Slashdot Mirror


Britain's First Jedi Member of Parliament

earthlingpink writes "In his maiden speech to the House of Commons, the Hon. Member for Copeland, Jamie Reed MP, announced that he is a Jedi: "as the first Jedi Member of this place, I look forward to the protection under the law that will be provided to me by the Bill" (the quotation is a fair way down the page; search for 'Jedi,' not surprisingly). How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?" Update: 06/29 23:15 GMT by T : Reader JE_Hoover adds a correction: "Although the previous MP for Copeland was the Hon. Member for Copeland, the current MP for Copeland is not a member of the privy council. Debretts make it all clear."

1,165 comments

  1. The Force is *retarded* with this one... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    This whole Jedi religion dreck has now officially gone too far. To those misguided simpletons out there who insist on calling themselves 'Jedi knights', I offer you this chance to prove yourselves:
    • Just build a lightsaber. A real one. That's all.

    What's that...you can't? Don't have suitable raw materials, you say?
    OK...that's fair...how about this, then:
    • Force choke me. From where you are right now. Go ahead...it's OK.

    Are you doing it? I'm not feeling anything...
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did you misplace your sense of humor today? Did a jedi hit you as a kid?

    2. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by eggz128 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did a jedi hit you as a kid?


      I think you mean "Youngling". :)
    3. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's more a rejection of conventional religion. See the review of the UKs 2000 census - according to the stats the UK has more Jedis than Jews.

    4. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, okay... But first you have to challenge any christian to turn water into wine without any special apparatus.

      Most "Jedi" are simply making a statement that belief in the force is no more rational than belief in any other religion.

    5. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You organized-money-religion-whore go and hide in your church your chruchfreak and pray to that naked man that I don't track you down with my AT-AT and give your little-sorry-ass a good spanking you fubar moron.

      For the force is with me.

      End of story.

    6. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Aggrazel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.

    7. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1


      Technically, a good Jedi couldn't "force choke" you.

      If someone could stand on one hand a lift a few rocks I would be impressed.

      -B

    8. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what Christian has ever claimed that they could turn water into wine?

      there are a lot less rational things than Christianity.

    9. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by lcsjk · · Score: 1

      LightSaber??? Whoa!! I thought they were saying lifesaver! No wonder I did'nt get the jokes!

    10. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just turn one drop of water into wine. Just one. And do it in front of me, not some reporter from the National Enquirer.

      See? All religions are pretty much the same.

    11. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by homerules · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most Christians, if not all, do not believe they are Christ. On the other hand most Jedi think they are Luke Skywalker.

    12. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      >> what Christian has ever claimed that they could turn water into wine?

      What Jedi ever built their own light sabre? I always figured they had a weapons guy....

    13. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by an7ron · · Score: 1, Insightful

      what are you? a christian? let's see you pray and make one single thing happen.

    14. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by lowe0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I consider myself a level-headed individual who is above arguing the minutiae of a fictional universe.

      But in this case: man, did you even SEE the movie?

    15. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by mbrewthx · · Score: 5, Funny

      I find your lack of Faith disturbing!!!

      --
      __________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
    16. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Seriously, TripMaster. Why the hell can't they join a real religion, like Discordianism?

      Those freaks.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    17. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because every Christain believes they can turn water into wine.

      Wait, no, maybe they believe in someone who can, instead.

    18. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 3, Informative

      What Jedi ever built their own light sabre?

      All of them. It's part of their training.

    19. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Nytewynd · · Score: 1

      This has to be sarcastic. (I hope)

      --
      /. ++
    20. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny


      Hey! As a Discordian, I find that offensive.

      Or mabye I dont.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    21. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2


      Yeah, but how much MONEY do the Jedis have? That's the REAL "Force"!

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    22. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A certain famous one claims to have produced fish out of thin air, and also cured paralysis and blindness amongst other unprovable, highly dubious things.

      By the way, I can't help noticing that verified religious crooks of recent centuries past have claimed to be able to perform those very things, only they were exposed as fraud.

