Star Wars movies as "Sacred Texts"

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

J. K. Barger wrote: "Well considering any religious following is also a devotion to a form of magic..."

Thats an awfully broad assumption...:huh:

That has no relevance on the truth of the statement.

Again, your claims to truth are unfounded and as shaky as the premise that "any religious following is also a devotion to a form of magic".

Saying things like this gives reason to question your intentions and judgements, so in reality, it is directly relevant :laugh:

Next time, it may be a little more clear if you drop a quote or reference to back up your truth-claims.

J. K. Barger wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

J. K. Barger wrote: "Well considering any religious following is also a devotion to a form of magic..."

Thats an awfully broad assumption...:huh:

That has no relevance on the truth of the statement.

Again, your claims to truth are unfounded and as shaky as the premise that "any religious following is also a devotion to a form of magic".

Saying things like this gives reason to question your intentions and judgements, so in reality, it is directly relevant :laugh:

Next time, it may be a little more clear if you drop a quote or reference to back up your truth-claims.

Sorry, didnt mean to offend. My comment was more of a tongue in cheek comment. However if you would like to pursue the issue futher we can do so.

If we take the very definition of "religion" it is defined as the service and worship of God or the supernatural commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. The concepts of "supernatural" and "faith" both lend themselves to a magical context as neither one is falsifiable and neither one is based in science - hence "magical thinking". That was my only point.

Just for clarification, I do see a difference between religion and spirituality. Religion relegates one to staunchly follow a few elite leaders under a static unchanging, unquestionable doctrine while spirituality is a path of constant doubt, self-motivation and continual evolution of belief based on evidence under the mechanism of critical thinking. A religious path is easy to follow because it puts responsibility in the hands of others. A spiritual one is hard to follow because you must assume responsibility for your own beliefs and accept consequences for your own actions. I think that is what the spirit of this place really teaches, not blind faith in doctrine but the opportunity to realize that no doctrine is sufficient because any attempt to define any sense of our spirituality in this way limits and cheapens it

Kyrin wrote: If we take the very definition of "religion" it is defined as the service and worship of God or the supernatural commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

Let me stop you right there. That definition is somewhat misleading. Rather than try to study the definition given, because the meaning of words is fluid based on how they're used in a given culture or subculture, it is better to analyze the etymology of a word to get as close as you can to the original meaning. With "religion" I prefer the derivation supported by Joseph Campbell - re (again) + ligare (to bind/connect) = "to reconnect". What are we reconnecting to? That's up to each person to decide, but supposedly we Jedi are connecting with the Force.

Just for clarification, I do see a difference between religion and spirituality. Religion relegates one to staunchly follow a few elite leaders under a static unchanging, unquestionable doctrine while spirituality is a path of constant doubt, self-motivation and continual evolution of belief based on evidence under the mechanism of critical thinking.

I don't really agree. Many today see the word religion and are immediately repulsed, almost exclusively because of the negative impact the Abrahamic religions have had on the image of religions in modern history. Religions are not easy to follow, honestly, they're usually pretty hard. They often demand you trust more in their teachings rather than your own wisdom, at times - and it challenges you to change your view of reality, which can be enormously difficult. Separating spirituality from religion often leads to degradation of religion, as that spiritual experience is key to understanding the premise of a given religion - Abraham Maslow wrote some great stuff on the subject.

Nai_Elyob wrote: Let me stop you right there. That definition is somewhat misleading.

LOL you can try and stop me but I doubt you will be effective in that pursuit. In fact that definition is word for word from the dictionary so it’s not misleading in the slightest.

Nai_Elyob wrote: I don't really agree. Many today see the word religion and are immediately repulsed, almost exclusively because of the negative impact the Abrahamic religions have had on the image of religions in modern history. Religions are not easy to follow, honestly, they're usually pretty hard. They often demand you trust more in their teachings rather than your own wisdom, at times - and it challenges you to change your view of reality, which can be enormously difficult. Separating spirituality from religion often leads to degradation of religion, as that spiritual experience is key to understanding the premise of a given religion - Abraham Maslow wrote some great stuff on the subject.

That’s fine that you do not agree. I didn’t ask that you did. I just see it differently than you do and that’s ok. I have seen to many try to justify slavery or genocide or murder or misogyny and even misandry in the name of their “religion”. This includes religions outside the Abrahamic religions as well. I am not relegating my comments to those religions alone. Religion within this sort of context is rigid and steeped in dogmatic doctrine that is interpreted by an elite few and allows no room for evolution. They are easy to follow because you don’t have to think about what you believe. You just accept what is written or what is told to you by an authority figure because of some misplaced faith in a singular divine paradigm that is touted as supreme above all others simply by the station it is supposed to hold as “thee correct revelation”.

