Jedi church in UK

[JMK]

I fail to see how this argument is relevant at all to creation of a new religion. If a person doesn't agree with couple of specific tenants of a religion while agree with the greater majority of them, that's a personal issue that said person has to address. Either said person chooses to modify their belief structure to accept said requirements of this religion, or this person finds a different religion to practice that more closely matches his/her personal beliefs.

There are profound similarities between a great many of the world's religions. They have borrowed from each other, retold the same stories and taught many of the same basic concepts about the human experience. They differ primarily in the details. This Jedi Church in the UK is no different. They are borrowing from many different sources to establish a practicing religion that fits their belief structure. All long as this doesn't infringe upon anyone's individual rights, they have the freedom to practice whatever religious beliefs they choose.

Listen, I wish them well. Really, I do. I hope they find whatever it is that they are looking for. They are not, however, borrowing from other religions. They are borrowing from movies. Movies that borrowed openly and themes from other religions and spun them in to something that people loved growing up. They are borrowing from a 'religion' that says it's ok to kill umpteen thousands/millions of people, as Darth Vader did, and still get access through the pearly gates if you finally kill the guy that made you do it, while he's torturing your child, who by the way - you tried to corrupt, then kill as well...but you only managed to lop his hand off.

Please. It makes for a good show, and a nice story about rising to power, falling from grace, and redeeming yourself, but in the real world, it just doesn't work. You cannot build your religion's foundation on that shaky ground. Maybe if Hitler or Hussein had just said sorry before making their exits, or opened an abused citizens shelter, we'd all think differently about them, right? I'm guessing probably not. If you're going to build the church of Star Wars, then follow what Star Wars preaches. The ENTIRE theme of Star Wars is about Anakin's rise and fall, and eventual restoration to the 'light side'. That's what everything is built around. Are they going to pick and choose from that too? They can if they want, but don't call it the church of Star Wars.

Furthermore, they can't have lightsaber training because lightsabers don't exist. They're swinging sticks at each other. When they die, they are not going to appear to their loved ones in spirit form.

All this being said, I think I'm going to follow the lead of that luminary Peter Griffin and start the Church of the Fonz.

As Lois said "if even just one person embraced the Fonz’s values of friendship, it was all worthwhile" Afterall, if we were all just a little nicer to each other, the world would be a better place. No?

Nah, I think the Church of Charlie Brown would be more appropriate. Instead of 'amen', we'd instead say 'good grief'.

I can't say too much more on this topic. In the end, people will do what they want to do, and this church won't really affect me in any way. If they become better people as a result of their congregations, fine. If it gets them a little exercise in the process, even better.

[Figrin D'an]

Listen, I wish them well. Really, I do. I hope they find whatever it is that they are looking for. They are not, however, borrowing from other religions. They are borrowing from movies. Movies that borrowed openly and themes from other religions and spun them in to something that people loved growing up.

And where did early religions get their stories, that have since been passed on to yet more religions? The minds of the people. Where do ideas for films come from? The minds of the people. The ultimate source here is still the minds of the people, regardless of whether or not you believe those minds where divinely influenced in their creation of said stories. So, what's your point?

They are borrowing from a 'religion' that says it's ok to kill umpteen thousands/millions of people, as Darth Vader did, and still get access through the pearly gates if you finally kill the guy that made you do it, while he's torturing your child, who by the way - you tried to corrupt, then kill as well...but you only managed to lop his hand off.

Please. It makes for a good show, and a nice story about rising to power, falling from grace, and redeeming yourself, but in the real world, it just doesn't work. You cannot build your religion's foundation on that shaky ground. Maybe if Hitler or Hussein had just said sorry before making their exits, or opened an abused citizens shelter, we'd all think differently about them, right? I'm guessing probably not. If you're going to build the church of Star Wars, then follow what Star Wars preaches. The ENTIRE theme of Star Wars is about Anakin's rise and fall, and eventual restoration to the 'light side'. That's what everything is built around. Are they going to pick and choose from that too? They can if they want, but don't call it the church of Star Wars.

