Election & The Jedi Code

MadHatter wrote: HA! Yes because saying something takes earning by doing work and following a code is the same as calling for violence. Good false equivalency. Im sorry you do not like hypocrisy pointed out but if one says all things are relative and then barks at another like you have about something "not being right" then the actions is about as straight forward as a Janus mask. If you are going to sit there and say that there is nothing wrong with the actions of the likes of Pol Pot, Mao Ze Dong and the like but then complain about what Silas said I think there is something wrong. And that is exactly what you do by claiming some goof nothing means anything stance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LaOMLU8acM

@Kyrin
Modifies, no. Removes yes.

Modify means you expand upon something. You look at it from a different angle and come up with a different conclusion.

Removing just means you've completely rejected it.

You can't be a Christian if you do not believe and try to follow Christ's teachings at the very least.
You can't be a Buddhist if you remove things from the 8 Fold Path.
You can't be Muslim if you do not believe that Allah is real.

There are just some things that are required to be able to claim you are X religion or philosophy.

For the Jedi, this base seems to be centered around the Jedi Code. But specific orders have the base in their doctrine if they have one at all. While Temple of the Jedi Order seems to allow people the opportunity to claim to be Jedi, the truth is that in order to have any integrity as a Jedi which adheres to the definition of "ToTJO Jedi", you must strive to live by basics of the Jedi Doctrine provided here at ToTJO. It may not be enforced, but that doesn't change what it means to live as a "ToTJO Jedi".

I'm going to interject here,

STOP GROUPING ME WITH HITLER AND POL POT AND IDI AMIN !!!!

I AM A JEDI !!!

Edited by MH due to it being poor form, unbecoming of the path I am trying to walk, and overall not something that should have been said on this thread.

@ MadHatter - Meh, I don't think it was completely unbecoming- you were defending the Jedi Path in your own way.

@ Silas - Who compared you to Hitler? I brought up Hitler first, and it was a generalized statement, it had nothing to do with you. Neither did MadHatter's reference to Hitler, he was talking to Kyrin. And she to him....so, I don't see how you got that anyone was specifically comparing you to Hitler.

Alethea Thompson wrote: @ MadHatter - Meh, I don't think it was completely unbecoming- you were defending the Jedi Path in your own way.

@ Silas - Who compared you to Hitler? I brought up Hitler first, and it was a generalized statement, it had nothing to do with you. Neither did MadHatter's reference to Hitler, he was talking to Kyrin. And she to him....so, I don't see how you got that anyone was specifically comparing you to Hitler.

My thoughts on the subject aside its not something that should be said in public. No one should disparage or put anyone down here publicly as it is against forum rules or at least the spirit of them. So I believe I was correct in my assessment of my behavior even if the intentions might have come from a good place.

Alethea Thompson wrote: @Kyrin
Modifies, no. Removes yes.

Modify means you expand upon something. You look at it from a different angle and come up with a different conclusion.

Removing just means you've completely rejected it.

You can't be a Christian if you do not believe and try to follow Christ's teachings at the very least.
You can't be a Buddhist if you remove things from the 8 Fold Path.
You can't be Muslim if you do not believe that Allah is real.

There are just some things that are required to be able to claim you are X religion or philosophy.

For the Jedi, this base seems to be centered around the Jedi Code. But specific orders have the base in their doctrine if they have one at all. While Temple of the Jedi Order seems to allow people the opportunity to claim to be Jedi, the truth is that in order to have any integrity as a Jedi which adheres to the definition of "ToTJO Jedi", you must strive to live by basics of the Jedi Doctrine provided here at ToTJO. It may not be enforced, but that doesn't change what it means to live as a "ToTJO Jedi".

I think this has a certain truth to it. In the past I have looked at this in a more digital way as a set of steps. We start with a basic core and then stair step up through the corporeal, to belief to doctrine. But in thinking about this it may be way more nuanced than that, and I think that may be where some of my own personal issues have come into play. If we looked at this not as steps but more in an analogue sense as a tree, then we would find that all these paradigms come from a single common base and then individuality begins to emerge as you travel up that base and begin to move into the individual branches. These branches produce further branches and each specific iteration in turn defines a greater individuality with a more greatly defined or specific doctrine. But you cant be a branch on that tree without also being a part of the branches and the trunk that came before.

