Some questions from a passer-by

“Religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long lasting moods and motivation in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such as aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

Using this definition by Clifford Geertz will help in understanding Jediism as a religion.

Jediism, as practiced here, is neither creedal nor revealed. Some religions are both (Christianity, Sikhism, and Islam) but religions such as Shinto, Hinduism, or the indigenous religions of North American or Africa are neither. Some religions eschew reliance on a deity such as Zen, Confucianism or Daoism, so also with Jediism. Jedi can be theists or not. Jediism is analogous to transtheistic religions in that it focuses more on practice than belief.

Metaphysics is the philosophical discipline that studies being, or, in other words, studies the nature of reality. In this sense, Jediism is metaphysical and philosophical. Metaphysics is subject to rigorous logical analysis requiring precision of language. The proofs of philosophy are subject to different standards than experimental science.

This quote is in my lecture notes but I can’t remember where I got it.

"Campbell believed myth had an important purpose in human life, and defined its four major functions:

1. The Metaphysical Function - Awakening a sense of awe before the mystery of being.
2. The Cosmological Function - Explaining the shape of the universe.
3. The Sociological Function - Validating and supporting the existing social order.
4. The Pedagogical Function - Teaching and guiding the individual through the stages of life.

Mythology and storytelling is a universal human drive. Through these four steps, myth informs and enhances human understanding of not only the world around us, but who we are, both in society and within ourselves. By mythologizing our own lives, we can understand them, and work out our place in them. By experiencing our own adventures, we too can learn."

Academic definitions of myth:
Myth is a “traditional narration which relates to events that happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing grounds for the ritual actions of men of today and, in a general manner, establishing all the forms of action and thought by which man understands himself in his world.” (Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil)
Myth is a traditional narration regarding the nature of the sacred.
Myth is a traditional narrative account of the origin of an aspect or symbol of the sacred.
Myth is the narrative embodiment of an idea.
Myth narrates a sacred history: it tells of an event in primordial time or it tells how reality or a part of reality came into existence.
Myths can be known, experienced, lived in the sense that one is seized by the sacred in the ritual re-enactment of the primordial event.
The mythic person says, “That myth is true for me because it tells the story of how and why the world is the way it is.”
The truth, validity or effectiveness of a myth is determined solely on the life in the world of the participants (believers) in the myth.
Myth is the symbolic expression of primal experiences.
The symbols in the myth represent a primary aspect of experienced reality.
Myth is a narrative account of the origin of the symbol.

Some persons here at TotJO refer to the Star Wars myth in order to express their understanding of the symbol of the Force.

RyuJin wrote: i hate dogma, jediism has no dogma...dogma is inflexible, inflexibility causes strife...

I am not talking about that at all. If you had read any of the text in this thread, you would see that I'm asking for definitions. If something has no definition, it lacks substance and is only an image

RyuJin wrote: the vast majority of mainstream religions thrive on causing strife and driving people to their "god"...this is especially common in some of the abrahamic religions....

So do any human systems.

RyuJin wrote: to me jediism is more of a philosophical lifestyle. we don't tell you what to think, or how to think, instead we teach you how to think for yourself, how to decide for yourself, how to define your own path.

This sounds awfully hubristic.

RyuJin wrote: among the various jedi groups we share a few common beliefs...how we define the beliefs varies individually just like among various christian sects...judaism does believe in christ but they don't believe in his messianic nature the way other christians do...

Except Christianity actually has a foundational idea of what it actually is while from my discussions here it seems Jediism does not. Furthermore, Jews "believe" in Jesus as much as a historian believes in Jesus and so to use "believe in" in this sense is completely unsuitable.

RyuJin wrote: we believe in the force...how each of us defines it is likely to vary.

So it seems that my understanding was right; "the Force" is a synonym for "individual belief system" with Star Wars imagery and nothing more. If anyone would like to suggest otherwise, let me know.

RyuJin wrote: personally i don't give two sh...ts about what others think of me when i mention being a jedi. if they laugh, they laugh...it just shows how closed minded they are and they will never know what it is like walk my path. most people are actually quite interested once i start discussing it with them.