Christianity, for example, preaches as one of it's primary tenants the concept of forgiveness. It teaches that a man/god sacrificed himself for the sake of humanity and gave all people a path by which they could absolve themselves of their sins and achieve immortality in an afterlife. There are a great many people who, to this day, still believe that if a person repents for their evil acts, no matter how severe or numerous said acts may have been, and accepts faith in Christ, this person will be 'saved' in the eyes of God and will have a place in Heaven. Now, regardless of whether or not the laws that mankind has established for itself allow for said forgiveness or not is essentially irrelevant to the beliefs of Christianity, because this faith is concerning itself with a higher law that it attaches to the non-tangible concept of one's immortal soul. This concept is very "real world" for Christians and for members of other religions that believe in the idea of cleansing of the immortal soul, because it affects how they worship right here in the real world.


You are correct that the main theme of the Star Wars saga is the fall and eventual redemption of Anakin Skywalker. It's primarily the story of his life. Along the way, we get introduced to a lot of other interesting things, one of which is the philosophies of the Jedi. While not completely fleshed out in the films, there is a reasonable amount of material presented to get a good idea of who these Jedi are, what they stand for and what they believe.

These guys in the UK are simply taking some of those ideas, not the whole of Star Wars, expanding on those basics and calling themselves Jedi. Their belief structure is a work in progress I'm sure, just as, oh, religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism once were. The beginnings of this self proclaimed Jedi church are on no more or less 'shaky ground' than any belief structure that has existed in human history once was, because all of them have ultimately started with ideas from individuals.


Regardless of how silly or ridiculous any of us may think the formation of a Jedi Church and practicing a Jedi way of life may be, it is no more silly or ridiculous than a great majority of the beliefs that are followed in mainstream religion today. The only difference is how old some religions are in comparison to this one, and the last time I checked, the passage of time doesn't arbitrarily make any non-scientific endeavor any more logical. Flying Spaghetti Monsters of different colors are still Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

[Cat X]

And where did early religions get their stories, that have since been passed on to yet more religions? The minds of the people. Where do ideas for films come from? The minds of the people. The ultimate source here is still the minds of the people, regardless of whether or not you believe those minds where divinely influenced in their creation of said stories. So, what's your point?

The point being is that Star wars and the associated things is patent clap trap and a movie. It IS totally absurd garbage to base your religion on a movie. Saying other religions are useless too is a strawman. Hey yes they are if they arent true, completely and utterly useless. You are a fool to believe in something false.

And I'll point out Paul also told Christians that if their faith wasnt real, it's as useless as a clanging gong. So even the Bible of Christianity makes that same point -- the Gospel of Luke was a Gentile lawyer who basically dares the reader to disprove what he wrote - and if he was wrong, what he wrote was worth zero and should be treated as such.

Christianity, for example, preaches as one of it's primary tenants the concept of forgiveness. It teaches that a man/god sacrificed himself for the sake of humanity and gave all people a path by which they could absolve themselves of their sins and achieve immortality in an afterlife.

Correction - your sins are not absolved, forgiveness is a seperate concept. They still will affect you, they will catch up with you and you are not scot free even if you sincerely ask for forgiveness. Christianity is not a get out of jail free card like most think it is and like you just protrayed it. They are forgiven, but they are not forgotten.

The three great Patriarch religions have a very different basis to what atheists would have you beleive as well. Judiasm is not a religion as such, it is a history. The Old Testament is a collection of verse, poems, a hell of a lot of factual history and some allegory that describe the history of the children of Abraham. The New Testament is about a factal historical person called Yesus bin Yoesph who existed and told the religious scets of the times that they were evil. And them leads onto a factual group of men who seem to believe He was somethign they should spread the word about.

But still, those men still said that you were a complete fool if your faith was misplaced and wrong. So if they make that challenge about what they said, why should we say any dfferent to a obviously ridiculous and false religion?

You are correct that the main theme of the Star Wars saga is the fall and eventual redemption of Anakin Skywalker. It's primarily the story of his life. Along the way, we get introduced to a lot of other interesting things, one of which is the philosophies of the Jedi. While not completely fleshed out in the films, there is a reasonable amount of material presented to get a good idea of who these Jedi are, what they stand for and what they believe.

