Light or Shadow?

Alethea Thompson wrote: Religion- I define this the same way it is defined by dictionary.com in it's first definition:
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Aly, in general I would say don't even try to define the word religion. No one has yet agreed on a definition and not one definition encompasses (and simultaneously) excludes things that calls themselves a religion and things that don't

Here is why following the scientific principles and the acting on the method of science is a religion by that definition you gave:

'A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,'

Most definitely

'especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,'

Says 'especially', not 'essential' so science still fits

'usually involving devotional and ritual observances, '

Again you see the word 'usually' instead of 'definitely does', but lets argue the point anyway: science can be very devotional and you could argue that the scientific method is very ritualistic

'and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.'

Again you have the indefinite word 'often' which doesn't mean that it is fundamental


Now what I have said is by no means a foolproof argument, but you can see the point I am making

Here is what I go by: I call Jediism my religion. I don't have a definition for it, I just find that the word 'religion' seems to fit. You call something else your religion and that's fine. I won't labour the point. If you want it to be your religion then I wish you well, so long as Jediism is a religion to me. Good day

Arguing about the definitions of words becomes tiresome and repetitive if I'm honest with you

Ah we differ on views of the Force, let me say then I believe SOME Training in the Force be it meditation, mysticism, healing energy work, or some such is necessary on the path. For me, myself, I hold a high standard on the amount of knowledge I must have. Also those who in my estimation (again my value not anyone else) are Knights and Masters should be fairly skilled in these areas. We hold a differing view on this to a degree possibly and that is ok.

True, the potential is always there and depends on the motives of the person using it. As a pacifist and a Jedi, I feel that by simply using aikikai you can keep an attacker off-balance, refrain from ever striking out at them by merely rolling them to the ground using their own attacks, and simultaneously protect them from serious injury if you try. Though if you were to learn to box for example, you could (and people have) unintentionally kill a person, even with the purest of motives, simply by throwing a single punch. Same goes for every other martial style that has a physical attack aspect. This could be attributed to the nature of attacking someone during the course of self-defense who does not know how to properly defend themselves from your technique. Aikikai, if used properly, performs the defense for the attacker as well ass yourself without ever actually making an attack.

As a martial artist myself let me say, the worst injuries I have taken have always been accidental direction of power in what could have been considered a non offensive manner. What I'm getting at here is Aikikai no matter what they tell you will only work so perfectly if your opponent is completely compliant. If they are not you may managed to defend yourself but you can not guarantee their safety. It's the nature of hurling an individual through the air or removing their footing. Further if you do not train against none Aikikai - use the training against for example boxers and muythai - it will become ineffective in the street. By contrast if I train boxing and never train it against Juijitsu or Aiki practitioners or similar it will become ineffective as I will have left certain opening in the structure of it they may make use of.

That being said, as far as passive martial arts go, if you train it diligently you can at least give your aggressor the best chance of coming out unharmed possible. I don't subscribe to that mentality but we're obviously following very different paths here so that is ok.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: And what if he then pulled out research to present to you saying the contrary. As I have said multiple different people can come to multiple different opinions of the same thing. What would your research be based off of? Another teacher or reference written by one?

Then it would mean I did poor research- and I don't do poor research, not when I'm proving someone's facts wrong. I have always looked for the most up-to-date information. I don't put myself on the academic line without checking, rechecking and then rechecking again. That's just sloppy.

Unfortunately there are many topics which can be debated simply because there is no firm proof. Only another's beliefs to which there are many contrary viewpoints. Take the study of theoretical physics for example...Many people of the scientific community do not believe in string theory because for every example of proof there is an example to counter it. To question a theory, you must first believe something, at which point, there will be differing beliefs with just a much proof. Religion is made up of beliefs (which by it's very definition are opinions) which can not be proven completely because there will always be a differing school of thought.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: Two things, one that would be improperly worded in my opinion. Knowing that you have hit something and believing that you killed it are both possible. But you must also consider the fact that if in your mind whatever you hit was alive then, yes, you would have killed it. The simple fact that you do not know it was a rock means nothing. What if I believe that the rock is alive and by hitting it, I did in fact kill it. We could literally do this all day. By simply believing in something you give it power. Whether it is fact in another's eyes does not matter. So yes your reality makes it truth...to you. It does not necessarily make it true to anyone else. Which is why everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

I used that argument once, but I did it better- I used it from a psychological standpoint. To the individual, they have indeed committed a crime and there is nothing you can do to prove it otherwise. The best thing for them would be to place them in a psyche ward.