I think it is in spirituality that one begins to rise above this trap. When you start to question your leaders and explore your beliefs and begin to form your own opinions on things outside of just what you have been told or how you were raised by your parents. When you begin to ask yourself why you believe what you believe it shatters that wall of stagnation and you can truly begin to evolve as a spiritual being. I think this is what the spirit of this place teaches above all else. To not only question what we believe but also why we believe it! Most of the time we find that the reasons we believe things are erroneous and in that we can find the freedom to delve through the bushes of doctrine and truly find our path. That is when the journey actually begins. And yes this is the very process of degrading religion. I see that as a good thing because for me, religion is the path to the dark side!
:laugh: :silly:

Every dictionary has its own definition, and none of them are 'truth', just attempts at measures of accuracy. For me religion is just the structured adherence to a coherent path of spiritual practice.... nothing more. I feel its the most accurate so am sticking to it!!!

^
Short answer
Long answer
v

That said, according to Australian case law in regards to 'religious belief' and making definitions for the purposes of new religions especially;

"Because religious status confers such financial and other advantages, the emergence of new religions is bound to be regarded with scepticism.

An endeavor to define religion for legal purposes gives rise to peculiar difficulties, as it cannot be determined by majority acceptance as it would fail to protect minority religions, so it would seem that it might be more accurate to say that protection is required for the adherents of religions, not for the religions themselves.

So protection is not accorded to safeguard the tenets of each religion; no such protection can be given by the law, and it would be contradictory of the law to protect at once the tenets of different religions which are incompatible with one another.

Protection is accorded to preserve the dignity and freedom of each man so that he may adhere to any religion of his choosing or to none. The freedom of religion being equally conferred on all, the variety of religious beliefs which are within the area of legal immunity is not restricted.

These considerations, tending against the adoption of a narrow definition, may suggest the rejection of any definition which would exclude from the category of religion the beliefs, practices and observances of any group who assert their beliefs, practices and observances to be religious.

But such an assertion cannot be adopted as a legal criterion. The mantle of immunity would soon be in tatters if it were wrapped around beliefs, practices and observances of every kind whenever a group of adherents chose to call them a religion (cf. United States v. Kuch 288 F. Supp. 439 (1968)). A more objective criterion is required."

Im my readings the discussion in the Australian courts tended to this direction;

"The law seeks to leave man as free as possible in conscience to respond to the abiding and fundamental problems of human existence. In all societies and in all ages man has pondered upon the explanation of the existence of the phenomenological universe, the meaning of his existence and his destiny. An understanding of these problems is furnished in part by the natural and behavioural sciences and by other humanist disciplines. They go far towards explaining the universe and its elements and the relationships between nations, groups and individuals. Many philosophies, however, go beyond the fields of these disciplines and seek to explain, in terms of a broader reality, the existence of the universe, the meaning of human life, and human destiny. For some, the natural order, known or knowable by use of man's senses and his natural reason, provides a sufficient and exhaustive solution to these great problems; for others, an adequate solution can be found only in the supernatural order, in which man may believe as a matter of faith, but which he cannot know by his senses and the reality of which he cannot demonstrate to others who do not share his faith. He may believe that his faith has been revealed or confirmed by supernatural authority or his reason alone may lead him to postulate the tenets of his faith. Faith in the supernatural, transcending reasoning about the natural order, is the stuff of religious belief.

Under our law, the State has no prophetic role in relation to religious belief; the State can neither declare supernatural truth nor determine the paths through which the human mind must search in a quest for supernatural truth. The Courts are constrained to accord freedom to faith in the supernatural for there are no means of finding upon evidence whether a postulated tenet of supernatural truth is erroneous or whether a supernatural revelation of truth has been made.

Religious belief is more than a cosmology; it is a belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle. But religious belief is not by itself a religion. Religion is also concerned, at least to some extent, with a relationship between man and the supernatural order and with supernatural influence upon his life and conduct.

Clifford Geertz, writing an ``Anthropological Study of Religion'' in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (London, 1968 vol. 13 at p. 406) concluded that:

"Whatever else religion does, it relates a view of the ultimate nature of reality to a set of ideas of how man is well advised, even obligated, to live.''"

All stories are texts and can be perceived as stories. Stories trigger emotions and share connections.

Adder wrote: Every dictionary has its own definition, and none of them are 'truth', just attempts at measures of accuracy. For me religion is just the structured adherence to a coherent path of spiritual practice.... nothing more. I feel its the most accurate so am sticking to it!!!