These guys in the UK are simply taking some of those ideas, not the whole of Star Wars, expanding on those basics and calling themselves Jedi. Their belief structure is a work in progress I'm sure, just as, oh, religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism once were. The beginnings of this self proclaimed Jedi church are on no more or less 'shaky ground' than any belief structure that has existed in human history once was, because all of them have ultimately started with ideas from individuals.

Just like Evolution is an idea of an individual, which was tuned into a religion, desipte it's problems and flaws. It has it's own belief systems, it's own church, it's own clergy. Atheism is exactly the same with the present self appointed pontiff of Richard Dawkins and it's followers who seem to think it has a lock on truth and fact.

Regardless of how silly or ridiculous any of us may think the formation of a Jedi Church and practicing a Jedi way of life may be, it is no more silly or ridiculous than a great majority of the beliefs that are followed in mainstream religion today. The only difference is how old some religions are in comparison to this one, and the last time I checked, the passage of time doesn't arbitrarily make any non-scientific endeavor any more logical. Flying Spaghetti Monsters of different colors are still Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

Since when is science the sole domain of logic and fact? Cant you accept that religion MAY have something important to say that is 100% true as well? Frankly, my ex- father inlaw was a world respected mechanical engineer with Ph.D, a perfect scientist if you will but I have never met someone more dogmatic, who couldnt see how wrong his own logic made him in great many areas.

Frankly, as much as Jedi is stupid, I'd rather be that than be counted in with my ex- family of hate spewing anger filled scientists and academic atheists who screamed ranted and raved at religion.

[Dasquian Belargic]

The point being is that Star wars and the associated things is patent clap trap and a movie.

They aren't worshipping the movie. I thought we'd already covered this?

Just like Evolution is an idea of an individual, which was tuned into a religion

Evolution is a religion?

Cant you accept that religion MAY have something important to say that is 100% true as well?

Honestly? No. I can appreciate some of the messages and morals that they support, but that's about it.

[Figrin D'an]

The point being is that Star wars and the associated things is patent clap trap and a movie. It IS totally absurd garbage to base your religion on a movie. Saying other religions are useless too is a strawman. Hey yes they are if they arent true, completely and utterly useless. You are a fool to believe in something false.

I never said religion was useless. I have never claimed this. The point I am attempting to make is that the concept of a church or religion based on something such as Jedi philosophies is not really that bizarre in comparison to any number of other religious foundations and beginnings. Storytelling has been intrinsic to the foundations of religion around the world since the dawn of man. Stories have been created, borrowed, modified, retold and reinvented since before recorded history... stories to help man explain his existence, his surroundings and his place in the universe. Why does the specific source of transmission of these stories, be it oral retelling, written text or visual forms, change so dramatically the relevance of that story? Yes, Star Wars is a movie, a work of fiction that heavily borrows elements of other stories to tell it's own. For some, it may contain "truths" that resonate with said persons. Are we going to say that this is less valid than a person who finds certain "truths" within the Bible? Or the Qur'an? Or the teachings of Gautama Buddha? If we are going to say this, then why? I think these are perfectly valid questions.

Correction - your sins are not absolved, forgiveness is a seperate concept. They still will affect you, they will catch up with you and you are not scot free even if you sincerely ask for forgiveness. Christianity is not a get out of jail free card like most think it is and like you just portrayed it. They are forgiven, but they are not forgotten.

Are you willing to go on the record and say that this is the precise practice regarding sin/forgiveness that all Christians follow? Every branch? And if there are differences, then why do those exist? If there is a definitive answer on this matter that is provided (in the Bible or other source), then how did those Christians who do not follow this concept to the letter that you have described arrive at their interpretation of how sin/forgiveness is handled? If not every Christian follows this specific interpretation, then what makes one interpretation correct and other incorrect? Does personal faith have anything to do with it?

The three great Patriarch religions have a very different basis to what atheists would have you beleive as well. Judiasm is not a religion as such, it is a history. The Old Testament is a collection of verse, poems, a hell of a lot of factual history and some allegory that describe the history of the children of Abraham. The New Testament is about a factal historical person called Yesus bin Yoesph who existed and told the religious scets of the times that they were evil. And them leads onto a factual group of men who seem to believe He was somethign they should spread the word about.

