Light or Shadow?

UraharaKiskue wrote: Just to pop my head back in, Blame Aly for this, I know not enough of Hinduism to tell you if Alethea is or is not a Hindu Christian. I know enough of Christianity to tell you she is a Christian, but even if she claimed Hindu I could not tell you that she is more Hindu than me or less because I have no point of reference on the subject. My knowledge of it is THAT incomplete.

There is a real world example. However it's also a truth. If Aly claims Hindu I'd need to do a VAST amount of research into the culture, it's origins, ideals, etc before I could BEGIN to tell you if she is or is not one. Further I MAY BE more Hindu than her, I do not know.

Nor do I know anything about Hindu...

But, off she claims she is Hindu, and i claim I am not, she is more Hindu than me....

If I am more hindu than her, then she must be a novice Hindu....

Because Lucas description left it broad, so as to not exclude any... Not only different styles of Jedi, but different races... Who is right?

We all are...

Resticon wrote: Please describe for me the battles which used martial arts to win during the Cold War. Just having combat does not make something a war. A war can also be defined as "a state of hostility or antagonism between opposing forces for a particular end." This in no way mandates that to be a war one must fight physically using any form of martial arts.

Apparently you missed the part where I described that Martial Arts is not strictly limited to the understanding of PHYSICAL Martial Arts. It's a Military Applied Art, of which tactical knowledge and understanding is considered a form of Martial Art.

Not that I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, but in here you can see the Martial Art of STRATEGY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strategy

Resticon wrote: Actually, I was encouraged to stay through multiple PMs after my 4th post which involved another member whose views on other members was deeply discouraging to me. But even before that I felt encouraged to continue because of my desire to find a path that could be my own...not my desire to find "the path" that should fit all members.

Then you got more than I did as Randi Oxford (a name that no one in the community knew was me until last year).

Resticon wrote: The difference between your view and mine is that I do not believe in "the path". If I believed in "the path" why would I have left the Catholic Church to come here? The Catholic Church has "the path" that defines what it means to be Catholic. I felt that path was not mine to take so I found a place through which I could find "My Path". So the entire basis of your argument is based on the predication that there is "the path", which you still have yet to conclusively show me must be my path for my belief to be valid.

I think you misunderstand me. You don't have a clue what I believe in regards to "THE Path" (very few people do, so you're not left out ), I was specifically referencing that you can't legitimately call yourself a Jedi without walking the Jedi Path.

Resticon wrote: The difference between your view and mine is that I do not believe in "the path". If I believed in "the path" why would I have left the Catholic Church to come here? The Catholic Church has "the path" that defines what it means to be Catholic. I felt that path was not mine to take so I found a place through which I could find "My Path". So the entire basis of your argument is based on the predication that there is "the path", which you still have yet to conclusively show me must be my path for my belief to be valid.

I think you misunderstand me. You don't have a clue what I believe in regards to "THE Path" (very few people do, so you're not left out ), I was specifically referencing that you can't legitimately call yourself a Jedi without walking the Jedi Path.

Resticon wrote: Except that, according to their belief they are Christians because they believe in "Christ" just not Jesus as Christ. To say they are wrong you would first have to prove, yet again, that their belief is invalid by disproving, in each of their minds, what it means to be a Christian. Until then, their belief is their opinion, whether you agree with it or not is of little concern to them. Again the burden of proof would be with the person attempting to change the belief, not the person defending their belief. Until you can prove it is false, you must accept that it could be true.

Catholics and LDS aren't considered Christian by a large number of the Christian Community- I happen to disagree with this statement because they do hold to the fundamental core. So it's not far of a stretch to make the statement that someone who does not adhere to the fundamental part of what it means to be a Christian, does not get placed in the category.

Also, as I'm reading over this understanding of Jesus in the Christian Science belief system, you seem to have a misunderstanding of how they view Jesus. From their perspective, Jesus is the only person that is allowed the title Christ. They seem to have the understanding of "Christ" the same way that you would attribute the term "Buddha", only a more profound title in it's relation to God.

Nor do I know anything about Hindu...

But, off she claims she is Hindu, and i claim I am not, she is more Hindu than me....

If I am more hindu than her, then she must be a novice Hindu....