      So for me, claiming to believe in a Jedi creed is no more ludicrous than being a Christian. Also, watch this post be modded down promptly as a troll, which should tell you something of the power of long entrenched religions.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    23. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most "Jedi" are simply making a statement that belief in the force is no more rational than belief in any other religion.

      Made-up bullshit, unless you've personally interviewed "most" of them.

    24. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 4, Funny


      Riddle me this, Batman: What church claims to "transubstantiate" wine into blood and a wafer into flesh?

      (Which, by the way, make these morons cannibals.)

      Now take it down the road, moron.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    25. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      Most Christians, if not all, do not believe they are Christ. On the other hand most Jedi think they are Luke Skywalker.

      Well, as long as they're not claiming to be Yoda, there's hope...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    26. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Um... Christianity never did promise its follow that kind of power. The water into wine is a miracle performed by Jesus, son of God, not just some follower

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    27. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jceaser · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe he failed the admission exam.

    28. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1
      Yes but how will he know if he has a lopsided pineal gland?

      All hail Eris! Hail Discordia!

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    29. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      >> This has to be sarcastic. (I hope)

      Which movie was that covered in? In all honesty I don't recall it being mentioned... but my mind is in a far off place, sorry.

    30. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You have bad logic.

      You say that since false prophets exist, you can't believe there were true ones.

    31. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a Catholic, so this really isn't relevant to me. They believe all sorts of things that aren't very rational.

      it's too bad you resort to name calling before you can create a well thought response.

    32. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      What about Luke Skywalker? Didn't he just use his father's old one the whole time?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    33. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 0

      A certain famous one claims to have produced fish out of thin air, and also cured paralysis and blindness amongst other unprovable, highly dubious things.

      He never claimed to have done that. Other people (decades later) claimed that he did that.

    34. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by bluGill · · Score: 2

      Happens all the time. However praying for something like water to wine isn't something needed religiously, and thus I refuse to do it.

      Don't forget when praying for something that the answer can be "no".

    35. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      No.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    36. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by connah0047 · · Score: 1

      Sure it did. Jesus said his followers would do even greater things than He.

    37. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Only until he loses it (anakins blue sabre) in The Empire Strikes Back and builds his (green) light sabre...

    38. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of them.

      Catholics, Lutherans, etc

    39. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Transcendent · · Score: 1

      Not really there chief.

      Christians don't believe they have a supernatural power. Saying you are a Jedi Knight would entail that you possess powers given to you by "the force".

      Believeing in it, is another matter... but if you claim to be one, then you're either a nut of you actually have some really cool powers. Somehow I doubt that this guy has such power.

    40. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Brain imaging technology has really progressed since the foundation of Discordianism. It's quite easy these days.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    41. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Check 'Return of the Jedi' the scene where Luke surrenders to Vader.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    42. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Gulthek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I see you have constructed a new lightsaber." -- Darth Vader in ROTJ wielding Luke's new lightsaber. Luke lost Annakin's old lightsaber because it was still being held by the arm that fell onto Bespin in ESB.

    43. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing it's more along the line of:

      It's all bullshit anyway, so why not make it interesting.

    44. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Nytewynd · · Score: 1

      I don't remember exactly where this is explained, but basically you NEED to be a Jedi to make a light saber. The Jedi needs to use the force to set the crystal properly. If they are off by even a microscopic amount, it blows up and takes out half the town with it.

      --
      /. ++
    45. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Kainaw · · Score: 1

      Just build a lightsaber. A real one. That's all. What's that...you can't? Don't have suitable raw materials, you say?

      I *am* building a real lightsaber. I already have a single short beam of light using your basic galium arsenide diodes. It is warm, but it won't cause and real harm to anyone. I'm in the process of mounting three beams on a rotating disk so I can create a more realistic lightsaber look and feel. Then, I'll look into the cost of real lasers :)

      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    46. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by KingKire64 · · Score: 1

      Its geeks like these guys that make getting laid so hard for the rest of us.

      --
      "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
    47. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have bad logic. You say that since false prophets exist, you can't believe there were true ones.