I recall having a somewhat vigorous debate about the historical validity of religious texts on the board once before. If memory serves I did not deny then, nor do I deny now, that a book like the Bible, for example, has a reasonable amount of information in it that is regarded as historically accurate. There are ways that the history of such a book can be supported, via correlation from other accounts of the time period from other sources. There are parts of such books, however, that are viewed with great question because they can't be correlated and substantiated. The same problem can and does exist with texts considered non-religious. Some things can be correlated, some cannot. Those that cannot are viewed skeptically... they may be true, they may be partially true, or they may not be true at all. If you choose to believe those things that cannot be substantiated, that is your choice, and where faith enters the equation.

But still, those men still said that you were a complete fool if your faith was misplaced and wrong. So if they make that challenge about what they said, why should we say any dfferent to a obviously ridiculous and false religion?

You can say a given religion is "obviously ridiculous and false" all you want. Someone else could make the same claim about Christianity or Islam or Norse myth or Native American spiritualism. What makes the religion of either person's assertion "obviously ridiculous or false"? Is there a universal criteria by which all religion can be judged in a concise, logical manner?

Just like Evolution is an idea of an individual, which was tuned into a religion, desipte it's problems and flaws. It has it's own belief systems, it's own church, it's own clergy. Atheism is exactly the same with the present self appointed pontiff of Richard Dawkins and it's followers who seem to think it has a lock on truth and fact.

I'm not going to debate the status of various atheists like Dawkins or those who have latched onto him. He has his opinions, and some people adopt those opinions without much reflective thought. Just as many religions have issues with zealotry, there are many other aspects of our society that have this same concern.

However, if you are going to state that biological evolution is a religion, there needs to be some significant clarification made regarding it's status in science. Evolutionary theory has as solid a scientific foundation as things like Newtonian mechanics and the quantum nature of matter. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports it as the explanation of how life on Earth has changed over the ages and arrived at it's current state. Now, I will agree that there some who have taken theories like biological evolution and natural selection and tried to apply them in completely illogical manners to inappropriate subjects. But to state that biological evolution is not science is patently incorrect. (I hope I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say).

Since when is science the sole domain of logic and fact? Cant you accept that religion MAY have something important to say that is 100% true as well? Frankly, my ex- father inlaw was a world respected mechanical engineer with Ph.D, a perfect scientist if you will but I have never met someone more dogmatic, who couldnt see how wrong his own logic made him in great many areas.

Frankly, as much as Jedi is stupid, I'd rather be that than be counted in with my ex- family of hate spewing anger filled scientists and academic atheists who screamed ranted and raved at religion.

Again, I've never claimed that religion is useless. It has it's place in our culture. I believe I stated that people find a great many personal "truths" in different religious belief structures all the time... hence why religion remains an important part of the lives of people around the world. "Truth" is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. I place "truth" in quotes because of this. One person's truth is different from another's, hence why we have such a diversity of faith in modern society.

Science is not the sole domain of logic and fact. But, it is a mechanism that is free of the complications that religion and faith include by their very nature. Science is based solely on empirical evidence. It's not concerned with those other aspects that are outside of the realm of physical explanation. This is what makes it a unique endeavor and why it is such a successful one. Science is capable of producing incorrect ideas, but it also has a capability to analyze why those ideas are incorrect and a process by which it can modify and improve those ideas. Dogma is an inherently foreign concept in the basis of science, because science isn't about what is "true" or "right". It's about what the evidence indicates and what is falsifiable. A person may try to be dogmatic about their scientific claims, but this is a flaw of the person, not of the methodology.



This has diverged from the original topic a fair bit, but really, I fail to see why this Jedi Church is so different from any number of behaviors people do each day that are based on faith. You or I or the guy down the street may think it's silly or humorous, but unless there is some empirical way to show that it is inherently incorrect, this is pretty much an argument over nothing.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Behave in here, people. I find that religion is one of those subjects that when 'discussed' on the forums ends up with people basically banging their heads against the wall.

Oh and then everyone becomes convinced that everyone else is bass-ackwards. So... There's a Jedi church?

Wake me up when they found the Sith church.