Because Lucas description left it broad, so as to not exclude any... Not only different styles of Jedi, but different races... Who is right?

We all are...

So, if the Jedi path were to lead you to molest, rape, and kill other human beings. That person if they take the name Jedi is more a Jedi than someone who gave up their job as a Banker because they didn't like lying to people and abusing their trust (part of their job) and took up a position as a bouncer so that they may be at least "protecting someone, or something, somewhere" but does not take the name Jedi yes?

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: Please describe for me the battles which used martial arts to win during the Cold War. Just having combat does not make something a war. A war can also be defined as "a state of hostility or antagonism between opposing forces for a particular end." This in no way mandates that to be a war one must fight physically using any form of martial arts.

Apparently you missed the part where I described that Martial Arts is not strictly limited to the understanding of PHYSICAL Martial Arts. It's a Military Applied Art, of which tactical knowledge and understanding is considered a form of Martial Art.

Not that I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, but in here you can see the Martial Art of STRATEGY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strategy

Merriam-Webster defines Martial Arts as "any of several arts of combat and self defense (as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport". This makes no statement as to "military applied art" or "Military Strategy". The two may be connected without being the same thing.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: Actually, I was encouraged to stay through multiple PMs after my 4th post which involved another member whose views on other members was deeply discouraging to me. But even before that I felt encouraged to continue because of my desire to find a path that could be my own...not my desire to find "the path" that should fit all members.

Then you got more than I did as Randi Oxford (a name that no one in the community knew was me until last year).

While I'm very sorry to hear this and wish that I could have helped in that situation , I do not see it's relevance to the argument. There could be multiple variables that caused that example and even using the "scientific method" you can not prove something as true until you have proved it is true while excluding all the different variables involved into the equation. Even then, the existential variables can never truly be explained but that is a whole other topic completely.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: The difference between your view and mine is that I do not believe in "the path". If I believed in "the path" why would I have left the Catholic Church to come here? The Catholic Church has "the path" that defines what it means to be Catholic. I felt that path was not mine to take so I found a place through which I could find "My Path". So the entire basis of your argument is based on the predication that there is "the path", which you still have yet to conclusively show me must be my path for my belief to be valid.

I think you misunderstand me. You don't have a clue what I believe in regards to "THE Path" (very few people do, so you're not left out ), I was specifically referencing that you can't legitimately call yourself a Jedi without walking the Jedi Path.

This is true but you still must prove in the mind of everyone that calls themselves a Jedi, what the exact definition of a Jedi and why it should be such before it could be considered another definition.

Resticon wrote: I think you kind of missed the entire point, David, as to why I posted that.

I see. Well, thank you for letting know. I was uncertain what point you were trying to make there, one way or the other. Keep in mind, ideal communication is a two way street.

Resticon wrote: That is exactly what this whole debate has been about.

I agree, but it was unclear what position you were trying to take in providing that link. Or perhaps I was just being hasty or dense. That is always possible.

Resticon wrote: I did read it and was in no way posting that to say it is true considering it is not what I believe at all.

This may surprise you, but I was actually assuming that you didn't believe the contents of that site. Which made your obvious sarcasm in referring to it seem all the more needlessly ridiculing. Perhaps this was not your intent, but I can assure you this is how it was received by some people here, and rightly so, because you have done little to avoid that appearance.

Resticon wrote: That being said, there are people who believe in a difference of opinion on whether the world is round or not. Is it ok for them to question the status quo? Of course! But only when they show sufficient evidence to change a firmly held opinion (known as a belief) should someone else's beliefs (aka yours and mine) be changed. This goes directly to the heart of the conversation.

I agree.

Resticon wrote: If Alethea and UraharaKiskue wish to change the status quo they must first sufficiently change that which someone (others who believe they are Jedi but do not meet their criteria for what makes up a Jedi) believes. So thank you for helping to further prove my point.

That is not a point that I am bothered to have helped support, regardless of who is making it. However, your tone here in saying this is again quite snarky, especially followed by the "". If you go around sounding like you're laughing at people, they're going to fight against anything you have to say, even if what you have to say is completely correct. A Jedi seeks harmony. Learn from Jestor. he finds a lot to laugh about, but he doesn't come across as snarky or insulting when he responds in disagreement.

