Is belief 100%?

So here might be an interesting discussion for everyone, and something I've been pondering lately. Is belief 100%? What I mean by that is by definition of dictionary, belief is in this respect "trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something." In a lot of the various religions I grew up with it was preached that belief was or had to be all in. It was something that was used interchangeably with faith in that if there was some gap or whole or something you followed your belief/faith 100%. It just had to be, you committed to that belief in everything. There was no room for caveat's or exceptions. If you believe in any type of philosophy that you should believe in that philosophy in all aspects of your life and follow it to the letter to which you believe in it.

However I've seen and encountered people who believe in things that after awhile or after enough stress etc they just decide to not do it anymore, or they give exceptions. In EMS as an example you have to treat everyone, doesn't matter what religion/race/sex/anything everyone deserves the same treatment the same respect the same effort, that's why we do what we do. We are all human. We treat everyone with the same effort of kindness and support and treatment. It's what I believe in personally. Others who also claim to believe in it, will eventually get the one patient that just irks them to the point they stop following what they believe in, whether it be frequent fliers(people who constantly call for the same complaint because they refuse to take care of themselves) or system abusers(people who just make stuff up to get attention), or psych patients(for some reason no one wants to deal with those I personally love em). There seem to be exceptions where people change what they want to believe in.

In this question to everyone, do you believe there is room for exceptions in anyone thing you believe in, whether it be a religious belief such as existence of the force, or a philosophy belief(read as morals/doctrine/maxims etc) or if one is going to commit to a belief that they follow it 100% irregardless of what comes. As you think about the answer think about some of the points in the doctrine specific to loyalty/integrity/discipline/prowess.

Edit: Additional question, how do you feel also about committing to oaths?

In this question to everyone, do you believe there is room for exceptions in anyone thing you believe in, whether it be a religious belief such as existence of the force, or a philosophy belief(read as morals/doctrine/maxims etc) or if one is going to commit to a belief that they follow it 100% irregardless of what comes.

Well, I 100% believe that irregardless as a word can sod right off, unfortunately language is, by necessity, a democracy, so I guess I'm going to have to let it go (and given my terrible grammar, I'm not in a position to be pushing an agenda in this realm...)

As for the general thrust of your question: Yes there is always room for exceptions.

I have to assume that Future James is smarter and wiser than Past or Present James, and why should future James be beholden to P/P James' stupid decisions?


If I say today that I'll help you move on the weekend, I'd like to think that Future James will stick to that arrangement, but outside of those sorts of situations - we must allow for new information or circumstances to alter our beliefs (or thesis, if you will)

Edit: Additional question, how do you feel also about committing to oaths?

In my head this is so simple , if you dont want to take the oath you dont want to commit , but when you have taken the oath you really should commit , because otherwise oaths are moot , are not they? I know this is a very simple answer but its the way i see it.

What you seem to be describing is a distinction between someone's stated belief (which is necessarily fixed and unchanging), and their actual belief (which is necessarily fluid and changing).

If I say "I believe everyone should get 1 apple", and then decide not to give Pete an apple cos he smells, the first statement is invalidated by what I discover while testing it out. My actual belief is not "I believe everyone should get 1 apple", but instead "I believe everyone except Pete should get 1 apple", or perhaps "I believe everyone who doesn't smell should get 1 apple". Why do I make that first statement? Well, perhaps I recognise the merit of being fair, of being equal in distribution. But the reality is however much I aspire to that belief, I don't actually hold or practice it.

Belief is also on a continuum. There are things I am certain about, things I very strongly believe, things I somewhat believe, things I am somewhat doubtful about, things I don't believe, and things I am certain I don't believe. And as new evidence comes to light in our understanding, it's right and good that things can slide around on this continuum.

There are few things more dangerous than blind obedience to a statement of belief we made at one point of our understanding, disregarding new understandings and evidence in favour of "not being wrong". Think how that works in a debate - one person so committed to their own "being right" that new evidence or ideas are just disregarded in favour of their initial statement. Think how unreasonable that seems. It is.

In this question to everyone, do you believe there is room for exceptions in anyone thing you believe in

I don't believe there are "room for exceptions" in beliefs because you believe what you believe, you may just learn more about your initial statement of belief when it's tested out there in the world. What's important is recognising where your actual beliefs fall short of your stated or aspired to beliefs. Because then, either you need to work to meet your own stated belief, or you need to amend the statement.

Additional question, how do you feel also about committing to oaths?

I feel the same as above, really. Swearing an oath is saying "I'm going to stick to this stated belief, come what may, and if I break it then there'll be consequences". You can mean it very sincerely and shouldn't commit to oaths unless you feel very very confident in your belief there. However you also shouldn't be blind in following that statement and if things come up which make you not-so-sure, or make you want to disregard the oath, you would be foolish not to do so - however there are consequences of doing so, and that's also a factor in those decisions. That consequence (may be as limited as impacting your perception of yourself, it may be more about how others perceive your integrity, it may mean you go to prison) is why oaths have power, and why people may go against their momentary beliefs to fulfil that standing oath.

In a lot of the various religions I grew up with it was preached that belief was or had to be all in.

