My belief system

ZealotX wrote: The djed is one of the more ancient and commonly found symbols in ancient Egyptian religion. .

Which has nothing to do with Djedi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedi

Nor has anything to do with the origin of the term Jedi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi

The word Jedi is said to have been adapted by George Lucas from Japanese 時代劇 (jidaigeki) (meaning 'period drama' motion pictures about samurai), or perhaps inspired by the words Jed (King) and Jeddak (Emperor) in the Barsoom series by Edgar Rice Burroughs, a series that Lucas considered adapting to film.

Which has nothing to do with Djedi

well I know it's not the origin of "Jedi" as used by Lucas.

The OP made a reference to this priest as well as others. I'm not saying he's right to do so. I'm simply defending his right to do without intellectual molestation. It's kind of like watching my step son tell his little sisters about Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. Like they can't have a sense of wonder for 2 seconds before he leaps to the rescue of knowledge; which doesn't actually require his rescue.

Honestly, it reminded me a lot of a youtube channel called "Spirit Science". I'm sure you could intellectually destroy the whole channel if you wanted. They believe in Atlantis and every other mythological civilization and because they can draw lines from one to the next it seems to somehow validate them. In reality, as the wiki article on Dedi said, the story inspired other stories. And that's how much of the bible was written too. Noah's flood happened? No, it didn't. But it is part of a system of beliefs held by billions of people. And it is interesting and even though I feel the same way you do, the Spirit Science channel supports a view of spirituality/goodness that I can vibe with.

So don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. I'm not saying your math is wrong. I'm saying the subject is English literature. And the facts don't necessarily need to align if that's what he (not us) chooses to believe.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: And yet the very definition of the term belief is one in which an assertion of truth is required.

Doesn't it say it is 'his' belief system? As I said in my post you were seemingly replying to, it might not mean he is asserting it as truth.

Never heard about (or actually done yourself) how a sportsperson will believe they can win going into a competition as a way to motivate and focus? It doesn't always work mind you, and the extents are different... but the fundamental mechanisms are the same. In Jediism with its personal pathways there is the opportunity to be nicely placed between the dogma of old religions and practicality of new psychology.

Which is why using attack vectors for weakness of either of those two (ie lack of evidence, and mental disorders) is misplaced and more of a personal attack then it otherwise would be for people actually asserting falsehoods as truths. A fundamental point lost on a few people I think, including in Council seemingly.

ZealotX wrote: The OP made a reference to this priest as well as others.

Looks to me like he copied someone else doing it, but what do I know...

Honestly, it reminded me a lot of a youtube channel called "Spirit Science". I'm sure you could intellectually destroy the whole channel if you wanted. They believe in Atlantis and every other mythological civilization and because they can draw lines from one to the next it seems to somehow validate them. In reality, as the wiki article on Dedi said, the story inspired other stories. And that's how much of the bible was written too. Noah's flood happened? No, it didn't. But it is part of a system of beliefs held by billions of people. And it is interesting and even though I feel the same way you do, the Spirit Science channel supports a view of spirituality/goodness that I can vibe with.

Call me narrow-minded, whoever must, but I just can't bring myself to feel much about any sort of spirituality that requires the practitioner to make up nonsense or believe it. There is plenty inspiring and beautiful and in their own way transcendent things about the world itself. And I'm not saying that in any sense of us having enough to not need more. No, I'm making a much stronger claim. I say I have yet to hear a fantasy that even came close in magnificence to what nature offers. Desperately weaving magical stories to feel like having a special place in the universe is no sign of creativity or spirituality, as much as, if anything, of a lack of both! At my most generous I can see Spirit Science having no ill motive and just innocently lying to themselves and spreading those lies to their audience. Why anyone might be better off with it than without I'm not sure and I can't begrudge those who already do a fantastic job at debunking this nonsense in the hopes that fewer end up falling for it in the end.

So don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. I'm not saying your math is wrong. I'm saying the subject is English literature. And the facts don't necessarily need to align if that's what he (not us) chooses to believe.

Oh come on now, are you saying English literature is to any extent about making up nonsense and then believing it? Far be it from me to defend the subject, but this surely must be too harsh.
Also, assuming that anybody can do any such thing as to choose to believe anything, I'm still not fully convinced, in light of the entire treatise being a straight copy of a decade-old article, that this is actually what anybody here believes. I'm by no means one to put the gloves on over things people are emotionally invested in for poor reason or for none at all, but when genuine-ness is called into question this hard, how can we even make that appeal still?

