posted
OSC claimed that fans sited "Jedi" as their religion. I'm an Urban Legend addict and I'm pretty sure this was debunked.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
there is a newer belief of Jedi style Christianity where they compare the Christian life style with the Jedi beliefs. And I would not be suprised at all to see some overboard fans out there somewhere thinking that they could worship as a true Jedi.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it was debunked, then I was sucked in by reading about it in reputable sources. What's the source on the debunking?
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
I would call Snopes bookmark-worthy for any skeptic, or even anyone at all.
Obviously, we don't have cause to question everything we hear, especially if we get it from a trusted source. But if you're ever a little skeptical, it's almost guaranteed Snopes will have it on file.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC, he didn't refer to it becoming a state-recognized religion as much as he said that some were marking their religion as, "Jedi." Whether or not marking it on a census would make it a state-recognized religion is separate from the issue of whether some actually DO mark it as such.
But that is coming from my memory of his column - and my memory is increasingly resembling a vegetable strainer lately.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure he was presenting it as a humorous aside as opposed to evidence that civilization is coming to an end.
I fell for that story that someone was really opening a Hogwarts.
So, have we really come to the point that everything you read in the paper must be checked against snopes? And who is watching the watchmen?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, whenever I hear something wild, I do tend to check it against Snopes. Often, it turns out to be either true, or at least not known to be untrue. But when it is a hoax, I like to know it.
Still, I agree with Don. I'm quite sure that there are people who say their religion is Jedi. There's an actual group that goes by the same name as Mike Smith's religion in Stranger In A Strange Land, and I can't count the number of times that I've seen people use the salutation "Share Water" online.
There is no idea so wacked out that some people won't glom onto it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jedi has about as much legitimacy as Scientology, and that's recognised as a religion. Trying to follow some jedi code would also probably be less traumatic than scientology.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That said, I'd do Jedi before Scientology, myself. *motions towards username* In case you were unsure.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:More than 70,000 people in Australia have declared that they are followers of the Jedi faith, the religion created by the Star Wars films.
A recent census found that one in 270 respondents - or 0.37% of the population - say they believe in "the force", an energy field that gives Jedi Knights like Luke Skywalker their power in the films.
What Snopes debunks is that marking your religion as Jedi on a UK or Australian census will force the government to recognize Jedi as a religion.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be very interesting if there are people who have actually adopted the Jedi beliefs as an actual religion. The Force as described in Star Wars is clearly not real, but many elements of the Jedi belief seem to come from Taoism and Tai Chi (the concept of Chi is actually very similar to the Force). In that sense, I suppose one could view "Jedism" as a Westernized version of the Chinese religion.
Of course, there is no "Tai Chi Council" or "Tai Chi Temple", and blindly following the codes of the Jedi as they are written in Star Wars may not be the best idea in the world, since they were never designed as an actual practicable religion.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: Jedi has about as much legitimacy as Scientology, and that's recognised as a religion. Trying to follow some jedi code would also probably be less traumatic than scientology.
Well now, this is interesting. Suppose I had said the same thing, but substituted Christianity, Judaism, or LDS for Scientology. Would people have jumped all over me for disrespect? I think they would. But it's ok to be disrespectful of a religion that nobody here holds?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between scientology and one of the major religions is that the major religions are religions. Perhaps it'd be more disserving of respect if it offered guidlines for living life in a way as to make you a good person and to help others instead of just serving as an excuse for Tom Cruise to get passionate.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between Catholicism and one of the major religions is that the major religions are religions. Perhaps it would be more deserving of respect if it offered guidelines for living life in a such way as to make you a good person and to help others instead of just serving as an excuse for priests to get passionate with altar boys.
So tell me, which religions offer guidelines for the good life that were not known by, say, the pagan Greeks?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can certainly delve into any religion and find serious flaws, especially when you start making literal translations of stories in the bible which are meant to offer moral guidance. My point is that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have a set of values, things like love thy neighbor, and don't steal stuff, that if everybody follows then we'd have an ideal utopia. Along the same lines, if you consider the enforcemeant of these rules to be fear of a guy sitting on a cloud waiting to strike you down with a lightning bolt as opposed to something as simple as shame and ostrascism, then your still not being reasonable. Reading too much nto religion can have some pretty bad consequences, but most of the time it's a force for good. Scientology completely misses the mark in that respect.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:that if everybody follows then we'd have an ideal utopia.
Oh, really? I think a fair number of homosexuals would disagree with you on that one. Even if you don't think the Bible forbids gay sex, how about the "worship Yahweh" commandment? I do not consider utopia to include knocking my forehead on the floor in the general direction of an imaginary being once a week. (Or five times a day if you prefer the Koran.)
As for the rules that actually have a bit of morality, they are hardly exclusive to religions. Any humanist will agree that stealing is a bad thing. Religion just adds a superset of ritual and random prejudice to the basic primate sense of justice.
Finally, can I just point out that if only everyone would follow the Scientology rites and get rid of all their Body Thetans, then we would indeed have an ideal utopia.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
well first of all on the utopia note I was being sarcstic, kinda hard to tell considering it's in writing, my apologies. I didn't realize you were a scientologist and were taking this so seriously, I was just generally debating the merit of religion, if you're a good person I don't care if you believe in some crazy doctrine, whether it be catholoscism, scientology, or Jedi. As for the whole if only everyone would follow (insert religion here)the world would be a better place bit; thats the kind of thinking that leads to problems, for obvious reasons.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not a scientologist; I was merely parodying the True Believer rhetoric you were spouting. As for debating the merits of religion, I have now given several reasons why they are not, in fact, merits; why don't you come up with some counter-arguments?