Is self-aggrandizement and belittlement of others really so common here..?

RyuJin wrote: so take it as you will....or don't, either way i'm not fussed by it...we frequently get people seeking to "deconstruct" what we are....we're still here...we're still growing and evolving....how many religions truly encourage knowledge, understanding, and acceptance and truly mean it?

I don't know about others, but all major religions in history have been "deconstructed" by everyone including their own adherents, and for good reason. It's a good thing and healthy because it raises questions and it forces individual adherents to actually answer questions and not simply accept things as given. Knowledge and understanding do not come from taking a fictional order of warrior monks and applying their religious ideology to the real-world while also resisting any questions about it. It just makes it look all the more ridiculous

Saying that a Christian who rejects the Nicene Creed is not a Christian rules out a *lot* of Christians (e.g. American evangelicals or others who simply dislike creeds, like Quakers - I live in North Carolina, we have a lot of the former) whose faith I have no right to deny. Perhaps it's a product of the tradition that I belong to (I'll get back to this), but I don't think the walls to being a "true Christian" are particularly high. Of course, the walls to being a Jedi are considerably lower. I don't think the walls need be high for a tradition to be valid.

Sola scriptura, like you say, is a relatively new development. But there is no interdenominational consensus on what sola scriptura entails. The Baptists I have worshipped with are quite fond of the Old Testament stuff, especially in this day and age. Less conservative traditions practically treat the Old Testament, Psalms excepted, as if it doesn't exist. The "sola" probably deserves an asterisk if you're going to talk about it as if it were a single, monolithic concept. The inconsistency and incoherency of sola scriptura is a large part of why prima scriptura makes more sense to me.

Also, your use of such a passive-aggressive phrase furthers my belief that among people here it seems eerily rather common to make snide swipes at Abrahamic faiths.

I almost never talk about the particulars of my faith on here, but I feel this needs to be cleared up. You read too much into what I say, perceiving hostility that does not exist. There is no passive-aggressiveness on my part or snide swipe toward Abrahamic faiths, since I practice and live by one myself. I'm a devout Anglican Christian, and my tendency to jokingly describe horrible things as "pleasant" pre-dates my time as a Christian, to say nothing of my time in this community. I studied history in uni for six years and mostly focused on bad things. A sad habit I picked up from my colleagues in that field is that I tend to occasionally use sarcasm in the context of discussing historical atrocities, something I try to work on. Make of that what you will.

(Also, this is terribly off-topic - sorry guys! I'll shuffle on.)

Adi Vas wrote: Saying that a Christian who rejects the Nicene Creed is not a Christian rules out a *lot* of Christians (e.g. American evangelicals or others who simply dislike creeds, like Quakers - I live in North Carolina, we have a lot of the former) whose faith I have no right to deny. Perhaps it's a product of the tradition that I belong to (I'll get back to this), but I don't think the walls to being a "true Christian" are particularly high. Of course, the walls to being a Jedi are considerably lower. I don't think the walls need be high for a tradition to be valid.

What part of Quaker doctrine has ever been contrary to the Nicene Creed? Most Christians, even today with non-Christian Christian groups such as the LDS Church, are Nicene Creed based.

Adi Vas wrote: Sola scriptura, like you say, is a relatively new development. But there is no interdenominational consensus on what sola scriptura entails. The Baptists I have worshipped with are quite fond of the Old Testament stuff, especially in this day and age.

Yes, this is a big problem within Christianity and one that has never entirely been solved; that of the existence of the Old Testament in contrast with the New. As you probably know it was the cause of many groups in the early days of the Christian faith declaring that the Old Testament was evil/nonsense/etc. But my point is still that while Jediism seems to have no real foundation in anything except for secular ideas like free speech, Christianity does in the person of Jesus.

Adi Vas wrote: I almost never talk about the particulars of my faith on here, but I feel this needs to be cleared up. You read too much into what I say, perceiving hostility that does not exist. There is no passive-aggressiveness on my part or snide swipe toward Abrahamic faiths,

Using a sarcastic expression is quite a good indication, but apologies if it wasn't intended.