[Turbogeek]

The point being is that Star wars and the associated things is patent clap trap and a movie.

They aren't worshipping the movie. I thought we'd already covered this?

They are worshippign the concepts that were put before them by a movie. Word it any way you want, that to me says they worship a movie.

Just like Evolution is an idea of an individual, which was tuned into a religion

Evolution is a religion?

It's been turned into one, so yes it is. Like to meet my fine set of ex inlaws and see the truth of that statement? That's how ridiculous some atheists are.

Cant you accept that religion MAY have something important to say that is 100% true as well?

Honestly? No. I can appreciate some of the messages and morals that they support, but that's about it.

[/quote]

Religion does say a lot of things that are true about the nature of man. Is there quotes I could produce to back me up? The writings of Paul, Ghandi, Mohamed are good places to start. The Bible accuratly describes how society when left without rule and law will turn evil. It describes how corruption brings misery and destruction. It shows what evil can really do. It show hope can be brung forth and how one or more people who stand with conviction can do incredible things.

Sure, most of these are self evident, supposably. But if you look even closer, it also says much that is true of ourselves that you may not want to know about - The quote in my signature is in particular is one that may seem innoculous, but it has a real deadly danger to it, if a man accepts that responsibilty as following passages make clear.

Ezekiel is not a nice book to read. What it says about humans and us is not welcome and most will become angry when they truly understand how it paints us to be but it is also true.

The Sermon on the Mount is such a powerfuly undeniable moral massage that it's the basis of many laws we have today. It's one of the reasons why you live free and able to practice a lifestyle in safety that in other countries you can be killed for. Not the only one, or maybe not even a major one, but it is still a reason why you have freedom, because men and women read that and tried to apply it.

The sad truth about that great speech is that it is so profoundly moral, no man can live up to it. Which was in fact the whole point of the Sermon in the first place, but that's starting to off track in a different direction.

Are you willing to go on the record and say that this is the precise practice regarding sin/forgiveness that all Christians follow? Every branch? And if there are differences, then why do those exist? If there is a definitive answer on this matter that is provided (in the Bible or other source), then how did those Christians who do not follow this concept to the letter that you have described arrive at their interpretation of how sin/forgiveness is handled? If not every Christian follows this specific interpretation, then what makes one interpretation correct and other incorrect? Does personal faith have anything to do with it?

I am willing to go on record to state that this is how I read what the Bible says. I am willing to go on record to state that many churches DO in fact beleive this and are taught as so. I am also willing to go on record to say that Jesus never said sin does not have cost. The Bible never said sin has no cost. The Bible said you will be forgiven, but your words and your deeds will be recorded in the Book of Life.You will stand and be Accused by Satan of sin.

The reason why the scot free version is so prevalent is that it is easy to listen to. It is appealing and attractive and an effective evangelism tool. Much like the prosperity doctrine, it leaves out thigns that we should know.

According to my Concordance (which makes referencing verses on sin much easier ), Jesus claimed that He paid the price of Sin and would stand and claim those who accepted His sacrifice. In Romans 6:1 - 7, it mentions that we are to put away sin, for sin is death, to reject the old selves and be clean. Romans 6 :12 begins...

Sin then must not be king over your mortal body,

Romans 15 begins

Then what? Shall we sin because we are not governed by Law, but by Grace, Certainly not! Do you not know that you are committed to obey as slaves the one whom you offer yourselves as obedient slaves,wether that be to sin that leads to death, or to obedience that leads to righteousness?

Sin has it's consequences. Romans 21 makes the point very clear

And what good did you dervive from things that you are now ashamed? Death is their consequence

It says later in I think Revelations that indeed a man CAN be forgiven at the last moment of his life. But it is as if he escaped from a fire and loses everything but his life and makes clear that there is consequences, even if Jesus paid the price and stands before the Lord and claims us who ask for his sacrifice to cover us and Satan's accusations are null.

Even more beyond that, a teacher, a pastor, a bishop, othee ones in charge of thefFlock are judged by higher standards.

then what makes one interpretation correct and other incorrect? Does personal faith have anything to do with it?