      No, I say that there has been so many certified false prophets, and so few reasons to believe accounts of events that took place 2000 years ago (formally chronicled in writing 300 years after the facts, on top of that) that there are precious few reasons to believe the few great prophets of the past have any more credibility.

      It's like in a court of law, you can condemn someone solely on indirect evidences, if they overwhelmingly converge towards accusing the defendent. You don't necessarily have to have real evidences to form a judgement.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    48. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Dysan2k · · Score: 1

      I think his midiclorian count was exactly '2'.. required membership, of course, requiring 2,000.

      --
      -What have you contributed lately?
    49. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Insightful
      more likely he smelled the emission exam...

      no, I actually completely agree with him. There's no such thing as the force, and there never will be :)

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    50. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by xPsi · · Score: 1

      Water to wine? I'll leave that to Jedi and other mythological creatures. But give me fresh-from-the-spring U-238 and I'll (eventually) turn some of it into a fine vintage Cabernet Pb-206.

      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
    51. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      And if you really want to think about it, we have.

      We regularly bring people back from the brink of death. We have motorized transportation, we can feed millions of people with a comparitively small amount of raw material. We can fly through the air in relative safety. We have harnessed the power of the building blocks of all matter, for good or ill.

      Humanity has performed many miracles. We have many miracles yet to perform still.

    52. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't consider bombing Iraq into Democracy is a great thing?

    53. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Phillup · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's no such thing as the force, and there never will be

      And, this is different from other religions how?

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    54. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by pmazer · · Score: 1

      Care to explain how you're accomplishing a single short beam of light?

    55. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      "Force choke me. From where you are right now. Go ahead...it's OK."

      Everyone knows that a Jedi can't force choke someone, it's not in their nature. That's something that a Sith would do, and no one is claiming to be of the Sith religion. =)

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    56. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I just think the guy is making an incredibly foolish mistake. Didn't he watch the prequels? It was their involvement in politics that corrupted and ultimately doomed the Jedi Council and the Order itself! He should be like the ESB Yoda, content with living in peace with the Force, not the AotC Yoda, who wishes to control the future of an entire empire.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    57. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for the record, Lutheran's (at least not Missouri Synod) don't believe in transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the belief that the bread and wine physically turn into the body and blood (respectively) of Jesus. it doesn't take much to disprove transubstntiaion.

      Lutherans typically (at least the pastors) believe in consubstantiation, that Christ is supernaturally in, with, and under the bread and wine, but there is no physical change. quite a bit harder to disprove, but not necessarily Biblical (depending on how things are interpretted), either.

      besides those to groups, most Christians believe the bread and wine are symbolic of Christ's body and blood, take in rememberence of Him.

    58. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Ahaa! Ghaah! *blork*

      I have too little caffeine in my system to be reading such comments; please post them with a warning.

      That comment contains so much ignorance about Christianity and religion in general that it boggles the mind. Hey, Christians believe in God too; so is creating the universe (or even just a planet) another test they should pass?

    59. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know. Scientology is extremely well written. Long long time ago, space ships, nukes, zombie souls.

    60. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Something like convincing 2.1 billion people 2000 years later that Jesus was the Son of God?

    61. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 2, Funny

      there are a lot less rational things than Christianity.

      Like Republicanism?



      We could get Tim Kazurinsky to chime in, "People who don't care practice "I-don't-give-a-shit-ism." Might be too obscure a reference for /. though.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    62. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by pootypeople · · Score: 1

      Luke "force choked" two of the guards in Jabba's palace in Return of the Jedi. I think that means that light side jedi can use this power; however, it would seem it's frowned upon if used against humans or something.
      James

    63. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That'll be hard but for the rest of us, we can just cut him open and look.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    64. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Oniko · · Score: 1

      Now, I've seen Star Wars more recently than I've walked down by the off-campus housing, but I still saw that first and foremost as Yuengling.

    65. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

      The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.

      Screw that quaint old religion. I'd rather be celebrating Life Day with Art Carney, Bea Arthur, and the music of Jefferson Starship!