Adi Vas wrote: since I practice and live by one myself. I'm a devout Anglican Christian, and my tendency to jokingly describe horrible things as "pleasant" pre-dates my time as a Christian, to say nothing of my time in this community. I studied history in uni for six years and mostly focused on bad things. A sad habit I picked up from my colleagues in that field is that I tend to occasionally use sarcasm in the context of discussing historical atrocities, something I try to work on. Make of that what you will.

Why do you devoutly follow something in which the primary focus of worship does such things?

Loudzoo wrote:
You seem quite intent on proving that Jediism isn't a religion.

Reneza wrote:
This is your presumption. I'm merely curious as to what a Jedi actually is and so far it definitely seems not to be a religion in the slightest or by any definition. I like to understand others and when I read about this particular phenomenon/movement and that it was based on certain historical systems/ I was curious. But now the more I read the more it does seem to be an inconsistent and intentionally vague collection of secular concepts with trappings of historical theology/philosophy.

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

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

Reneza wrote:
But if you'd like to understand certain definitions of what I'm saying, I'm more than happy to clarify.

What is your definition of religion?

Or are you happy to use Alan's? [as above]

Alan wrote: “Religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long lasting moods and motivation in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such as aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

Using this definition by Clifford Geertz will help in understanding Jediism as a religion.

You have literally picked the definition of an anthropologist completely un-related to lexicography and is completely at odds with most definitions.

Alan wrote: (...) religions such as Shinto, Hinduism, or the indigenous religions of North American or Africa are neither.

I have never mentioned anything about revelation being a determining factor in religion, yet somehow certain people seem to think this is worth mentioning.

Alan wrote: Some religions eschew reliance on a deity such as Zen, Confucianism or Daoism, so also with Jediism. Jedi can be theists or not. Jediism is analogous to transtheistic religions in that it focuses more on practice than belief.

Yes, but Buddhism and its schools have foundations in the Pali canon at least to define what they are. Jediism has nothing but vague "teachings" mentioning "the Force" (with no definition whatsoever).

Alan wrote: Metaphysics is the philosophical discipline that studies being, or, in other words, studies the nature of reality. In this sense, Jediism is metaphysical and philosophical.

In this sense you can also call any philosophy class or web forum a "religion" because it encourages people to discuss such things. Jediism is neither metaphysical or philosophical because it makes no claims to either. It only relies on its members to create definitions which completely negates the purpose of having a religion in the first place.

Alan wrote: Metaphysics is subject to rigorous logical analysis requiring precision of language. The proofs of philosophy are subject to different standards than experimental science.

What is Jediist philosophy then?

Alan wrote: Through these four steps, myth informs and enhances human understanding of not only the world around us, but who we are, both in society and within ourselves. By mythologizing our own lives, we can understand them, and work out our place in them. By experiencing our own adventures, we too can learn."

So what is Jediist myth then?

Alan wrote: Some persons here at TotJO refer to the Star Wars myth in order to express their understanding of the symbol of the Force.

What is "the Force"? You cannot claim that it is a fundamental belief of a whole group and then not define it so I'd really like to know.

i was not self aggrandizing, nor was i belittling anyone....i'm indifferent...this is the problem in textual communications...without seeing body language and hearing vocal tone much meaning is lost. when meaning is lost misunderstandings occur....

it doesn't help that you refuse to explain how you define certain things while simultaneously demanding that we define things in a manner that matches how you define things

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

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

Reneza wrote:
But if you'd like to understand certain definitions of what I'm saying, I'm more than happy to clarify.

Loudzoo wrote: What is your definition of religion?

Or are you happy to use Alan's? [as above]

Hey again! Thanks for asking. I've already stated in this forum vaguely how I define it. I think if I recall correctly I said that historically religion has almost consistently been used to refer to a deity/deities/spirit(s)/teleology/the metaphysical/etc. and veneration/worship/traditions/customs related to them.

The search engine says this which I'm rather happy with: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods or a particular system of faith and worship.

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.

