A Problem.

FA happens to not just "hand" the title over. Jedi is earned

What is the criteria for calling yourself a Christian? "I believe in Christ and strive to follow His ways, therefore, I am a Christian" There is no other litmus test necessary, though each denomination has their own added criteria.

The same can be said for being a Jedi. "I believe in the Jedi way, therefore I am a Jedi"

Must believe:

Christ Died on the cross for our sins, he rose on the third day
Christ's Teachings
And the 10 Commandments
God is the one and only God of the world
And then act accordingly

To have only the second and last ones means you follow the philosophy of Christ. Doesn't actually make you a Christian. Just as good as one in the grand scheme of things- but not one.

Which is the same as Jedi. It's not the only way to be a great person working towards betterment of the world.

I am not certain that this is an issue with Jedi in particular so much as any religion or philosophy or order. There are sects that identify as Christian, but other Christian sects regard them as heretics. I can think of no major religion, off hand, that does not have a similar dynamic at work. There may be one, but that is beside the point.

My point is that, beyond a few rudimentary indicators, the community is resistant to defining the term Jedi in any great detail. But perhaps we should put our energy elsewhere.

We already have a situation where rank tends not to migrate from one group to another. But the name seems to. Rather than suggesting that one is or is not a Jedi, perhaps we should we should concerns ourselves with what makes a good Jedi.

A bad Christian remains a Christian until they decide not to be.

Better yet, if we concern ourselves with whether or not we are good Jedi, and support each other to get better, we will start seeing a larger group of people providing the example.

I figure we will have better luck pointing at human examples of what a Jedi should/could be than a paper one. Therefore, we take on the responsibility of walking the Jedi walk instead of writing the next code or set of rules.

Personally, I keep a list of "Jedi to Watch," people who are providing the kind if example that I would like to emulate. It is a short list and I am not up to the level of practice for these people, but I find looking at them more compelling than only reading the code.

But I still read the Code.

This is an organ process. It will take time.

Cabur Senaar wrote:
Better yet, if we concern ourselves with whether or not we are good Jedi, and support each other to get better, we will start seeing a larger group of people providing the example.

I figure we will have better luck pointing at human examples of what a Jedi should/could be than a paper one. Therefore, we take on the responsibility of walking the Jedi walk instead of writing the next code or set of rules.

Personally, I keep a list of "Jedi to Watch," people who are providing the kind if example that I would like to emulate. It is a short list and I am not up to the level of practice for these people, but I find looking at them more compelling than only reading the code.

It will take time.

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Eastern-studies/81837-taoism#170403

Alethea brought up the example of the ISIL leader, but I can bet you that probably a large number of Muslims do not consider that man a Muslim, but you know what, I doubt that makes any differences to him at all, he will still continue calling himself a Muslim regardless.

Similarly anyone in the world can just call themselves a Jedi, it is even possible that a new religious movement will develop alongside ours, one far larger, and then they will call themselves "Jedi" and we'll be the "outcasts", but is that going to get me to stop using the name? No.

TotJO - or anyone - simply does not have the power, nor the right, to say universally what is and what is not a Jedi. Where do we have that power and that right? Within and only within the confines of our own organisation.

The membership of people has been retracted in the past...

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.

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?

Callan wrote: 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 wouldnt personally say ignored. As youve said yourself, "considered and thoughtful answers" But I would say that perhaps some peoples world views have not yet evolved to the point of being able to accept that part of the doctrine. Mine included.

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.

Well, if it bothers you, maybe you should join the clergy and lead by example?

lol....

I personally support it, but am always willing to discuss it... Not this thread though, lol...

And I am clergy...

Callan wrote: 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?

Jestor wrote: I personally support it, but am always willing to discuss it... Not this thread though, lol...