As for the matter of changing the status quo, passion rules reason. For some people (within certain ranges of their development), I don't know that there is any way to change their beliefs purely with the application of reason, logic, or statement of experience. If someone wants to call themselves something without actually trying to uphold themselves to the higher ideal that such a name entails (based on the source material), then that is their prerogative. But how is that any different than mere vanity or mental masturbation?

In such cases, we can only hope that their taking on of a title such as Jedi serves as a seed which may sprout into dedicated adherence later. Since partaking in this thread, I have come to understand that such adherence is deferred in TOTJO to the rank of Knight. Which I guess is ok, as long as it happens at some level. It requires me to update my inner definitions and expectations a bit, which feels weird but maybe I should think of it like jet lag.

Resticon wrote: with it being impossible to physically see it with your naked eye, everything that you "know" about the shape of the earth is attributed to firmly held opinions (beliefs) based on famous theories (theory of gravity, ether theory, theory of relativity, etc).

Actually, no, I also have direct experience of the roundness of the Earth. I don't need theories to explain what I have seen for myself. Theories help make it more cohesive or detailed, but they are not always required for understanding. This is the nature of Mystery. I agree that everything is faith, on some level, based on mysteria. But things are here in the manifest world so that we may know them through experience, and thereby eventually know our Self.

Resticon wrote: How do I know that you are breathing? Because I believe that in order to type a sentence you must be breathing.

Actually, no, that's why you would suppose I must be breathing. Supposition is not knowledge, and is the same basis of other fallacies like thinking the world is flat. How do you define "know"? That's probably a big part of the disparities arising here...

Resticon wrote: But for all I know while you were typing that statement you were holding your breath.

But why? Because you weren't physically in a position to directly experience otherwise. If you had been directly experiencing sight and sound of me while I wrote that, or if you were to do so in the future, you would know I was breathing. That is, you would have direct awareness of it by various information stemming from observing me.

Resticon wrote: All things are considered fact based on the knowledge of the time it is known in.

How things are considered does not concern me. What are actually facts is what interests me. Anything else is just noise, and the world is full of a lot of it. Just look at the Internet. What you mean is that possibilities arising as mental imagery are considered facts based on the knowledge and suppositions of the time. What we must look at is only what can be verified through duplicable demonstration. What can be directly experienced? All else is supposition and opinion. This is what makes the existence of the Force more than an opinion, for those who have direct experience of it. They cannot prove it to you until you have the experience yourself, but by then there is no need.

Resticon wrote: Maybe one day we'll die and find out we're all characters in God's video game. Maybe we will find out that everything we believe in is simply a series of simulated code.

Maybe we will. But there are still truths we can discover that will remain true even in such an event as you describe. Some things are intrinsic to the nature of the universe itself, such as consciousness. And in the mean time, it does not behoove us to live our lives in an untrusting way that doubts every experience we've ever had, on the off chance that we are all being simulated or some such. That smacks of paranoid delusion.

Resticon wrote: The fact is no one ever truly knows anything.

According to your own past statements, then this assertion of facthood is really just your opinion too. And can you demonstrate that no one knows anything? Have you directly experienced absolutely no one knowing literally anything? "Supposition, supposition!" You know your own given name in this incarnation, don't you? (To answer 'no' to this question, or to say you "believe" you do, is just plain silly and argumentative.) So there, you do know something after all.

Resticon wrote: The more we learn, the more we discover that we do not know. This is what is known as an "Existential Discussion".

We are able to know things all the time, depending on how you define "knowing". You are confusing knowledge with omniscience. Just because the more we learn, the more we discover there is to learn, is not an indication that we are not accumulating knowledge as we go along. I have no problem with existential discussions until/unless people start trying to make logical arguments using inaccurate, inapplicable, or purposely evasive terminology.

Resticon wrote: "Knowledge is knowing that we cannot know."
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

That quote disproves itself, and thus offers nothing (is inapplicable) to this discussion.

Fraternally,
-David

UraharaKiskue wrote:

Nor do I know anything about Hindu...

But, off she claims she is Hindu, and i claim I am not, she is more Hindu than me....

If I am more hindu than her, then she must be a novice Hindu....

Because Lucas description left it broad, so as to not exclude any... Not only different styles of Jedi, but different races... Who is right?

