Jedi 'Religion' Grows in Australia

BBC ^ | 8/27/02

[marshmallow]

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.

Most of the 70,509 people who wrote Jedi on their census forms were suspected to have done so in response to an e-mail encouraging all Star Wars fans to get it recognised as an official religion.

But the majority do not seriously tell each other: "May the force be with you", according to Australian Star Wars Appreciation Society president Chris Brennan.

"When you look at it you probably have got about 5,000 people in that 70,000 that were true hard-core people that would believe the Jedi religion carte blanche," he told ABC Radio.

"Then you would have 50,000 fans that said 'oh yeah we'll just put down Jedi for fun, we don't actually have a religion of our own'.

"Then you probably have 15,000 people who did it just to give the government a bit of curry," he said.

'Not defined'

An e-mail was sent around the world in 2001 saying that if 10,000 people declared they were Jedi, it would be recognised as an official religion.

But the Australian Bureau of Statistics said it would be categorised as "not defined".

Thousands of people in New Zealand and the UK also followed the advice of the e-mail - with Jedi Knight even being included on the list of religions by UK census authorities.

[Charles Martel]

"The Jedi ground forces are attacking the Elvistian stronghold. The John Lennonites have joined forces with the Elvistian's and are flanking the Jedi forces. But the Jedi forces have deployed chemical weapons, wiping out the Lennonites and forcing the Elvistian troops to retreat."

The Elvistians' ornate, rhinestone-studded capes, huge shiny belt buckles and glistening Brylcreem would combine to render them impervious to the Jedi light sabre. Take this Banana and Peanut-Butter Sandwich and eat it... ;-)

[Centurion2000]

bump .... now someone needs to actually invent a lightsabre.

Good luck

[stuartcr]

I have little doubt that Jesus existed, as did the others. The claim of resurrection, and the concept of a Trinity, I think, is what generates the doubt for me. Why can't people just be satisfied with believing in one God, and leaving it at that?

[rdb3]

Brother, let the dead bury their dead, and shake the dust from your sandals.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I have little doubt that Jesus existed, as did the others. The claim of resurrection, and the concept of a Trinity, I think, is what generates the doubt for me. Why can't people just be satisfied with believing in one God, and leaving it at that? 63 posted on 8/27/02 12:03 PM Pacific by stuartcr

Well, if Jesus of Nazareth factually and historically rose from the grave (which would account for the tomb bein' empty, and stuff), and His friends (who saw Him dead and buried) saw Him risen from the grave and walking, talking, and eating with them -- what's wrong with His friends telling people about this factual and historical occurrence?

[mhking]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2135095068

[kms61]

People can delude themselves into believing all kinds of things are true. See: Jonestown;Heaven's Gate.

Not equating Christianity with either of those, simply saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there's not any that I can see. Just that when Christians try to provide ironclad evidence it doesn't hold up IMV. You do better sticking with the faith argument.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"We are being led to believe that this was done by sand people."

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

People can delude themselves into believing all kinds of things are true. See: Jonestown;Heaven's Gate. Not equating Christianity with either of those, simply saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there's not any that I can see. Just that when Christians try to provide ironclad evidence it doesn't hold up IMV. You do better sticking with the faith argument.

Faith in what?

The Christian "faith" is precisely the absolute confidence in the historical facticity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, a recorded event with vastly more immediate and quantitative manuscript evidence than the historical facticity of Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul (but you don't doubt the facticity of that event, do you? Of course not...)

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed (Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri were discovered in 1935, which have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D. and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).

Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings

Author	Written	Earliest Copy	Time Span	# Mss.
Caesar	100-44 B.C.	900 A.D.	1,000 yrs	10
Plato	427-347 B.C.	900 A.D.	1,200 yrs	7
Thucydides	460-400 B.C.	900 A.D.	1,300 yrs	8
Tacitus	100 A.D.	1100 A.D.	1,000 yrs	20
Suetonius	75-160 A.D.	950 A.D.	800 yrs	8
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 yrs	643
New Testament	40-100 A.D.	125 A.D.	25-50 yrs	24,000

---

[stuartcr]

Mainly because I don't believe it's factual. His friends can say anything they want, but it was a long, long, long time ago, and facts have a habit of changing over time. Besides, it's just plain unbelievable.