You cant really pick and choose what you believe, you cant pick a verse that backs you point of view, you must read it on context and who it is addressed to. Romans is addressed to the Gentiles and must be viewed as such. It explains why we are not subject to Law but Grace. It goes further stating the resonsibility of accepting that Grace. You may indeed have a different understanding, however the Bible is your final word on the subject. That is why it is important to read it and study it, pray about what you have read and discuss it. And be prepared to be challenged to support your opinion

In truth, most of us have our own different interpetations of the Bible ad there will be different views. So yes, personal faith may indeed play a role.

Lord knows I am a sinner and that I have issues that I have trouble dealing with. Lord knows that in the day of judgement I will be like one who has escaped from a fire with nothing and I will recieve nothing but the Grace of the Lamb. My sin has it's consequence and I will pay that price before the Throne. I will have to answer for my actions.

The Lord also knows I can completely and utterly wrong too in this and I say that I have hardly done more than scratch the surface - everyone who is interested in what the Bible says should not and must not take my word for it - I'm just a fallen man in need of a lot of forgiveness.

This is a tough word for many to accept. It is tough for me for I see how it convicts me and that I can not live to the ideals that we are supposed to. My sins will affect me today, tomorrow,.. until I die. This is indeed why the scot free version is so much like honey to the ears - it does not point the finger at you and tell you exactly what you are. It is not a hard word. Sin has it's consequence even for the saved is a very hard word, a bitter one. Do you really want to hear it? Would it lead you to Christ if you understood it and the resonsibility you now have in knowing what sin truly is?

I will respond to your later points later this week when I have time, because I believe they deserve a good response.

[Nathanial K'cansce]

It's not that I am against or for religion, I'm a Roman Catholic myself.

And a lot of the belief systems in place by religions around the world are really really good.

I just don't necessarily agree with how some religions go about preaching and their outward action.

It's good for people to believe in something. It can give focus and direction in many lives. I've seen so many devote themselves to religion and spiritual beliefs and it's done them good, made them better people. This is what I believe religion was set to accomplish. Make people as a whole better.

I've also seen people who consider themselves devout and religious beyond belief, but it's only a front - their morals are questionable. Their actions speak louder than their words, and it kinda sickens me to a degree, and they are not better people for it.

So long as their moral compasses are in tact and not wonkey and going schizo by some magnetic field, Then it's all good, no matter how crazy and outlandish their religion seems.

But those are my thoughts. Take them as you will. ^_^

On a side note, I now want to start the Church of the Fonze. Eeehhhhh.

[JMK]

On a side note, I now want to start the Church of the Fonze. Eeehhhhh.

Join the club!!!

Wake me up when they found the Sith church.

Wakee wakee LD!
http://www.sithchurch.com/

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL this is turning into quiet the debate. I am not really going into get that part Though really Jedi Church isn't any more ridiculous than Scientology and that group has several million members.

[JMK]

LOL this is turning into quiet the debate. I am not really going into get that part Though really Jedi Church isn't any more ridiculous than Scientology and that group has several million members.

If Mark Hamill or Sam Jackson joins their cult.....uhhh.....I mean church, I'll pay more attention.

[Yuri Thrice]

Wow....just.....wow.....

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL this is turning into quiet the debate. I am not really going into get that part Though really Jedi Church isn't any more ridiculous than Scientology and that group has several million members.

If Mark Hamill or Sam Jackson joins their cult.....uhhh.....I mean church, I'll pay more attention.

LOL yeah that be something.

[Jeseth Cloak]

I'm joining the Sith Church as Darth Eros.

[Liam Jinn]

Too bad there's not a Ghostbusters church. That'd be sweet.

[Razielle Alastor]

Too bad there's not a Ghostbusters church. That'd be sweet.

Give it a few years.

[JMK]

Go ahead and start it. You can, so you might as well. You can have a website and everything!

Slimer can be God.
The Ghostbusters can be the 4 apostles.
Gozer can be the Devil.
The guy from Ally McBeal can be the Judas-type guy.

It all makes so much sense!

Just don't have your congregations on Thursdays at 9. That's when I plan to have my Church of the Fonz masses.

[Cameo Stenislav]

Wow, JMK must be a Family Guy fan....

"Everybody say ayyyy. Fonzie be praised."