A reasonable person would assume you meant you murdered an actual person- it's not like you said "I killed the spirit of the rock." Stop trying to make this into something it is not- the words were "someone", apply it in a reasonable sense, it's obvious that I meant a HUMAN BEING. Now since the timing was not apparent, you have gotten out of the car almost immediately AFTER you ran over the rock, and you are jumping up and down screaming in HORROR as to how you have killed another human.

You killed no one. This is a fact that can be verified by the scientific method.

As I said it would be true...to you. Until proven wrong your belief is still your opinion of how you view the world. Yes, if a reasonable person looked under the car and saw that it was, in fact, a rock, well then their belief would change. But until that fact has been proven it is, to them, still still a fact that you could have killed (and did kill) something. Hundreds of years ago, everyone believed the world was flat. In reality, we now know that it was not. But to people then, this was not a belief, this was indisputable fact. Because they believed it to be so they created stories, maps, and theory's based entirely on a belief. But because they believed it to be so it was true...to them. Until someone who had a belief that the world was round proved it to be fact. Maybe 500 years from now we'll learn that a rock is alive and can be killed. The scientific method includes the concept of learning new information that corrects old knowledge. So, technically, the scientific method could also prove that you did kill somebody...but someone first has to believe in order for it to become fact.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resicon wrote: And it holds up perfectly in my mind which being the topic under discussion you can not say I am wrong without first proving that the topic itself is wrong. Which in my eyes you have still not done sufficiently. Thankfully it does not matter to me that much because I respect that what you believe and what I believe are different. I do not believe that we have to agree on this point. You have heard my side, and I yours and it would be fruitless to continue it without something changing the dynamic of this part of the conversation.

It doesn't apply, because you are talking in simile, a reasonable person understands the difference between simile and saying you ARE something. If you cannot discern the difference, then that is a problem you really need to come to terms with. You can say "I am like a Jedi, because I serve others", it does not make you one. You could say "I am like a Jedi because I believe in "the Force""-that does not make you a Jedi. In the Star Wars Universe, all of the following paths believed in "the Force":

Jedi
Sith
Baran Do Sage
Bendu
Potentium
Aing-Tii

And I'm sure there are a number of others, that's just a quick look up using wookiepedia. Here's my point, only a select few could be Jedi, because it carried a lot more weight than just a mere belief in "the Force". It has an entire heritage, system and action based belief behind it. Other philosophies/religions surrounding "the Force", carried a much different view of how you were to interact with "the Force", in order to bring about balance and the like.

To all this, I just have one thing to say. Please reread the definition of a belief. This is not simile. Someone could just as easily say this today and based on their belief of the meaning of a word could be correct. If you can make them stop believing a word means one thing and convince them that it means another then you could very easily change their belief. But what if they think the word sky has two definitions? For example, according the urban dictionary, "sky" also means a really hot girl. So based on that person's belief in what the word means, a sentence spoken by a girl saying "I am a sky" would make perfect sense.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resicon wrote: Sun Tzu - "If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by."

You do not need to know HOW to fight to know what fighting is. There are many ways to learn confidence and few of them involve fighting. I may be a pacifist but do I seem meek and easy to walk all over? With my pacifism intact, I feel we have had a thorough and lengthy PEACEFUL debate in which my voice has been heard just as yours has. Whether either of us knows martial arts or not has no bearing.

