experts, rather than wait for new experts in these ideas to rise up, declare themselves Jedi and write something on Temple-headed notepaper - or worse still, allow less gifted orators to regurgitate their ideas second-hand.

As Senan mentioned, we also have reams and reams of community-generated, free sermons available at the site, and as yet others have stated there are many community-authored, free materials available in our library and elsewhere online. But for me those are not additions to our doctrine. I don't find any need for such additions; I walk my own path quite well enough by using what we already have here.

OB1Shinobi wrote: "your religion is apparently B.S."

I never said this

OB1Shinobi wrote: and not a religion at all

But I did imply this because nobody will give me any definition that actually defines it as such.

tzb wrote: Ask a group of Taoists to define the Tao.

They can define it quite well while simultaneously not doing so, actually. Go to any local Taoist sect-house/temple and they'll tell you exactly what it means to be a Taoist. The Tao is defined in almost exactly the same way as God is in Abrahamic faiths: unknowable but the origin of the entire universe and everything in it. Taoism as a religious tradition is quite clearly defined and has been for longer than most religions existing today.

tzb wrote: What if the Force? That which by being true, all of the things on our Doctrine page would follow. See also the Tao Te Ching (agreed, theirs is better; ours is a start). Other religions (Sithism for example) have different interpretations of what the Force means, practically.

Yes, but at least Taoists give you a general idea of its definition rather than vague completely inconsistent individual ones.

tzb wrote: Why does a Doctrine's concision or the fact a core element of it is personal interpretation make its definition as a religion problematic?

Many men worked on that particular document so it wasn't up to interpretation and so that it wouldn't be problematic. Groups that deviated from it were labelled as "not Christian" because words have meanings.

tzb wrote: does a course on Poetry have less meaning because the professor didn't write all the poems?

If the professor claims that he's a poet and then proceeds to draw a crayon picture of a goose, then yes.

tzb wrote: The core ideas and principles of Jediism (reflection, service, compassion, harmony, unity)

Why are these your core principles?

I feel like we are almost working through a language barrier, here. There are words that we are using quite differently. Myth is an easy example.

Perhaps, it might be instructive for you to tell us a bit about where you are coming from, Reneza. It's hard to share when we do not know what our common ground is.

Maybe we can take a short break?

Cabur Senaar wrote: I feel like we are almost working through a language barrier, here. There are words that we are using quite differently. Myth is an easy example.

I understand what you're coming from so perhaps I can define what I mean by myth as it means to most modern people in English, although not the strict original definition: "fictional story that may or may not contain actual historic fact, but used to explain a particular concept." This is the definition used by Campbell in his book. I do understand that the strict definition is merely story but this is not how it is used by most people today.

Cabur Senaar wrote: Perhaps, it might be instructive for you to tell us a bit about where you are coming from, Reneza. It's hard to share when we do not know what our common ground is.

Do you mean my own beliefs? I'd rather not at this point because I didn't start this discussion to do so and I don't think it's relevant right now. But if you'd like to understand certain definitions of what I'm saying, I'm more than happy to clarify

Cabur Senaar wrote: Maybe we can take a short break?

It's a good idea but I love to discuss such things

Jestor wrote: As i said, TOTJO doesnt tell you WHAT to believe, that is left up to the individual...

It's clearly not about that though. It's about a self-proclaimed religious organization defining what its members actually believe.

Im sorry, "whats about"?

Your line of questioning?

TOTJO 'does' nothing, it is merely an entity...

It is the people that do...

Jestor wrote: We could have made/used non-religious titles, and someday, that may happen... Not today...

There are plenty of other ranking-titles that could have been used but religious (specifically Christian) ones were chosen. Obviously it has a religious motive otherwise it wouldn't have chosen them.

Well, thank you for letting us know our motives...

You provided your own answers, lol...

You dont need us!

Jestor wrote: Because 'the jedi path' is very individualistic, and, and to get all the combinations of possible definitions, you would have to ask all the Jedi...

The "Jedi path" doesn't even seem to exist but as a vehicle for secular free speech promotion by what you're saying. If it's definition is "individual" as you say, anyway.