[Equality 7-2521]

I'd sure be interested in seeing the postmortem.

[kms61]

You're talking about two diffferent things. To repeat: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're contending that there's evidence a historical figure named Jesus existed and was a figure of some note in Roman Palestine. Okay, there seem to be some facts to back that up. But to make a leap that he was a supernatural being who performed miracles and rose from the dead...I don't think it's out of line to require a higher standard of proof than for the other historical personages you cite. Nobody's asking me to believe that Caesar's conquest of Gaul was a supernatural event.

[andy_card]

aside from the 2 billion Christians

Ah yes, the "two billion Christians can't be wrong argument." Yet strangely enough, you don't seem to hold with the "one billion Muslims can't be wrong" side of the equation.

the reams of extra-biblical testimony (Josephus et al)

Yet in all of his detailed history of the Jews, Josephus neglects to mention Jesus. Oops. A footnote had to be added two hundred years later, by Christian copyists, to attempt to rectify the unfortunate discrepancy. And what other extra biblical testimony is there?

yet men will irrationally deny the existence of Jesus and the Apostles for whom we have vastly more evidence.

Again, what evidence? It really doesn't matter to me if Jesus existed or not, but you keep talking about evidence without supplying it.

[andy_card]

The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript has been dated to 125 A.D.

Almost a hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. I'll look upon any supposedly first-hand accounts of the life of Queen Victoria, written under your name, with similar skepticism.

[Outlaw76]

Jedi do not attack, they defend. :P

Someone else mentioned sending them after the Muslims. They wouldn't go, you have to be more subtle than that. Throw in a hot young girl and some robots and you might get them to go!

Jedi are pacifists that will cut you in half if you mess with em. I think Bufford Pusser would have made a fine jedi. Of course, it makes it easy to be a pacifist if you can change someone's mind with a wave of a hand.

[balrog666]

People can delude themselves into believing all kinds of things are true. See: Jonestown;Heaven's Gate. Not equating Christianity with either of those...

What? Are we to believe those Jonestown Kool-Aid drinkers were Buddhists then?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian ~~ Mainly because I don't believe it's factual. His friends can say anything they want, but it was a long, long, long time ago, and facts have a habit of changing over time.

But Jesus' friends didn't change their story -- every one of them went to their grave firmly attesting that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a factual occurrence which they had personally witnessed. And all they would've had to do, to escape the sentence of death, would be to acknowledge that Jesus did NOT physically resurrect from the dead... an admission which they certainly would have made, long short of death, if they were in fact lying about the Resurrection. Why die for a fact-claim which you personally know to be false??

Besides, it's just plain unbelievable.

It's no more unbelievable than the murder of Julius Caesar. Both are well-documented events, each of which had wide-reaching consequences, the historical facticity of which is acknowledged as obviously true by those who are rational.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Frankly, for a large group of men to be willing to die for a Fact-Claim which they personally knew to be false would be "extraordinary" indeed. Especially when all they would've had to do, to escape the sentence of death, would be to acknowledge that Jesus did NOT physically resurrect from the dead... an admission which they certainly would have made, long short of death, if they were in fact lying about the Resurrection. Why die for a fact-claim which you personally know to be false??

The very fact that every one of them went to their grave firmly attesting that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a factual occurrence which they had personally witnessed, constitutes extraordinary evidence.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Ah yes, the "two billion Christians can't be wrong argument." Yet strangely enough, you don't seem to hold with the "one billion Muslims can't be wrong" side of the equation.

No, that's a perfect example of what I am talking about. No one really disputes the historical facticty of Mohammed. Whether God or demon was whispering in his ear is a matter of dispute, but nobody pretends to disbelieve the recorded factual occurrences of his life.