You realize that this is the worst argument you can use simply because you used Sun Tzu, who was an accomplished Martial Artist in his own right.

And because he was an accomplished martial artist that immediately means he thought everyone should know martial arts? Or are you interpreting your own view of what Sun Tzu meant from that statement based on your beliefs?

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: By making these principles available and guiding people towards them, do you not encourage people to learn it?

No, it's not encouragement, it's simply putting the information out there. To encourage someone is an active action, not passive. Guiding them to the material is simply pointing them in a direction, it doesn't encourage.

Beliefs can get you in a LOT of trouble. Look at David Berkowitz . Just because David Berkowitz believed he was doing the work of the Christian God, does not mean that this is reality, it simply means he understood it as a personal truth.

But to then begin the basic IP training by directing students to read them and the FAQs...is that not active action?

And beliefs CAN in fact get you in a lot of trouble...if your beliefs are among the minority. If your belief (no matter how wild, evil or seemingly crazy it may be) is shared by the majority then you have fact, or fact as it is currently known by the scope of current knowledge and beliefs.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: And yes, actually the core of Christianity has changed to the point that there are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of religions out there that claim to be better Christians than the others. They aren't either. Just different ways of interpreting the same book.

The core hasn't changed, just surrounding beliefs. And since then, the only thing they ever claim is Christianity as the overview. But they have dividing lines- Baptist, Catholic, Church of England, etc. But there is a name you can use if all you believe is in "the Force". It's called a "Force Realist".

Not necessarily, originally the core belief was in that of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That was the heart of Christianity when it was formed in the time of Christ. Now correct me if I am wrong but Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Unitarians and Christian Scientists all do not believe in the Holy Trinity. That to me sounds like core changes.

UraharaKiskue wrote: Some level of ESP training, basic energy work as it concerns spiritual defense is a must, those who don't believe in spiritual attack have not ever been hit by one. The method of proof I will not stoop down to

I agree with your assessment of the damage possibly inflicted by using martial arts...

We go pretty hard at our gym... But still short of damage to each other....

I would love, if possible to be hit by your "psychic energy" thing...

Seriously... I want hit by a taser too... Controlled environment and all that, but I want hit...

No out of some death wish, or sadistic pleasure, but for the experience....

I love the experience... You can't truly comprehend something until you experience it...

Some things are too dangerous, and even I say no... For now... But under the right conditions....... Maybe...

lol...

We read these books, get all philosophical, meditate, read, listen discuss...

But there is a difference to the experience...

+++++++++++
I think we have a different view on the reason for martial arts as well...

UraharaKiskue wrote: in the event they might be called to act as a Jedi in an emergency instead of standing back and watching a beat down happen.

You don't need martial arts to step in and stop a beatdown... I did that a few times before ever studying martial arts...

Many people claim self defense, and its true, it is one side of the coin...

But, I, like many, are here for self control.... Self improvement...

You know those peaceful monks, who practice martial arts, yet wouldn't hurt a fly? Would take a beating, never raising a hand in self defense?

Cause this is self control...

I have the power to defend myself, possibly destroy you, but, I won't, out of my love for you, or my attacker....

Alethea wrote: You realize that this is the worst argument you can use simply because you used Sun Tzu, who was an accomplished Martial Artist in his own right.

No, Sun Tsu realized what I have recently realized...

See my above answer to Charles....

Alethea wrote: Beliefs can get you in a LOT of trouble. Look at David Berkowitz . Just because David Berkowitz believed he was doing the work of the Christian God, does not mean that this is reality, it simply means he understood it as a personal truth

Maybe he was doing "God's" work... Maybe "God" wanted the tradegy that followed that, to bring us together, and show that our evolution should not include this type of behavior... But that it is possible.. And we must guard ourselves against it...

Who's to say what "God's" plan was...

Alethea wrote: No, it's not encouragement, it's simply putting the information out there. To encourage someone is an active action, not passive. Guiding them to the material is simply pointing them in a direction, it doesn't encourage.

