Some questions from a passer-by

I feel like we are almost working through a language barrier, here. There are words that we are using quite differently. Myth is an easy example.

Perhaps, it might be instructive for you to tell us a bit about where you are coming from, Reneza. It's hard to share when we do not know what our common ground is.

Maybe we can take a short break?

Cabur Senaar wrote: I feel like we are almost working through a language barrier, here. There are words that we are using quite differently. Myth is an easy example.

I understand what you're coming from so perhaps I can define what I mean by myth as it means to most modern people in English, although not the strict original definition: "fictional story that may or may not contain actual historic fact, but used to explain a particular concept." This is the definition used by Campbell in his book. I do understand that the strict definition is merely story but this is not how it is used by most people today.

Cabur Senaar wrote: Perhaps, it might be instructive for you to tell us a bit about where you are coming from, Reneza. It's hard to share when we do not know what our common ground is.

Do you mean my own beliefs? I'd rather not at this point because I didn't start this discussion to do so and I don't think it's relevant right now. But if you'd like to understand certain definitions of what I'm saying, I'm more than happy to clarify

Cabur Senaar wrote: Maybe we can take a short break?

It's a good idea but I love to discuss such things

Jestor wrote: As i said, TOTJO doesnt tell you WHAT to believe, that is left up to the individual...

It's clearly not about that though. It's about a self-proclaimed religious organization defining what its members actually believe.

Im sorry, "whats about"?

Your line of questioning?

TOTJO 'does' nothing, it is merely an entity...

It is the people that do...

Jestor wrote: We could have made/used non-religious titles, and someday, that may happen... Not today...

There are plenty of other ranking-titles that could have been used but religious (specifically Christian) ones were chosen. Obviously it has a religious motive otherwise it wouldn't have chosen them.

Well, thank you for letting us know our motives...

You provided your own answers, lol...

You dont need us!

Jestor wrote: Because 'the jedi path' is very individualistic, and, and to get all the combinations of possible definitions, you would have to ask all the Jedi...

The "Jedi path" doesn't even seem to exist but as a vehicle for secular free speech promotion by what you're saying. If it's definition is "individual" as you say, anyway.

Well, I can see why you say that... lol...

Jestor wrote: Somewhere, we talk about Jediism being a "synergistic ideology"... That probably sums it up best...

Can you define this?

Typo...

syncretic ideology







Need ideology too?

Jestor wrote: My 'thing' is "my life, and how I live it"...

So is Jediism libertarianism now?

If that is how you define it, sure...

IM not worried about labels...

You sure are, lol...

Jediism is however you are defining it for you... Its why you wont understand from the seat you are in, lol...

Jestor wrote: You are not judging without trying to understand...

Where have I judged anybody? I'm asking questions.

Sorry, you miss this? You quoted it...

It dosnt say you ARE judging at all...

You sure read a lot into stuff, lol...

You are "reserving judgement", that better?

Jestor wrote: Show me how this was rude?

You were very demeaning by saying "people like me" have a "minimalist understanding" while proclaiming yourself as some sort higher consciousness or something. It was rather unprecedented. You can see it in exactly the text you quoted.

Nope, you inferred that...

How would you have preferred I said that...

Thats twice now you have suggested I was insulting...

I am beginning to think you are just playing with us for fun...

I do have a higher understanding of who I am, and what I think a Jedi is, but that makes me no better than anyone...

Jestor wrote: I have a very minimalist understanding of many things...

So why did you say "people like you" and then "while jedis like me... etc."?

Cause you would fall into the "non-jedi' people... and I would fall into the other...

Jestor wrote: Then you must be a fireman, becasue only a fireman/woman knows what it is really like...

This is absurd logic. This is like saying "you need to try heroin before you know it kills you slowly"

No, you need to try heroin to understand what it feels like...

There are plenty of studies that tell show you it can kill you...

Jestor wrote: Are you missing the metaphor with this?

