Some questions from a passer-by

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?