Required by who? Agreed upon by who? Christians have a commandment prohibiting murder, and yet went on crusades. Definitions, meanings and agreements certainly change over time. Jedi understand that. If I am to accept your definition of "Christian" being the one from thousands of years ago for the sake of this conversation, would you not then be expected to accept my definition of Jedi as I define it today?

Senan wrote: We are an officially recognized 501-(c) (3) in order to operate as a tax exempt charity and this Temple is legally recognized allowing for our clergy to perform certain legal functions, hence the titles.

How did it register? I mean, what definition did it use when registering?

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/media/kunena/attachments/523/ha011135.pdf

Senan wrote: The Force does not have to be metaphysical. Some would say the quest of theoretical physicist is to finally define a unifying force. Currently, Quantum Mechanics could explain the Force just as well as someone calling it "god". That is why we are here. We are exploring these questions together. A Jedi is not expected to believe any one thing over another. We are expected to do our due diligence to find the answers for ourselves.

The Jedi simple oath asks you to uphold the "Jedi teachings" which include in the very first clause: belief in "the Force." What is the definition?

I am a Jedi and I profess my belief in the Force. The Doctrine does not demand a definition in defense of my belief. It simply demands that I have one.

Senan wrote: Why do Christians maintain the traditions and mythology shared with Jews?

Again, this is a really interesting trend I'm noticing here among many people: imposing the idea of myth onto other religions who do not see their faith as myth but reality. This organization definitely does not seem to be neutral on the matter of other faiths.

Are we not allowed to see the Force as a reality? Are we not allowed to consider the Bible a collection of mythology? Am I to accept the story of Noah's Ark as truth because all Christians "have to"? I'm sensing a double standard being applied here.

Senan wrote: The Star Wars mythology was inspired by many ancient philosophies and religious texts including the Tao Te Ching and Bushido Code along with some newer ideas from Campbell and Watts among many others.

So is the metaphysics of the Tao Te Ching actually binding with this organization, or if not all of it, which parts?

The Tao Te Ching isn't mentioned in our Doctrine. It is simply an example of many sources we incorporate into our studies. "Inspired by" was not meant to equate to "binding". This is the kind of thinking that allows extremists of any religion to be "bound" to the literal text rather than seeking the lesson within.

Senan wrote: Jediism is the name we use now because it allows us to identify with much of the ancient mythology in a way that can be understood in our current society.

This goes back to what I said before: to make the statement with a hidden clause that other religions are not "relevant" to the world today but this one is. Very interesting stuff.

I would not agree with your assertion that Jediism suggests that other religions are not relevant today. If that were the case, we would not include study of them in our Initiate Program. I would be willing to say that certain aspects of some religions may not be relevant to some people anymore. As a former Catholic myself, I was known to eat meat on Fridays. I would also readily admit that there are some aspects of Jediism that do not resonate with all Jedi.

Senan wrote: 5. Our Creed begins with "I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace".

What is "peace"?

What is a cupcake? I can give you a dictionary definition if you'd like, but it will pale in comparison to actually eating one yourself. Be at peace, and you'll know. Have your peace disturbed, and you'll know. Or maybe you won't.

Senan wrote: Jediism represents a collection of individuals seeking ways to better understand the universe and our place in it.

Then it's not a religion according to you, I suppose.

We're right back to defining terms rather than seeking truth. To say that I don't believe Jediism is a religion is to say that my definition of religion is the same as yours. If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, we certainly can, but in that case, nothing I said here conflicts with the accepted dictionary definition of "a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence."

Senan wrote: To be "objective" suggests that one can remove themselves from the process of analysis

Sounds like the opposite.

A scientist takes all measures and steps to remain "objective" while conducting experiments. This does not, however, remove the scientist themselves from the experiment, even if they are only an observer. To say that Jediism or The Force is objective would assert that all Jedi are objective, and that is clearly not always the case.

Senan wrote: What I believe the Force to be works on a fundamental level,

How does it work?

This is a great question for you to explore for yourself, just as many of us do every day in this Temple.

RyuJin wrote: it doesn't help that you refuse to explain how you define certain things while simultaneously demanding that we define things in a manner that matches how you define things

But I'm doing this over and over right now for many words/concepts I'm attempting to discuss. And part of my problem is that people won't define what they mean themselves , not that I'm demanding they adhere to any of my definitions.

