Strict adherence to doctrine.

Cabur Senaar wrote:

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.

I honestly wouldn't doubt it. The changes that were proposed were only accepted because they better reflected the new state of TotJO, in the future when TotJO is different it seems highly likely that someone else will write out another set of teachings that will better reflect their contemporary situation and these ones will be erased.

Given that our doctrine itself is fluid, it would seem pretty reasonable to expect that one's "adherence" to it will be fluid...

But that being said, as Jestor puts it, we are a "spirit of the law" community. Language isn't the things in itself, language "points" to something, "pen" is not a pen, "pen" is a sound which we utter that refers to a physical object etc. Our doctrine is a set of words that similarly "point" to something, that something we label "Jediism", so even if someone disagrees with a particular set of words in the doctrine doesn't mean that their heart is no longer "pointing" to Jediism.

I really hope that makes sense I'm trying to find the right words to express what I mean, but basically "Just because you disagree with some of the doctrine here does not automatically mean you are not considered a Jedi here."

Maybe every four years, we could do something like what the Methodists do. We have a conference every four years to essentially "edit" and rewrite our "book of rules" for Methodist living. A lot of it has to do with salaries and policy. But, matters of doctrine are considered as well. If the methodist church were to accept gay preachers, that is where it would happen. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I think the Doctrine should be free-flowing and subject to scrutiny. And, it should be edited a lot.

If I think about it... when Akkarin edited the Doctrine last, we had a whole different set of active members and people on the Council. Sure, a lot of it is the same, but there are new minds here. It only makes sense to examine with them.

Just an interesting thought about adhering to a moving Doctrine...

To answer the prompt, I actually believe I follow 99% of the Doctrine. There is like one point I think is pointless, but I understand why it's in place. If that keeps me from being a Jedi... then, that's no good.

Connor L. wrote: Maybe every four years, we could do something like what the Methodists do. We have a conference every four years to essentially "edit" and rewrite our "book of rules" for Methodist living. A lot of it has to do with salaries and policy. But, matters of doctrine are considered as well. If the methodist church were to accept gay preachers, that is where it would happen. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

If nothing else it breeds healthy and informed contemplation of one's beliefs.

The thing is, when it comes to the doctrine, only one part has no ambiguity: the "jedi believe" part.

The line " We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty." explicitly says we are against cruel and unusual punishment, and 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.

How did they get around that in old Japan, make them kill themselves instead!?

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.

Moved per OP request...

As Akkarin said, the Doctrine is fluid, it is made up of words which are always interchangeable to shift accuracy as necessary. Beneath the semantics or specifics of any part of it, the point is, the doctrine as a whole points to what a state of realization of reality may look like. It points out likely characteristics of somebody who has escaped the trap of their ego (not to say that that they have escaped their ego altogether, only the burdening effects of it).

But this is the issue I think: The reason why we have threads like this talking about the Doctrine in the manner that it is, is because I think many of us are looking at the Doctrine itself as the starting point of "how to be a Jedi". But I don't think it is. I think it is an illustration of a resulting direction our focus may naturally grow into. It is a conceptual end which we travel toward through the means we obtain through our training we go through here in this community, through the IP, our apprenticeships, our seminary, and onward through our knighthood degrees. We cannot point at the doctrine and say "Start here and follow that and you're a good Jedi". Instead, we should say "Learn. Learn about yourself, and the truth about your ego, your conditioning. Learn how to become aware of what burdens you and what evolves you. As you do, you may find yourself naturally exhibiting the characteristics, behaviors, beliefs, and purposes mentioned here in the Doctrine."

Learning is what I think ought to be adhered to. The Doctrine is a perceived snapshot of what we wish to grow into as we adhere to what we learn. (Keep in mind, however, that what we do grow into, ought not be limited to the doctrine alone.) You can't follow something like the Doctrine until you learn why you would want to in the first place, after all.

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

Well I'm just a guest but reading the FAQ you are a Jedi (as defined by TOTJO) only if you submit an application and take the Simple Oath. Thus no Jedi (as defined by TOTJO) is under the age of 13 and only TOTJO's Oath is seen as legally binding in their eyes.

The Simple Oath states that you must do your "utmost to uphold the teachings of the Jedi". The definition of Doctrine includes the word teachings. So by deduction I'd submit that you can not be a Jedi (as defined by TOTJO) unless you strictly adhere to their doctrine.

There are Jedi who don't belong to TOTJO or any other Jedi group.