We all are...

So, if the Jedi path were to lead you to molest, rape, and kill other human beings. That person if they take the name Jedi is more a Jedi than someone who gave up their job as a Banker because they didn't like lying to people and abusing their trust (part of their job) and took up a position as a bouncer so that they may be at least "protecting someone, or something, somewhere" but does not take the name Jedi yes?

In my mind no, but in the mind of person that call's themselves a Jedi, it is possible. Perhaps we have different definitions of Jedi? Perhaps they call themselves a Jedi because they believe all you have to do is have a lightsaber to be one. The idea that if A makes B true then B must make A false does not hold up. A can make B true while A is true as well.

"any of several arts of combat" AND "self defense". The () describes the self-defense portion, not the conjunction of both. Military Strategy still falls within the definition.

Resticon wrote: While I'm very sorry to hear this and wish that I could have helped in that situation

I'm not, and what you think is my point is in fact not the point. My only point is that I had a different experience, and I've known plenty of others that had similar experiences to mine. You can't use your own experience to prove that the membership takes the same interest in you as they did others.

Also, I'm not hurt that they didn't take a particular interest in me. I was everywhere as it is, it probably saved me a number of headaches trying to jump between here and everywhere else keeping up the persona of someone that was me but was not me, lol.

Resticon wrote: This is true but you still must prove in the mind of everyone that calls themselves a Jedi, what the exact definition of a Jedi and why it should be such before it could be considered another definition.

And in my home order, I'm more than willing. But ToTJO isn't necessarily my home order, and that's not my aim for this particular thread. However, in time, I may make the post as to how I define the Jedi Path. It wouldn't be in this thread though.

Also, I was editing my post above, so if you'd like to comment further on points I made, well their up there. Thought I'd let you know before you missed out on the opportunity for further debate.

Where's all this anything goes mumbo jumbo coming from?

This is not optional or a suggestion. It's on our public front page.

We adopt this statement with gratitude from and to http://ReligiousTolerance.org

Jedi Believe:

In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human.

In working towards a culture that is relatively free of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, degree of ability, age, etc.

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment including the death penalty. (1)

In the importance of democracy within religious, political and other structures.

In the separation of church and state; and the freedoms of speech, association, and expression. (2)

That the systems of truth in the field of morals, ethics, and religious belief that we have studied are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.

In the generally positive influence that most religions have had on their followers and on society. (3)

In the importance of individual believers determining evil influences and policies within their chosen faith group, and advocate for their correction.

In the importance of education. We believe that people are not truly educated unless they have studied at least the world's major religions and ethical systems. They need to learn of the good and bad impacts they have had on society. (4)

In a just society with laws grounded in reason, compassion, health and human rights and in which fears and prejudices have no part.



Footnotes and Exceptions:

(1) However, like the rest of North American society, we have not been able to reach a consensus about when human life, in the form of a spermatozoon and an ovum, becomes a human person deserving civil rights.

(2) However we have not been able to reach a consensus about the age at which an individual should fully enjoy these freedoms. We also recognize that some of these freedoms should have limits. For example, we do not feel that, in most cases, parents should be allowed to let their children die if medical treatment will assure a cure. We do not feel that individuals should be free to advocate genocide or yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

(3) Exceptions are a handful of destructive cults which have had an overall negative effect.

(4) They need to understand the religious sources that inspired Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, and Mother Teresa to commit their life to the alleviation of human suffering. But they also need to learn the shadow side of religion: how religious beliefs have contributed to hatred, intolerance, oppression, discrimination, as well as mass murders and genocides in such places as Nazi Germany, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Sudan and countless other countries.

Jestor wrote: It makes them more Christian than me... So, there by, a Christian to me...

It would make them more Christian-like than you, but that's not the same thing as making them Christian. A water hose is more snakelike than my body (all Freudian allusions put aside), but does that make it a snake compared to me? No. It's not even biologically alive.

Eh... I don't mean to seem pedantic. I agree with the spirit of what else you've been saying, that even if there are strict definitions for the Jedi ideal, there IS no Jedi Police. It is up to each person to pursue being a true Jedi to the best of their abilities (or not). I think the length of this thread has started to kill the conversational fire with too much coal.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David