Reneza wrote: Why do you devoutly follow something in which the primary focus of worship does such things?

I don't want to derail this thread any further (you're welcome to PM me if you want to continue discussing this), so I'm only going to address this part, but my short answer is simple: the primary focus of worship doesn't do those things. My long answer is not that of a seminary-trained theologian, so I encourage you to research this subject for yourself if you're interested, and take what I say with a grain of salt.

The Book of Joshua was heavily modelled on the terror propaganda of the Assyrian empire (using similar language and ideas), but there is also no historical/archaeological evidence that the genocides and ethnic cleansing depicted within ever took place. It's more likely they slowly moved into and occupied that land over a long period of time. In Joshua, however, Joshua and his followers conquer and pillage everything basically unopposed - because, the book says, they have God on their side. In contrast, the book that follows, Judges, shows the multi-level collapse of the kingdom Joshua and his descendants helped create - the suggestion being that they turned away from God, and therefore, without the strength of God, were impotent against forces that led to chaotic "days [where] there was no king in Israel."

It is considered likely by some scholars that both books were composed/compiled for the first time during or after the Babylonian exile (6th century BC.) For a people living under oppression, propaganda stories of kicking ass with God on your side would probably resonate really well - indeed, given that all these stories were part of an oral tradition originally, this is likely why they endured for so long. The chaos depicted in Judges, with the eponymous judges (which were more like warlords) unable to lead Israel to glory, carries a moralistic message befitting the times: "our failure is because we have turned away from God, and this is what it leads to." Tales of this past era without kings in Israel would have resonated powerfully with people whose fortunes had fallen considerably since a generation prior.

Do these lessons need to be taken literally today? No - otherwise all Christians would be obliged to murder non-believers and conquer their lands, "with the Lord our God on our side." But in their time, which is practically alien to our own, these stories carried powerful meaning in a world where might made right. Why are these in Scripture, then? One reason is probably because understanding the world of the Old Testament is extremely important for understanding the world of the New Testament. As a final note, in the U.S. Episcopal tradition, readings of Scripture during services usually end with "The Word of the Lord." But that's kinda hard to stomach when the "word" is "genocide." I much prefer the way the Anglican Church in New Zealand does it: "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church."

Right, now I'm out of here, since this is too far off topic - I don't want to detract from Jedi Stuff™. But like I said, you're welcome to PM me! All the best.

I admittedly have skimmed some of the longer posts here but I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet or not. Have you read our doctrine page?

While we all may have different interpretations of Jediism and it's doctrine it does actually have one. It might be a useful place to start and then ask questions about specific parts of that. Right now you're asking for a description of something that is, first of all, very vague and, secondly, is very difficult to define if it's even possible at all. Perhaps looking through that can answer some questions or at least give you more specific questions to get answers to.

Senan wrote: Required by who? Agreed upon by who? Christians have a commandment prohibiting murder, and yet went on crusades. Definitions, meanings and agreements certainly change over time. Jedi understand that. If I am to accept your definition of "Christian" being the one from thousands of years ago for the sake of this conversation, would you not then be expected to accept my definition of Jedi as I define it today?

It was agreed upon by Christians for almost 1500 years. Words need definitions otherwise they serve no purpose but terrible signs directing people to nowhere.

Senan wrote: I am a Jedi and I profess my belief in the Force. The Doctrine does not demand a definition in defense of my belief. It simply demands that I have one.

No, but by having something so fundamental, especially making it a proper noun such as "The Force" without defining it is absurd to say the least.

Senan wrote: Are we not allowed to see the Force as a reality? Are we not allowed to consider the Bible a collection of mythology?

Of course you are, I just want to know what you mean by it.

Senan wrote: Am I to accept the story of Noah's Ark as truth because all Christians "have to"? I'm sensing a double standard being applied here.

The Nicene Creed says nothing about the Bible as literal history. Jediism however says nothing about "The Force" at all.

