|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:54 pm
mazuac ffdarkangel mazuac Kraggus Doomhammer mazuac Um... but wasn't Star Wars just a fictional movie? It was a documentary about stuff that happened a long time ago. In a galaxy far far away. Yeah... But it wasn't made to start a religion... Even if it wasn't, it certainly had some ideas in it, no? In my opinion, to make a good book (assuming this in fictional) you have to put your beliefs in it. A book is a fragment of a person if it is successful. You can tell if someone doesn't care. So, this was part of the author's views on life from the world around him. He just translated them into words. If you look at other authors, you'll see what I'm talking about. If you are lucky, your words and beliefs will pass on to another generation and live again. Keep in mind that was from a literature standpoint, not a religous one. It certainly had some ideas, but I am still... confuzzeled if you will, about how "sithism" could be a religion... It was made by... Oh, never mind, I probably couldn't state that... Oh well, I will. It was made by man, with a basis on fictional-science movies that were created for enjoyment to the eye. So, basically, a bunch of star wars geeks get togethor and say that Star Wars could make an awesome religion by having the "force" be a thing around all living things and that meditation brings one closer to the force. There is no... I dunno, it's so... not real! You just gave the argument most atheists give to say that your religion is totally made up.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:13 pm
Kraggus Doomhammer mazuac ffdarkangel mazuac Kraggus Doomhammer mazuac Um... but wasn't Star Wars just a fictional movie? It was a documentary about stuff that happened a long time ago. In a galaxy far far away. Yeah... But it wasn't made to start a religion... Even if it wasn't, it certainly had some ideas in it, no? In my opinion, to make a good book (assuming this in fictional) you have to put your beliefs in it. A book is a fragment of a person if it is successful. You can tell if someone doesn't care. So, this was part of the author's views on life from the world around him. He just translated them into words. If you look at other authors, you'll see what I'm talking about. If you are lucky, your words and beliefs will pass on to another generation and live again. Keep in mind that was from a literature standpoint, not a religous one. It certainly had some ideas, but I am still... confuzzeled if you will, about how "sithism" could be a religion... It was made by... Oh, never mind, I probably couldn't state that... Oh well, I will. It was made by man, with a basis on fictional-science movies that were created for enjoyment to the eye. So, basically, a bunch of star wars geeks get togethor and say that Star Wars could make an awesome religion by having the "force" be a thing around all living things and that meditation brings one closer to the force. There is no... I dunno, it's so... not real! You just gave the argument most atheists give to say that your religion is totally made up. A religion based off a si-fi movie that started in 2002 certainly sounds.... made up
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:43 am
mazuac Kraggus Doomhammer You just gave the argument most atheists give to say that your religion is totally made up. A religion based off a si-fi movie that started in 2002 certainly sounds.... made up And a religion based off a book is any more reliable? By the way, you are committing a logical fallacy: appeal to tradition You are stating that since this religion is newer it has less credibility than an older religion, such as yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:15 pm
I've read that there was a Star Wars novel (set in events after the movies) where Luke Skywalker realized that the Force is neither Dark nor Light. It really depends on the intention and inner strength of the Jedi/Sith. Your opinion on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:36 pm
chaoticpuppet mazuac Kraggus Doomhammer You just gave the argument most atheists give to say that your religion is totally made up. A religion based off a si-fi movie that started in 2002 certainly sounds.... made up And a religion based off a book is any more reliable? By the way, you are committing a logical fallacy: appeal to tradition You are stating that since this religion is newer it has less credibility than an older religion, such as yours. christianity/judaism are not based off books, they are based off the prophets of God and the (for christians) messiah. It is not less credible because it's newer, I say it's less credible because how could you be in a state of mind to know of something from science-fiction movies...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:11 am
mazuac christianity/judaism are not based off books, they are based off the prophets of God and the (for christians) messiah. And to an atheist such as myself or a person of a religion that does not deal with the Abrahamic God, this has no value. To us, your religion is based off of books, making it no more or less valid than any other system of belief. Further, to someone not following your religion, what could possibly set your religion apart from a sci. fi. movie? Quote: It is not less credible because it's newer, I say it's less credible because how could you be in a state of mind to know of something from science-fiction movies... In the same manner you can know something from a book. If you really want, I can counter this and say, I've never seen your God, never talked to him, never communicated with him in any manner; I've never seen, talked to, or communicated with any of the prophets or the messiah; I've only read portions of the collection of books titled The Holy Bible. Now, what sets this religion apart from jediism/sithism? And you are still committing an appeal to tradition fallacy. It may not be in the sense that you think it's less credible for being newer; but it is in the form that you are stating that it's less credible for being portrayed in a media type that you do not agree with. In order to show that it is truly less credible than your religion, you have to show how this belief is inherently flawed. And for the record, the movie was actually started in the 1970's, not 2002. George Lucas made the last three movies before he made the first three. EDIT: Furthermore, one could write a science fiction movie in which Christianity is the pull-away religion; does that make Christianity any less valid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:59 pm
The interesting part is, the concepts of the Divine match with mine almost seamlessly. Less when it gets to Passion>Power>Victory>Liberation, but I can respect it.
And as far as it being valid, I think that either way, Star Wars had LOTS of philosophical concepts you could gather from it, if you looked hard enough, and the concepts expressed have nothing to do, exactly, with the names "Jedi" or "Sith." It seems to me those titles are just ways to express this particular belief system. They just happen to be from a fictional (however awesome it may be) movie.
This does not make the ideas, or the belief system bunk. Far from it. It expresses a lack of tolerance if you knock the ideas just because the titles used are from a fictional movie.
I could call Christianity "Bruce Campbellity" and declare Christ as Bruce Campbell. Satan is the large deadite faced in Evil Dead two, and the lesser deadites are demons. The little Bruce Campbells produced in Army of Darkness are defections of God's supreme power, and are likened with the original falling of Lucifer from God's side. The evil Bruce Campbell that Bruce later faces in the movie is also Satan, and is such because he's God's archnemesis.
I really hope some of you are Bruce Campbell fans.
Anyway, it's a sound belief system, and is well worth accepting as a recognized faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