A branch you call your own may be further down a parent branch (say the branch of Jediism) than mine and thus you more deeply embrace the core of the code than I might but I still have my place on that parent branch in a different location. So really nothing is discrete but instead its deeply nuanced. I think a lot of that must emerge from individual experience as well - i.e. it is our own personal sense of individuality that drives the shades of difference we perceive even though at the core we are still connected.

The question then becomes, do we operate on a level of contentedness or do we operate on a level of individuality? I think its both. We are capable of great compassion and empathy and we are capable of great violence and suffering. It is our individuality that drives our strife and it is our oneness that drives our peace. Both are necessary because its what causes the tree to grow. It is the very process of continual creation and destruction and we cant exist in this reality without both. lol I'm reminded of that goofy conversation last nite in this thread with Hatter. I still cant tell if he was just being purposely dense to try and get my goat or if he really does not get it.

Leah

I tried sending this via PM, but there seems to be a glitch with the subject line

I've been trying to decipher what your comment meant as it concerned LGBT rights. Mostly because I'm curious if you misunderstand my stance. Lol.

What I wrote isn't meant to defend or denounce LGBT lifestyle. It's meant to get a Christian to look back at their own faith. It's in three stages:

1) Religion based on fear is insincere.
2) Religion based on choice and sincere belief in the tenets of its basis is what a deity seeks from all followers.
3) You have your life to establish that sincerity, so don't fret.

I say much the same to anyone that screams "everyone is going to hell if you don't repent!".

I was speaking to this:

"But if a member of the LGBT is given an entire lifetime for God to reach out to them, there will always be hope that one day God will turn them from their lifestyle. As Christians, it is not our job to condemn them for their lifestyles, but rather to open up opportunities for God to speak to them- for God is the ultimate Judge, and not man. "

I took this to mean that you believe that living as LGBT is essentially wrong but it's not up the Christians to judge - you can only hope that they will eventually "see the light" and turn away from living that lifestyle.

While I certainly prefer that approach to outright condemnation, it still implies the belief that LGBT is not an acceptable lifestyle.

And I use "lifestyle" knowing that many Christians don't necessarily condemn "being" LGBT, just the acts/behavior involved (ie, same-sex intercourse, dressing like the opposite sex, etc). I have Orthodox Christian friends who separate "being" from "doing" when it comes to LGBT folk.

In my post, I was expressing that while I approve of not condeming LGBT people, I don't agree with the Christian (and other Abrahamic religions?) notion that they need to "turn away" from their chosen lifestyle.

If that wasn't your intention with that particular section, then that's my mistake for misinterpreting it, lol!

Alethea Thompson wrote: Very few of you backed a third party. And it’s probably you 3rd party people that are sitting back laughing at the whole lot. Which is fine, you didn’t contribute to the chaos, regardless of what anyone has to say.

Got a good laugh out of this, OP.

Leah Starspectre wrote: I took this to mean that you believe that living as LGBT is essentially wrong but it's not up the Christians to judge - you can only hope that they will eventually "see the light" and turn away from living that lifestyle.

While I certainly prefer that approach to outright condemnation, it still implies the belief that LGBT is not an acceptable lifestyle.

And I use "lifestyle" knowing that many Christians don't necessarily condemn "being" LGBT, just the acts/behavior involved (ie, same-sex intercourse, dressing like the opposite sex, etc). I have Orthodox Christian friends who separate "being" from "doing" when it comes to LGBT folk.

In my post, I was expressing that while I approve of not condeming LGBT people, I don't agree with the Christian (and other Abrahamic religions?) notion that they need to "turn away" from their chosen lifestyle.

If that wasn't your intention with that particular section, then that's my mistake for misinterpreting it, lol!

I agree that it's rather antithetical to think Jesus would be spending his time yelling at gays and do so; additionally, from my reading, I don't think Christianity has anything against LGBT lifestyle, and the book God Believes in Love. Straight Talk About Gay Marriage written by a gay bishop was an enlightening read. Regardless, it doesn't seem like you've tried to syncretise Christianity to homosexuality, so the point is moot. Some of them think you're wrong, you think some of them are wrong - c'est la vie.