And yet, you will dispute the recorded factual occurrences of Jesus' life. Why? Because you know that if the recorded events of Mohammed's life are true, he may still have been a demoniac who may be rationally discounted; but if the recorded events of Jesus' life are true, the only Rational response is to acknowledge Him as Lord.

Ergo, you will erect an irrational double-standard in regard to Jesus, as opposed to your treatment of the recorded facts concerning Mohammed or Julius Caesar or any other historical figure.... so that you do not have to face Objective Reality.

Yet in all of his detailed history of the Jews, Josephus neglects to mention Jesus. Oops. A footnote had to be added two hundred years later, by Christian copyists, to attempt to rectify the unfortunate discrepancy. And what other extra biblical testimony is there?

Sorry, but I thought that you would know that the old skeptics "interpolators" canard has been long disproven. The discovery of the Arabic manuscripts of Josephus (lost to the West until recently) has allowed investigators to distinguish the interpolated citations from the legitimate ones.

The words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

Hmmm.... still a perfect corroboration with the events recorded in the Gospels. Josephus even notes that "those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him" -- despite the fact that they were supposedly making this resurrection story up, right??

You were saying??

Almost a hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. I'll look upon any supposedly first-hand accounts of the life of Queen Victoria, written under your name, with similar skepticism.

Actually, you won't. I already know that you don't.

You and I both know that you will pick up a copy of Julius Caesar's the Gallic Wars and read it through with great confidence in the authorship, the facticity of the recorded events, etc -- never troubling yourself one bit that the earliest manuscript copy post-dates Julius Caesar by 1,000 years.

No, the irrational double-standard you have erected in your mind applies to the Christian Gospels only, despite their vast evidentiary superiority. Let's not be so disingeuous as to pretend otherwise, now.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Ah yes, the "two billion Christians can't be wrong argument." Yet strangely enough, you don't seem to hold with the "one billion Muslims can't be wrong" side of the equation.

No, that's a perfect example of what I am talking about. No one really disputes the historical facticty of Mohammed. Whether God or demon was whispering in his ear is a matter of dispute, but nobody pretends to disbelieve the recorded factual occurrences of his life.

And yet, you will dispute the recorded factual occurrences of Jesus' life. Why? Because you know that if the recorded events of Mohammed's life are true, he may still have been a demoniac who may be rationally discounted; but if the recorded events of Jesus' life are true, the only Rational response is to acknowledge Him as Lord.

Ergo, you will erect an irrational double-standard in regard to Jesus, as opposed to your treatment of the recorded facts concerning Mohammed or Julius Caesar or any other historical figure.... so that you do not have to face Objective Reality.

Yet in all of his detailed history of the Jews, Josephus neglects to mention Jesus. Oops. A footnote had to be added two hundred years later, by Christian copyists, to attempt to rectify the unfortunate discrepancy. And what other extra biblical testimony is there?

Sorry, but I thought that you would know that the old skeptics "interpolators" canard has been long disproven. The discovery of the Arabic manuscripts of Josephus (lost to the West until recently) has allowed investigators to distinguish the interpolated citations from the legitimate ones.

The words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

Hmmm.... still a perfect corroboration with the events recorded in the Gospels. Josephus even notes that "those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him" -- despite the fact that they were supposedly making this resurrection story up, right??

You were saying??

Almost a hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. I'll look upon any supposedly first-hand accounts of the life of Queen Victoria, written under your name, with similar skepticism.

Actually, you won't. I already know that you don't.

You and I both know that you will pick up a copy of Julius Caesar's the Gallic Wars and read it through with great confidence in the authorship, the facticity of the recorded events, etc -- never troubling yourself one bit that the earliest manuscript copy post-dates Julius Caesar by 1,000 years.

No, the irrational double-standard you have erected in your mind applies to the Christian Gospels only, despite their vast evidentiary superiority. Let's not be so disingenuous as to pretend otherwise, now.