Senan wrote: What is a cupcake? I can give you a dictionary definition if you'd like, but it will pale in comparison to actually eating one yourself. Be at peace, and you'll know. Have your peace disturbed, and you'll know. Or maybe you won't.

I just ask because I want to know what you mean by it so we can have a clear conversation.

Senan wrote: We're right back to defining terms rather than seeking truth. To say that I don't believe Jediism is a religion is to say that my definition of religion is the same as yours.

Governments have agreed upon definition and none of them except the US allow Jediism to be counted as a religion. The US only allows this because its liberty philosophy allows anyone to define themselves in any way they wish, even if it makes no sense.

Senan wrote: If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, we certainly can

No, just your definition would be nice.

Senan wrote: This is a great question for you to explore for yourself, just as many of us do every day in this Temple.

So why then doesn't anyone wish to explain what they mean by their own claims? Why is this so difficult?

Adi Vas wrote: (entire post)

I'll discuss this with you later via PM

Goken wrote: While we all may have different interpretations of Jediism and it's doctrine it does actually have one. It might be a useful place to start and then ask questions about specific parts of that. Right now you're asking for a description of something that is, first of all, very vague and, secondly, is very difficult to define if it's even possible at all. Perhaps looking through that can answer some questions or at least give you more specific questions to get answers to

I have read it and by almost every definition of religion except the most modern and loosely defined ones set by individuals themselves, it isn't a religion and raises more questions than answers.

Thanks Goken - that has reminded me of something else that might help here.

Reneza - if the terminology of our actual Doctrine is impenetrable - try this - it won't help with the definitions much but it communicates the spirit of what we're about very well, in my opinion.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/47-Journals/105619-book-of-proteus-personal-log?start=47

perhaps you should stop using archaic definitions...jediism is a modern thing, and is more readily defined with modern thoughts, not ancient mandated definitions....

just because it doesn't match the old definition of a religion doesn't mean it's not a religion...times change, the meaning of words change...let go of attachment and flow with the changes of time...

Loudzoo wrote: Thanks Goken - that has reminded me of something else that might help here.

Reneza - if the terminology of our actual Doctrine is impenetrable - try this - it won't help with the definitions much but it communicates the spirit of what we're about very well, in my opinion.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/47-Journals/105619-book-of-proteus-personal-log?start=47

Thanks, I'll read it and get back to you later

RyuJin wrote: perhaps you should stop using archaic definitions...jediism is a modern thing, and is more readily defined with modern thoughts, not ancient mandated definitions....

just because it doesn't match the old definition of a religion doesn't mean it's not a religion...times change, the meaning of words change...let go of attachment and flow with the changes of time...

So if the definition of "religion" has changed what is it now?

per merriam webster's dictionary
Full Definition of religion
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

it is by these that i feel jediism can be seen as a religion, and while i can't speak for everyone, i'm sure most will agree...

a personal set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices... a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith....

Reneza wrote:

Jestor wrote: Im sorry, "whats about"?

"Jediism"

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

Crazy, I was talking about TOTJO, and somehow you flipped it to that? :blink: :dry:

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?

You know what happens when you assume, "right"?

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.

Yea, thats part of your trouble, lol...

Gotta define everything, gotta figure out the puzzles, gotta know, gotta seek... lol...

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.

Right...

Life doesnt, you are aware of that too, right?

The only meaning in anything, is that which we give it... lol...

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

The text speaks for itself.

Well, two thoughts...

One, maybe I need to work on speaking with those who are easily offended... I used to put a disclaimer in my signature for those with weak consittutions...

Two, you are just having fun with us...

Three, actually, you suffer from an 'interrogator drama major', with a 'poor me drama minor'...

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?

Similar to the line between sunup, and sundown...

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

So how do I "try" Jediism?

Act like a Jedi...

Picture the perfect Jedi in your mind...

Be that person...

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.

True...

And I think we are accomidating you, lol...

Cause,you know, if I can influence one life positively, yada, yada...

You may be 'the one' for me...

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?

Yes...

Sorry...

One? "Dont be a dick..."

Jestor wrote: The founders of this temple did..

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

Hows that?

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.

[/quote]

YOu said we were not a religion, we say we are...