Preferably with paragraphs, proper spelling, and no stream-of-consciousness rambling. I see you're a newbie; please be aware that this forum generally has a moderately high standard of literacy. Use a full stop once in a while, and put a capital letter at the beginning of sentences, and you'll find yourself being taken much more seriously. At the moment your posts are quite painful to read.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that religious people generally have strong positive moral values. I'm not denying that the antiquated nature of major religion can lead to intolerance of certain groups, and there are plenty of frivolous exercises imbedded in organized religion. However non-religious groups, like humanists, have the problem of enforcing compliance. Religion does a great job of this with the whole good people go to heaven bad people go to hell thing. As to resorting to insulting my lack of literary skills, good point I’ll work on it.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
As for enforcement, I suggest you compare the crime rates of massively secular countries like Norway with those of publicly pious ones like the US. I think you will find the exercise enlightening.
You appear to be operating on the assumption that people will think rationally about their behaviour, and decide that those $100k aren't worth an eternity of Hell. But that's not true. Good, moral behaviour is a habit of mind, inculcated by your parents - as you quite correctly pointed out, the enforcement most religions rely on is shame and guilt, not lightning bolts from the sky. Why should that work any differently for atheists?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
It would be great if we could all be good people without having to resort to believing dinosaurs lived 5000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, and even then you end up with people who are nice but completely ignorant. I still think the right form of religion leads to a better society. As far as Norway goes, it’s just too cold to get up and shoot someone.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we're back to how awful other people's world views are: wild assumptions about what They really think; manipulation of statistics; and hate. The curse of Internet. No wonder OSC didn't want a free-for-all-on-Mormonism thread.
Anyway, "Jedi" was a funny answer to a nosey question on the Oz census. Too bad they've gone to fining people for it.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it amusing that nobody even bothered to defend the Jedi faith against a comparison to Scientology.
Isn't that far more judgemental? After all, the original statement that started the fight was somebody saying that trying to be a Jedi was "just as good" as practicing Scientology. Saying that one thing is "just as good" as another is the exact opposite of being judgemental, unless you assume that one of the things compared cannot be seriously considered to have real value. And that assumption is highly judgemental.
I'm not going to go further and point out how logically flawed the argument was in other respects, just that having the argument at all was based on a certain person making an extraordinarily negative judgement of the Jedi faith.
And no, I'm not a Jedi. Oh boy, am I ever not a Jedi.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to argue on that one; I do indeed judge religions, from Scientology to Catholicism, to be extremely detrimental organisations. The main difference between Scientology and other mystery religions is that it takes its imagery from science fiction rather than fantasy. I was merely pointing out that the people who usually jump all over me for such disrespect apparently do not consider Scientology worthy of a defense.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Jedi is not offended by this ignorance and hatred. All the insults are just part of the balance of the Force. It would tremble if all these voices were suddenly silenced.
posted
"apparently do not consider Scientology worthy of a defense."
That's how I feel. In an online forum, anyway. If it came down to it, I would defend the right of Scientology to exist (as long as those practicing it still allowed those who need drugs to bloody well take them) in a legal sense. But I'm still going to say that the principles of Scientology disgust me and scare me and I'm not going to defend its *worth* as a religion.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree entirely. Where we differ is that I think the same thing about all religions. What amused me was that whenever I make such a statement (except in this thread, apparently) people jump all over me.
"We are both atheists : I believe in one god less than you do. When you understand why you do not believe in all the other gods, you will understand why I do not believe in yours."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I feel pretty much the same way about all religion as I do about Scientology, but in a waaaaaaaaay less extreme way. I'd feel more comfortable if, say, a bunch of reform or conservative Jews staged a coup and took over the government than a bunch of Scientologists.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if given the choice between plague and cholera, yes, I might go with cholera too. On the other hand, at least the Scientologists only want your money, which isn't too different from any other government; Orthodox Jews, presumably, would make us live by the Noachide laws, which I would find rather oppressive.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Residual drug deposits which have remained in the body have been known to cause lessened perception, tiredness, confused thinking and to create an artificial “drug personality,” which can cause a person to harbor hostilities and distress that affect all aspects of his life."
(from the website above)
That's my favorite part. What, you're still tired and confused? Silly you. It's just the residual effects of those prescription drugs you USED to take. Not the fact that you're no longer taking them. Isn't that convenient...
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I didn't read your link in full detail; it seems to me that they might have a point about the current drug culture in the US. I don't mean heroin, or even marijuana, but stuff like aspirin and valium. It seems to me that Americans expect that, for any given problem, there will be a pill that magically makes it go away. If this is what they are objecting to, I have to agree. But there are clearly circumstances in which drugs are in fact useful; dropping antibiotics, say, like the Christian Scientists want, is just silly.
Interesting trivia : In Norwegian, the word 'drugs' would usually be translated into 'narkotika', narcotics; stuff like aspirin is referred to as 'medisin', which I trust I need not re-translate. There is no single word meaning all the kinds of non-food stuff we put in out bodies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mock the blessed relief of aspirin, as I sit here in highly medicated, hormonally unstable, and erratically writing a true b#%$ of an Eng. paper? I presume you are male...
posted
In all seriousness, I think there is somthing to what you say-- you read about all the misdiagnosed, overtreated Ritalin kids... awful. Where is the balance? Darned if I know. Sigh. Back to Sir Gawain.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just where did you get the idea that Christian Scientists are wanting to drop Antibiotics?
I mean seriously, if you call yourself a scientist, Christian or not, and you want to do away with antibiotics, I think you have lost your right to coining yourself with the term of scientist.
I think the word you are looking for is fanatics, more specifically ones, who use terms like scientist to feign a sense of authority.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