So I tell people... If you want to know what I think, ask...

Then, I know you are listening....

I could be the wisest man in existence (I'm not, lol), but if you don't want to hear my wisdom, it does no good for me to speak...

If you ask me something, you want something, therefore, you are listening...

If I force you to eat, and you are not hungry, you will get sick...

If I make you study books, and think thoughts, are you understanding...

If I make you study martial arts, and you don't want to, are you really trying?

However...

If I offer those things, and you take them up for yourself, would you not apply yourself most powerfully?

Akkarin wrote: Here is what I go by: I call Jediism my religion. I don't have a definition for it, I just find that the word 'religion' seems to fit. You call something else your religion and that's fine. I won't labour the point. If you want it to be your religion then I wish

you well, so long as Jediism is a religion to me

Me too, me too.... lol...

You know, sometimes... You just get a feeling...

It just sorta makes sense....

Like a Force is guiding you....

So the definition, just, makes, sense...

Not true, Jedi Realists didn't have a name until the word "Jediism" came about, Ren. The term was coined after 1997 (somewhere around the 2000 census), in 2003 or 2004, to describe what the predecessors were, the term Jedi Realist came about. Because the vast majority of people who were practicing the Jedi Path held a religion in conjunction with their Jedi Path.

That's exactly what I said- but I used the terms that were created to explain exactly how a Jedi approaches the path.

Now onto the religion part, you are free to use Oxford. I prefer going back to the etymology rather than using it's understanding of the current day because it has a key tradition that should not be ignored.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

religion (n.)
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegere "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300. Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.

It is from this that I was taught, and it is from this I define the term (which is supported by the first definition in Dictionary.com). Dictionary's evolve over time, but to keep to the truth of how something was intended, you need to go back to the etymology and apply what is there to determine if something is offensive or not. Old understandings of the terms can be applied by older generations, I'm in the "older generation" category. If I can document the word from history- then is my definition any less valid?

I was asked how I define it, not how others do- and I provided supporting evidence to suggest it. So where you get the idea that I'm changing words, I can simply say that I've interpreted it with the intent behind the original word and not the modern day usage.

Hundreds of years ago, everyone believed the world was flat. In reality, we now know that it was not. But to people then, this was not a belief, this was indisputable fact.

And this actually proves my point. You see, just because someone says they believe something does not make it reality. In order to help them grow it took someone to challenge the current system and prove them all wrong. In order for growth of an individual, it takes people challenging them to really come to terms with what they are claiming to be able to stake claim upon their beliefs.

Those that believed the world was flat, were happy remaining as they did in ignorance of the truth because they didn't challenge it. They became slaves to complacency in their search for scientific knowledge. They were so caught up in pushing their beliefs that the world was flat, that they missed opportunities to connect with the world around them. Once the ideas were challenged and someone set out to prove them wrong, the world opened up to them in ways they had never perceived possible. So is the same of pushing people to actually become Jedi, rather than merely stating they are Jedi. Same with pushing people that claim to be Christian to become Christian rather than just saying they are. And Muslims and so forth.

Also, Jestor, as a note- no, without adhering to the very base traditions of being a Muslim, you are not a Muslim. Let's see if this analogy is taken differently- if I never once studied a martial art of any form, and claimed I am a Martial Artist, would that make me a Martial Artist? Absolutely not, because I've not put ANY time forth on the concept. I just claimed the name because it sounded cool (of note, I don't consider myself a Martial Artist, just someone that happens to occasionally practice martial arts to learn defense and gain control over my body mechanics).

And because he was an accomplished martial artist that immediately means he thought everyone should know martial arts? Or are you interpreting your own view of what Sun Tzu meant from that statement based on your beliefs?

I'm interpreting the quote based upon the work that you pulled it from. Whether he believed everyone needed to be a martial artist or not, does not come into the equation. But the intent behind the work was to teach you the "Art of War". Just as someone takes a quote out of the Bible out of context of it's intent within the story it was derived from, so are you doing the same.

