A hidden history about humanity, dimensions and spirituality

Adder wrote:
Yea Gisteron has flirted with a few here IMO, but talking about rules is not off limits to anyone, especially not Knights.

In regards to the SIGs, the structure of the forum to me is the best indicator of its intended use;
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Special-Interest-Groups

Note: the description of the Faith area is; "For those who feel drawn to other religious beliefs and practices."

SIGs replaced Rites, which both at one point existed as a different type of body before the website had 'groups' with designated leaders etc, so the law is probably stuck in the past a bit in that regard but also probably not specific to forum use anyway, so again not really relevant to the point being discussed.

Sure thats all well and good and Ill even let that elitist "knight" comment go... but you failed to answer my question though. Why are you trying to sensor our conversation?

Adder wrote: I think it's a broad label in terms of temporal reach.... commonly understood faith having much longer durations then perhaps the type of faith needed in more likely circumstances. So I don't think its really the same thing, even if it might use the same mechanisms briefly to deal with uncertainty etc. I actually don't think its offtopic because faith could be seen to be working with the potential hidden aspects out there.

What I've understood from your reply is "enlightenment is quite young" (a bit like jediism) ... And then I'm not really sure I get the rest except that the discussion of this theme is not off topic.

It was important to me, because I have felt as though persons presenting enlightenment ideas - scientific ideas - have been told not to, because they are scientific. But I kinda don't understand how that can be fair. You need to present scientific ideas to get to the bit where the faith lies - the unknown AFTER the known, if you follow my meaning - if enlightenment thinking is to be given it's voice in this forum (in my understanding of things).

Twigga wrote:

Adder wrote: I think it's a broad label in terms of temporal reach.... commonly understood faith having much longer durations then perhaps the type of faith needed in more likely circumstances. So I don't think its really the same thing, even if it might use the same mechanisms briefly to deal with uncertainty etc. I actually don't think its offtopic because faith could be seen to be working with the potential hidden aspects out there.

What I've understood from your reply is "enlightenment is quite young" (a bit like jediism) ... And then I'm not really sure I get the rest except that the discussion of this theme is not off topic.

It was important to me, because I have felt as though persons presenting enlightenment ideas - scientific ideas - have been told not to, because they are scientific. But I kinda don't understand how that can be fair. You need to present scientific ideas to get to the bit where the faith lies - the unknown AFTER the known, if you follow my meaning - if enlightenment thinking is to be given it's voice in this forum (in my understanding of things).

Yep, that is needed to ensure the difference between faith and delusion.

I don't think people are being told not to present scientific ideas. I think the only people being told they don't have a place to present ideas is those ideas outside of science unless they are neatly classified as fictional or humor. If someone wanted to talk about Reiki for example, then they should be able to talk about Reiki and even start a group about it if enough people are interested. What I think is ok is to point out where its scientific limits are, indeed its vital to enable its maturation - a process inherent to Jediism IMO, but its not ok to shut it down by criticizing the concept or criticizing the people entertaining them.

Depends on what your talking about though... I thought you meant the mechanism of faith in action rather then its existence in science and therefore relevance to inclusion in faith discussion. If its the later, then that is fine if its the topic. Otherwise its a bit like someone of Christian faith arguing with an Islamic faith thread, if that makes any sense. Better if they both have their own threads so people with 'interest in that faith' can talk about that faith in particular.... hence the purpose of the faith areas of the forum, IMO. As the description of the faith area says 'For those who feel drawn to other religious beliefs and practices.'..... otherwise, Open Discussion seems more apt for more critical analysis of a topic from outside the topic, and [strike]interrogation[/strike] interaction.

He he! I like what you did at the end there! :laugh: I have found, working in the middle east, that when Jews and Christians and Muslims are only allowed to talk in their own boxes, they learnt to hate, and suspect one another. When the walls were broken down, and everyone was free to mingle, there was peaceful discussion. Sure... It was a bit... "Elbows in" at first, in the beginning, but it didn't stay that way. Just a thought.

This is why I put it in the faith discussion instead of the open discussion because it's too varied and normally it would get conflict in other threads

Makes sense right? You're going to get that many agreements if post a faith based topic in a part of the forum that doesn't talk about this kind of thing? Would I get many agreements talking about magic in a sub section of the forum that talks about the sciences instead of the paranormal? Or perhaps posting a pagan topic in a christian forum or atheist forum. Of course there will be disagreements, names will be called and no one will accomplish anything and one side is not likely going to convince the other.

But for this since the video talked about all faiths and not a specific one, I posted it here. Those of faith, that practice faith, that believe in something would more likely agree and discuss it. I want to hear people discuss it. If it was a topic on debating the existence that may make more sense, but to me it doesn't make sense to put down other people's experiences they themselves never experienced or go out of their way to try to prove they are wrong when the topic isn't about that. Would you want someone to put you down because of your faith as a Jedi or Pagan or whatever? Then don't do it to others. Would you want someone to make fun of your experiences? Then don't do it to others.

But really we have talked enough about why the topic should be here when really the topic itself should be discussed? I want to hear more people's experiences about this kind of thing. Maybe you yourself experienced astral projection and have seen other realms in some form or at least felt it.

Yabuturtle wrote: Would you want someone to put you down because of your faith as a Jedi or Pagan or whatever? Then don't do it to others. Would you want someone to make fun of your experiences? Then don't do it to others.

If any of that was the case it would be one thing. Fortunately it's not. No one has put you down or made fun of your experiences. Your unfounded ideas have been challenged. That is all. Conspiracy theories are not faith based because they can be proven false by actual evidence that disproves them. Therefore, your ideas, as posted here, do not count as faith in any form that confirms with the spirit of this board.


@"knight" adder, it's bad form to make a stand and claim that stand in the name of a leadership title only to turn around and fail to follow through with that responsibility you have taken on. I can only take it from your silence then that you have backed down from your previous claim and we are free to proceed with our discussion.