Reneza, you have received many explanations, and many kinds of definitions. None of them have satisfied you. We have stated that many things in our Temple are non-specific. You asked that they be made specific. They aren't. You wanting them to be won't change that.

You have been, quite frankly, rude and dismissive in a way that is either deliberate or smacks of an astonishing lack of self-awareness. I realize you may find this insulting, but there it is. I would like you to try to understand something:

We do not go looking for converts. We do not evangelize. When people come, we welcome them. When they leave we wish them well. Each of us serves in the world in our own way, led by our own consciences. We did not come looking for you. When you showed up and demanded answers without being willing to put any discernable work into understanding what goes on here, a great deal of time was spent explaining our endeavor. We did it because the subject matter is dear to us and because we are sympathetic to curiosity and the desire for insight. We all started as seekers. We are all still seekers. We gave you the answers we gave you. If you don't like them, we do not owe you answers that suit your preferences. Strictly speaking, you were not owed the answers that you did get.

I may be wrong (I often am), but you give no appearance of any sincere effort to understand. You seem to have come to argue. If you did sincerely try to understand, and failed, then I apologize. Between you aparent unwillingness to meet us halfway and your general lack of civility, I do not see how this can go any farther. And it is a shame. You seem both bright and driven. I'm sure we all could have learned a great deal from each other. Just, not today.

Take excellent care of yourself, Reneza. When you actually want to talk and listen, I look forward to it.

Reneza wrote: The search engine says this which I'm rather happy with: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods or a particular system of faith and worship.

the search engine gave you something convenient, but not comprehensive

it is accepted by scholars that there is no single definition of the word "religion"

well, the scholars that teach at my community college anyway, primarily this guy (why he got such a low score for "easiness" i dont know - all you had to do was show up, pay attention, and read what he told you to read)

but if you dont trust him, what about this place?

"Definitions of religion tend to suffer from one of two problems: they are either too narrow and exclude many belief systems which most agree are religious, or they are too vague and ambiguous, suggesting that just about anything and everything is a religion."

and

"Mircea Eliade defined religion in reference to a focus on "the sacred," and that is a good replacement for "supernatural beings" because not every religion revolves around the supernatural."

anyway, to say "this is not a religion" because it doesnt meet the standard that you yourself have set, which is not a standard accepted by those who have spent their entire lifetimes studying religions, does not actually negate that it fills the role of religion in the lives of many people

if something fills that role, who am i, or who who are you, to say that its not a religion?

you mentioned the nicene creed - what you didnt mention was that it was established in 325 aka close to 300 years after the estimated death of jesus

(i dont think totjo has had even 30 years to sort itself out, so we're doing ok)

nor did you mention the reason it was necessary - because of the varied interpretations of what it meant to be christian at the time, by the people who were alive during the early years of christianity

imo, and i think history does not much contradict this, the fact that rome itself had a vested interest in the final results was as relevant to the chosen interpretation as any individuals religious piety or scholarliness

and for that matter, a religion's doctrine is codified by the people who practice the religion: they could just as easily say "our god is beyond precise definition, but we use such and such language to relate to it because it is functional and convenient for us to do so" and that would be accepted today

fundamental to the idea of the tao is that it is not definable - this is like the first page of the tao te ching

i take a slight exception to your definition of "myth"

you say:

Reneza wrote: 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.

my objection is the use of the word "concept" - i feel this is not hitting the heart of the matter

myths are used to express existential truths - all myths are true

in the sense that they tell us something that is true about ourselves, or our times, or at least, the about people who created them

its bigger than mere "concepts"

and no here really needs the benefit of your doubt - some of the things youve said are easily taken as insulting, maybe you dont mean them that way

i am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you dont

but i am curious where you want to go from here

youre not going to convince anyone here of -- anything probably

are you trying to?

what?

if you dont think "jediism" is a valid religion, then by all means, dont adopt it

i do believe the questions and points you raise are good for totjo to face - im curious however if youre open to the possibility that what we have here actually works, imperfect as it may be?

and if it does work, are you just taking an opportunity to tip someones cart and spill their goods?