On the contrary, a word is actually an exact definition of truth as we have defined it in a dictionary. A word is simply a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing that humans have developed whose definition is a statement of exact meaning. This definition is what allows us to communicate in a common language. If every word could be interpreted any way we wanted we would have no common ground for communicating meaning.

I understand what you are saying though. What you are trying to define is not a dictionary definition of the meaning of the noun "religion". What you are trying to define is what the concept of the practice of "a religion" means to you personally. In contrast to that what I was trying to do was convey my thoughts on the textbook definition of religion as a universal model in general.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: Every dictionary has its own definition, and none of them are 'truth', just attempts at measures of accuracy. For me religion is just the structured adherence to a coherent path of spiritual practice.... nothing more. I feel its the most accurate so am sticking to it!!!

On the contrary, a word is actually an exact definition of truth as we have defined it in a dictionary. A word is simply a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing that humans have developed whose definition is a statement of exact meaning. This definition is what allows us to communicate in a common language. If every word could be interpreted any way we wanted we would have no common ground for communicating meaning.

I understand what you are saying though. What you are trying to define is not a dictionary definition of the meaning of the noun "religion". What you are trying to define is what the concept of the practice of "a religion" means to you personally. In contrast to that what I was trying to do was convey my thoughts on the textbook definition of religion as a universal model in general.

Dictionaries would all be the same if that was true.... which they are not. They are efforts, like my short type. But, to be pragmatic, that is why my long version was my local legal definition. Some words are pretty universal though....

Kyrin wrote: If every word could be interpreted any way we wanted we would have no common ground for communicating meaning.

Kyrin wrote: ...I just see it differently than you do and that’s ok...I see that as a good thing because for me, religion is the path to the dark side!

So which is it? You seem to be just as capable of deciding what something means to you, even when confronted with etymological derivations which undermine your main point. I mean, you're an Apprentice, so you've already done the lessons from Joseph Campbell. How is it that we seem to have come to such a radically different conclusion of what he was saying about the nature of myth, religion, mysticism, and their interconnections? What you seem to be upset about is the consequences of individuals in positions of leadership (who have no connection to the underlying mystical experience of the various world religions) manipulating other folks who've also got not connection to the teachings of a religion into behaving in ways that very literally run contrary to the genuine message of every religious myth. Religion itself, then, becomes a scapegoat - the path to the dark side - rather than holding to account the individuals making poor choices and allowing themselves to be manipulated.

Religion is supposed to be about reconnecting with that core mystical experience. That's why the word religion is derived the way that it is etymologically. A dictionary is just a socially accepted definition, it's not absolute truth - it's subjective. You don't go to the dictionary to find out what a word means, but rather to find out how it is used, generally, in your society. Hence why some words can have three or four definitions, sometimes even more than that. Deliberately cherry-picking the definition which suits your argument while rejecting real attempts to come to know what a word really means by deconstructing it and tracing its root languages doesn't come across as logical. While you say that religion is the path to the Dark Side, it seems to me that failing to re-connect with that mystical experience which teaches people those lessons Campbell talked about throughout "The Power of Myth" is the real problem. By not reconnecting with that eternal creation-moment we lose sight of ourselves and engage in those awful behaviors you listed.

Also, for the record "let me stop you right there" is a turn of phrase, not an actual statement of anything nefarious.

So what I see as a theme is that Jedi here aren't easily defined by "a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle." What then is it then that can be objectively measured to define us as a religion?
In terms of the whole "boo religion" bandwagon, isn't that all much more applicable to the power structure as a whole, which historically use religion simply as justification? Abrahamic religions get the bad rap since Western Civilization is more powerful, and thus tends to do most of the international repression. Spirituality is just religion without the intensive internal critique. In either case, why should TOTJO consider itself a religion instead of just a bunch of people who have some sort of spiritual interest. If someone committed a crime in TOTJO's name, are we to blame for it? Yes, we should decry it, but we can't unmake the past.
My idea is that in order to emulate the tradition and exegesis of religion, Jediism ought to require members to create a comprehensive cosmology with sacred texts as a sort of bibliography. Presenting your credo could be comparable to defending a thesis in academia. This ties in to the OP in that Star Wars would likely be one of those sacred texts (one of many) or Star Wars was inspired by the same sources we use as sacred texts. Star Wars might be self-contained, but the world within that series is different from ours; allegorical in some cases, but not perfect for basing our lives and morality. Every Jedi is responsible to themselves to find what they believe and own it.