Well, I can see why you say that... lol...

Jestor wrote: Somewhere, we talk about Jediism being a "synergistic ideology"... That probably sums it up best...

Can you define this?

Typo...

syncretic ideology







Need ideology too?

Jestor wrote: My 'thing' is "my life, and how I live it"...

So is Jediism libertarianism now?

If that is how you define it, sure...

IM not worried about labels...

You sure are, lol...

Jediism is however you are defining it for you... Its why you wont understand from the seat you are in, lol...

Jestor wrote: You are not judging without trying to understand...

Where have I judged anybody? I'm asking questions.

Sorry, you miss this? You quoted it...

It dosnt say you ARE judging at all...

You sure read a lot into stuff, lol...

You are "reserving judgement", that better?

Jestor wrote: Show me how this was rude?

You were very demeaning by saying "people like me" have a "minimalist understanding" while proclaiming yourself as some sort higher consciousness or something. It was rather unprecedented. You can see it in exactly the text you quoted.

Nope, you inferred that...

How would you have preferred I said that...

Thats twice now you have suggested I was insulting...

I am beginning to think you are just playing with us for fun...

I do have a higher understanding of who I am, and what I think a Jedi is, but that makes me no better than anyone...

Jestor wrote: I have a very minimalist understanding of many things...

So why did you say "people like you" and then "while jedis like me... etc."?

Cause you would fall into the "non-jedi' people... and I would fall into the other...

Jestor wrote: Then you must be a fireman, becasue only a fireman/woman knows what it is really like...

This is absurd logic. This is like saying "you need to try heroin before you know it kills you slowly"

No, you need to try heroin to understand what it feels like...

There are plenty of studies that tell show you it can kill you...

Jestor wrote: Are you missing the metaphor with this?

So what is a Jedi? I can't be a Jedi unless I know what it is, but nobody here seems to have a clear answer.

No... We dont...

You have to figure that out for yourself, lol...

Jestor wrote: By using titles that the rest of the world is familiar with, it is a little less explaining...

A majority of the world didn't grow up in traditionally Christian countries.

The founders of this temple did..

Jestor wrote: that this was your argument for their definition...

Because that's what the films say, otherwise if it's any different nobody here has a clear alternative answer for me.

Well, that was your logic, not mine...

Perhaps you should not have provided an example...

I dont know, lol...

I was explaining the confusion from my end...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, lets start from a common ground...

Please tell us what a religion is, from a agreed upon source...

Please feel free to share when you do...

Jestor wrote: Im sorry, "whats about"?

"Jediism"

Jestor wrote: Well, thank you for letting us know our motives...

Well, few others wish to tell me, so what else am I supposed to do other than deduce from what I read here?

Jestor wrote: syncretic ideology... Need ideology too?

That makes more sense, thank you. No need for the latter part.

Jestor wrote: IM not worried about labels...

You sure are, lol...

If by labels you mean words with definitions then yes. I prefer if when people claimed they were something, they were able to define it.

Jestor wrote: Jediism is however you are defining it for you... Its why you wont understand from the seat you are in, lol...

By what you say, it literally has no meaning.

Jestor wrote: Thats twice now you have suggested I was insulting...

The text speaks for itself.

Jestor wrote: Cause you would fall into the "non-jedi' people... and I would fall into the other...

So what is the line between Jedi and non-Jedi?

Jestor wrote: No, you need to try heroin to understand what it feels like...

So how do I "try" Jediism?

Jestor wrote: There are plenty of studies that tell show you it can kill you...

There are also countless things online that would suggest that Jediism is not much more than playing dress-ups and role playing but I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt by asking you people what you believe.

Jestor wrote: You have to figure that out for yourself, lol...

Then it's meaningless. But plenty of people have given vague definitions at least. Is it difficult for you to give at least one?

Jestor wrote: The founders of this temple did..

Ok, but then it doesn't sound really universal then but rather chauvinistic.

Jestor wrote: Please tell us what a religion is, from a agreed upon source...

I didn't start this thread to do so and I don't see how it would help at all.