So what is a Jedi? I can't be a Jedi unless I know what it is, but nobody here seems to have a clear answer.

No... We dont...

You have to figure that out for yourself, lol...

Jestor wrote: By using titles that the rest of the world is familiar with, it is a little less explaining...

A majority of the world didn't grow up in traditionally Christian countries.

The founders of this temple did..

Jestor wrote: that this was your argument for their definition...

Because that's what the films say, otherwise if it's any different nobody here has a clear alternative answer for me.

Well, that was your logic, not mine...

Perhaps you should not have provided an example...

I dont know, lol...

I was explaining the confusion from my end...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, lets start from a common ground...

Please tell us what a religion is, from a agreed upon source...

Please feel free to share when you do...

Jestor wrote: Im sorry, "whats about"?

"Jediism"

Jestor wrote: Well, thank you for letting us know our motives...

Well, few others wish to tell me, so what else am I supposed to do other than deduce from what I read here?

Jestor wrote: syncretic ideology... Need ideology too?

That makes more sense, thank you. No need for the latter part.

Jestor wrote: IM not worried about labels...

You sure are, lol...

If by labels you mean words with definitions then yes. I prefer if when people claimed they were something, they were able to define it.

Jestor wrote: Jediism is however you are defining it for you... Its why you wont understand from the seat you are in, lol...

By what you say, it literally has no meaning.

Jestor wrote: Thats twice now you have suggested I was insulting...

The text speaks for itself.

Jestor wrote: Cause you would fall into the "non-jedi' people... and I would fall into the other...

So what is the line between Jedi and non-Jedi?

Jestor wrote: No, you need to try heroin to understand what it feels like...

So how do I "try" Jediism?

Jestor wrote: There are plenty of studies that tell show you it can kill you...

There are also countless things online that would suggest that Jediism is not much more than playing dress-ups and role playing but I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt by asking you people what you believe.

Jestor wrote: You have to figure that out for yourself, lol...

Then it's meaningless. But plenty of people have given vague definitions at least. Is it difficult for you to give at least one?

Jestor wrote: The founders of this temple did..

Ok, but then it doesn't sound really universal then but rather chauvinistic.

Jestor wrote: Please tell us what a religion is, from a agreed upon source...

I didn't start this thread to do so and I don't see how it would help at all.

Pardon me... but this thread seems to have gone very far astray...

Reneza, you're asking people here to define something that has little definition beyond what you make it. We're not the only 'religion' that won't be able to present to you definite answers to similar questions.

My question to you is, why is it so important that you draw perfect lines around Jediism?

The simple answer to your questions, is that unless you hang around, read the discussions here, read the sermons etc. and explore our materials for yourself, you are not going to understand Jediism.

No one has the answers but you. Now I know that is probably an unsatisfactory answer, but it's the one that everyone else has been trying to explain to you..

Reneza wrote:

Senan wrote: Not every Christian believes every part of the Bible because the Bible in it's entirety contains contradictions.

They are required to by definition otherwise they are not defined as Christians. The definition of Christian was made with the Nicene Creed and it has been agreed upon ever since that anything contrary to this is not defined as "Christian." If you just allow everyone to define words, there is no meaning to anything and dialog goes out the window.

A minor point to make here: Christians don't even agree on exactly what should be or shouldn't be in the Nicene Creed. What seems like a fairly trivial part of it on the surface has caused enormous schism between Christian denominations. There are also many Christians who reject the Nicene Creed entirely, saying that Scripture alone is the source of one's beliefs. This is a common belief among non-denominational evangelicals in the United States and others.

Finally, the Nicene Creed (well, the ecumenical version of it) does not say anything about Scripture except that it documented and prophesied the resurrection of Christ and that the Holy Spirit spoke through the Prophets (of Scripture.) It definitely does not say that every Christian should "believe" every part of the Bible, since various parts of the Bible (Joshua, for example) contain directives from God to wage holy war and commit genocide, among other pleasant things.