Perhaps we just need softening language to stop the the triggering of some people... something like 'my belief is that which I use and does not imply authorship or truth beyond my use of it'.

Beliefs tend to define a worldview that usually is based in part on observable fact, and in part on some mix of intuition, speculation, and conjecture about the reality that exists beyond what we are currently able to observe. They are not necessarily an accurate depiction of that reality - just the best that we can put together based on the incomplete information we have.

With that in mind, I honor your post, Lenny. I understand that what Pinkham has written informs your way of seeing things.

However, I'd also offer a caution, based on personal experience. Most times, when someone provides a narrative that is both very detailed and also very broad in scope with little to no documentation regarding his/her sources - such as references to specific manuscripts, archeological finds, scholarly research, and the like - and, when that narrative incorporates a blend of romantic history and magical symbology (like dragons and snakes) - it strays farther from the reality we observe than a more grounded belief system bearing some resemblance to what we already have experienced. This isn't a trivial matter; I've known people who have ventured near insanity or death because of their commitment to a belief system not validated by their experience.

If you recognize that Mark Amaru Pinkham's tales are, as far as can be validated, mostly fiction and you just find some inspiration in their symbolism, then all well and good. But please be cautious about taking them literally without some collaborating evidence. That kind of thinking can lead you to waiting on a lonely street corner at midnight for a UFO to save you from global annihilation (which a group of people actually did, in the 1940's.)

Good wishes to you.

There is a world of difference in belief in self as confidence and stealing the narrative of a made up alternate world history and calling if your own.

I think it is more important to seek truth than answers through belief. As individuals we get programed to seek answers. Having those answers brings praise and not having them evokes shame. This produces the idea that there is something missing in their lives. It creates internalized anxiety and a belief that there is something wrong with them. Often times this pressure forces people down irrational paths that leads them to ridiculous conclusions. Religions get created and alternate histories like the one presented here are made up. In reality they only serve to satisfy some need to be different or have a secret knowledge no one else has in pursuit of recognition. It serves ego alone, not any sense of spirituality.

But this pursuit for answers is senseless. Wrong answers are just as meaningless as no answer at all. These sorts of people need to realize that it’s ok to not have all the answers, that in fact there aren’t answers for every question in their lives. There is only the truth of the experience. Seeking answers leads to dead ends in faith and groundless belief. Seeking truth, on the other hand, is what allows us to go through our own inner journey of discovery and in that process shed those things that no longer serve us, grow in areas we need to grow and find personal revelation through experience.

Seeking honesty in the acceptance of a system of conviction based on evidence that most closely conforms to actual reality will give you true meaning in this life, not having some artificial invented database with “all the answers”. It’s ok to not know but it’s a hard thing to accept. But non-acceptance only leads to seeking unfounded answers that end in regret and stagnation. However if we can be honest with ourselves and seek only truth, the possibilities are endless.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The djed is one of the more ancient and commonly found symbols in ancient Egyptian religion. .

Which has nothing to do with Djedi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedi

Oh, but, yes, it does. As you can see on the top right corner of the same wikipedia article, the meaning of 'Djedi' in egyptian was translated to mean 'he who endures', and it was written as two djed pillars / reed columns (Gardiner R11 -'stable'), and a reed leaf (Gardiner M17 - suffix for I/me/my).

Ambert The Traveller wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The djed is one of the more ancient and commonly found symbols in ancient Egyptian religion. .

Which has nothing to do with Djedi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedi

Oh, but, yes, it does. As you can see on the top right corner of the same wikipedia article, the meaning of 'Djedi' in egyptian was translated to mean 'he who endures', and it was written as two djed pillars / reed columns (Gardiner R11 -'stable'), and a reed leaf (Gardiner M17 - suffix for I/me/my).

Yes, good catch, but my understanding is that the only link between them is that of a common hieroglyph use for writing. The Djed elevated that symbol to one of religious purposes while the Djedi name uses the glyph only to spell his name.

When someone is dying literally in your arms and there is nothing that can be done about it, what they believe in does not matter. What matters is that they believe...