An artist, whether they are writing, drawing, composing, etc, has an intent behind their work. To take it out of context is to dishonor the artist behind it.

But to then begin the basic IP training by directing students to read them and the FAQs...is that not active action?

No, it's a passive action. Action can be passive and it can be active, neither is bad or good. But it does not fit into the category of active. Active would be (instead of directing them to the FAQs) taking an interest in teaching them what it means through active listening and participation in discussion. Encouraging someone to learn the path would be you sitting there the entire time and explaining points that may need clarification. People feel put off when all you do is send them somewhere, they want engaging conversation. They want to know that you understand the path well enough to make the statement that you can claim it, otherwise it becomes a waste of their time.

Before I ever direct someone to an order, I always engage them and ask what they are looking for in an order. And then I encourage them to join up on one-two different orders based on what they have to say. I've even encouraged them to talk with specific individuals based on whom I believe will benefit them the best in their soul searching.

Let's put it this way, by completely immersing yourself in the teachings of the church, and then passing it along to future generations, does great honor to your order. But without a tradition or some way to keep accountability, you begin to lose people. And as you lose people, you may miss the opportunities that "the Force" has laid out in your life's journey. So, if you really want to help others, it takes creating a stance that you and your group will stand by and constantly enhance as people come along.

When people think of Jedi, they do tend to think of ESP- but there isn't an introductory course which explains the stance that ToTJO has on the matter (I think that would be something that would greatly benefit the training program, btw- getting some lectures together for initiates to look over to understand how vast the idea of "the Force" is, it makes it a lot easier for people to really consider for themselves what it is and define it. Heck, I've written a piece that covers how you can find "the Force" in other religions just so that people didn't get caught up in the problem struggling to find the link themselves. Just an idea.)

Not necessarily, originally the core belief was in that of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That was the heart of Christianity when it was formed in the time of Christ. Now correct me if I am wrong but Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Unitarians and Christian Scientists all do not believe in the Holy Trinity. That to me sounds like core changes.

I fail to see just how this core is changed. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always been a part of the Holy Trinity. There was merely a shift in understanding of how the three inter-related. Christians have always held the belief that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins. It is also always been held that he was the one and only true son of God (even by those that believe Jesus is God, the understanding is that he came to Earth, and then became one with God in Heaven- but he has always maintained being the Son of God. Of course, when you get down to thinking about it, that really messes with your mind as to just how schizophrenic God must have been at the time ).

ou il y a de L'intensité
ou il y a des jedi

Where there is intensity
where there is jedi

PatrickB wrote: ou il y a de L'intensité
ou il y a des jedi

Where there is intensity
where there is jedi

Mais, où il y a du calme, de la sérénité, de la Paix -- n'y a-t-il pas de Jedi ?

Le Jedi est guerrier de la Paix ; on agit en sorte que "l'intensité" soit moindre. S'il te plaît d'étudier, d'approfondir, ce que nous sommes, ce pour lequel nous vivons, nous entraînons & vers quoi nous oeuvrons. Je suggère fortement que tu amorces le Programme d'Initiation. Ainsi, sauras-tu mieux ce que c'est, le Jedi. Mais, bien sûr ça reste qu'une suggestion ...

... et bien sûr, parfois les Jedi ont du mal à se rappeler ce que c'est être Jedi. Comme la lumière et l'ombre se mêlent en nous tous, sans exception, on trouve là ou les deux ne font plus qu'un la voie de la Force, et ce n'est que dans son calme qu'on puisse entendre sa voix ...

While I appreciate everything that is being said on this thread, does any of it really matter?

Forgive me, but are we not united here because we are seeking to become something better than we already are? Is that not what binds us together as a community, albeit and online one? I have only been involved a very short while, but what has struck me is the general respect that everyone has for one another. The striving of the general body of TOTJO toward something greater. In that respect, then, does it matter what other people define us as, so long as we are all happy with how we as individuals feel about what we are trying to accomplish?

Just putting that out there