This is definitely not a part of Jediism as practised here. You're welcome to believe what you want, change your beliefs over time. What's more important is being honest with yourself in your beliefs, as they are today.

I'm not going to reply to the majority of your post if that's ok Tella? As I'd simply be repeating what tzb said (and far less eloquently).

Regarding oaths though,

Amyntas wrote:

Edit: Additional question, how do you feel also about committing to oaths?

In my head this is so simple , if you dont want to take the oath you dont want to commit , but when you have taken the oath you really should commit , because otherwise oaths are moot , are not they? I know this is a very simple answer but its the way i see it.

Because an oath is supposed to be binding, there is no out. A person is therefore expected to stick to it. Irrespective of whether they still agreed with it, which to me seems like an incredibly silly thing to do.

As JamesSand alluded to, Past & Present Me may take an oath (with the full intention of committing to it), but then in the future something may change my opinion on it.

Let's say I swear an oath to go forth into the world and tell everyone 'what an amazing place TotJO is and how everyone should join it', then 2 years from now TotJO is a completely different kind of place, its going down a path I simply dont agree with, I have a massive fallout with everyone due to irreconcilable differences etc. etc. then some new person says to me 'Hey, whats TotJO like?', well I'm bound by an oath to say 'its an amazing place and you should definitely join!' even though I no longer think that.

It ties into what tzb was saying about stated beliefs and actual beliefs, oaths are entirely based around stated beliefs, and do not reflect a person's actual belief. Also, people are rarely given the opportunity to choose the the wording of their oath. So they're forced to swear 'Everyone gets 1 apple', and then when Smelly Pete comes along there is an issue. Whereas if they were given more flexibility with their oath, they could swear 'I believe everyone except Smelly Pete gets an apple' and that issue would not necessarily arise.

At the end of the day, I'd rather be doing something I truly believe in for 4 years (and everyone knowing that I'm doing it because I believe in it), than be doing the same thing for my entire life despite now disagreeing with it (and nobody being sure whether I believe in it or whether I'm just bound by an oath)

At the end of the day, I'd rather be doing something I truly believe in for 4 years (and everyone knowing that I'm doing it because I believe in it), than be doing the same thing for my entire life despite now disagreeing with it (and nobody being sure whether I believe in it or whether I'm just bound by an oath)

I agree , but i dont see how that contradicts what i said about the oath, when you dont like an oath dont take it ,and insist on not taking it and explain why you dont want to take it , there is nothing wrong with contemplating a compromise , i am not denying anyone any apples as you are trying to implie , please tell me if i am wrong or misunderstand

Amyntas wrote:

At the end of the day, I'd rather be doing something I truly believe in for 4 years (and everyone knowing that I'm doing it because I believe in it), than be doing the same thing for my entire life despite now disagreeing with it (and nobody being sure whether I believe in it or whether I'm just bound by an oath)

I agree , but i dont see how that contradicts what i said about the oath, when you dont like an oath dont take it ,and insist on not taking it and explain why you dont want to take it , there is nothing wrong with contemplating a compromise , i am not denying anyone any apples as you are trying to implie , please tell me if i am wrong or misunderstand

I never said, nor implied, that you were trying to deny anyone any apples :laugh:

My point was that you said that if someone doesn't take an oath it means they don't want to commit, and if they do take an oath it means you do want to commit. I disagree with that, you could have 2 people that are equally committed to the same cause asked to take an oath. 1 will take it because they don't believe their opinion of the cause will change (despite the fact that there absolutely no way they could know this), the other will not want to take the oath because, whilst they are 110% committed to the cause at this moment in time and believe they always will be, they are aware of the fact that beliefs can change over time.

Not wanting to take an oath has, IMO, absolutely nothing to do with commitment or the desire to commit, but is instead to do with how aware one is for the potential of change.

Because of the kind of person I am, if I took an oath I'd stick to it even if I didn't agree with it anymore because thats the point of an oath, its permanent and unchanging, unlike people who change their minds at a drop of a hat :laugh:

Having taken an oath to do something, that I now no longer want to do before, I have no intentions of doing so again. That doesn't mean that I'm less committed to something, just that I'm a bit more wise about taking oaths than I used to be

The compromise with oaths is affirmation.. the affirmation says 'I am already doing this' and 'I honestly intend to continue doing it', without any possibility of one compromising their own beliefs should they no longer agree with it. As it has been pointed out, nobody is static and so it makes no sense to me to require people to make promises based on 'static' expectation. TOTJO accepts these, as does the law in many countries.

(Sorry Tellahane, I edited the post you thanked).

Having taken an oath to do something, that I now no longer want to do before, I have no intentions of doing so again. That doesn't mean that I'm less committed to something, just that I'm a bit more wise about taking oaths than I used to be

That is def the best attitude , i see what you mean now , thank you for explaining. The only thing i wanted to get across is that when a certain position comes with a certain oath than maybe you dont want that postition but are still commited to the tasks and everything that postiion intails if that makes sense. For example : In some schools you have to take a Catholic oath because its a Catholic school , and if you dont , you cannot teach there even if you are commited a 100% to teaching , that is not the place for you , but then again , plenty of schools right?

Nevermind.