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    66. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it isn't like the Jedi religion is that much more retarded than any other religion. They are all based on "faith" so their wild claims don't have to be substantiated.

      Virgin birth? Sure! Resurection? Why not! Lots of nubile virgins after dying for the cause? Of course!

      You don't expect the Xians to rise from the dead, so why expect the "Jedi" to force choke you?

    67. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Deinhard · · Score: 1

      Riddle me this, Batman: What church claims to "transubstantiate" wine into blood and a wafer into flesh?

      Not just cannibalism, but vampirism as well.

      --
      Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    68. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by maotx · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was eventually found along with Luke's arm which was then used to clone an evil Luke.

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    69. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know, it's like today I was praying for my package to get here today and god totally delivered, I would've been crushed if he had said no.

    70. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, basically, you base your appraisal of Christianity on the fact that there are and have been people who do it badly. That's kind of sad. How about: I've seen bad software, so I'm not going to use computers. Or: I've seen bad countries, so I'm not going to live in one. Or: I've seen moldy food, so I'm going to starve myself. hmm?

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    71. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      It is time to drag out the Orange Catholic Bible - all seven interstellar trucks of it - and see whether Jedi Knights are mentioned at all. If it is not in the OC Bible, then they don't exist.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    72. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by j0e_average · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ahh, but you use a slashdot-jedi-mindtrick...

      By stating that your troll will be modded as such, you invoke the midichlorians to provide protection to your post. You're guaranteed a +5 interesting/insightful for sure!

      Cast the first stone, he who is without sin -- Master Jedi Jesus
    73. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Punto · · Score: 1
      I have a lightsaber in my pocket right now. You can't see it tho, because you're not worthy, and I only use it to protect myself from really dangerous stuff anyway, so you will probably never see it.

      If that's not enough for you, then you should also be demanding proof from the other guys who claim there's a guy in heaven sitting on a cloud throwing thuders or whatever (but you can't see him either).

      --

      --
      Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    74. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      If Lucas counts as one, lots.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    75. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by zxnos · · Score: 1
      the difference:

      all jedi are known to have force abilities. all christians are not known to have any mystical abilities.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    76. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a Catholic, so this really isn't relevant to me. They believe all sorts of things that aren't very rational.

      BINGO! We have a winner! Yes, the fact that it's a bunch of crap does not stop somethign being a religion. That was the original fucking point. So Jedi's can't build light sabers and Catholics can't turn wine into blood. Why pick on the Jedis?

      I'm not a Catholic OR a Jedi, but I can follow a thread.

    77. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2, Funny

      A festivus for the rest of us.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    78. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 1

      I suppose that you could be a Jedi without necessarily being a Jedi Knight. Maybe you can't build a lightsabre or use the force, but you can still take to heart the same ideals that a Jedi Knight represents.

      --

      ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
    79. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by niew · · Score: 5, Funny
      Also, watch this post be modded down promptly as a troll, which should tell you something of the power of long entrenched religions.

      ...Mod me down and I shall become more powerfull than you could ever imagine...

    80. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lets compare
      *Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, 7Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

      or
      *JAR JAR: Oh, noooooooooo!
      Hey, help me! Help me!!
      QUI-GON:
      Let go!
      JAR JAR
      Oyi, mooie-mooie! I luv yous!
      QUI-GON
      Are you brainless? You almost got us killed!
      JAR JAR
      I spake.
      QUI-GON
      The ability to speak does not make
      you intelligent. Now get outta here!
      QUI-GON starts to move off, and JAR JAR follows.
      JAR JAR
      No...no! Mesa stay...Mesa yous humble
      servaunt.
      QUI-GON
      That wont be necessary.
      JAR JAR
      Oh boot tis! Tis demunded byda guds. Tis a live debett, tis. Mesa culled Jaja Binkss.
      QUI-GON
      I have no time for this now...
      JAR JAR
      Say what?
      Oh, nooooo! Weesa ganna....
      QUI-GON
      Stay down!
      JAR JAR ...dieeee!
      OBI-WAN
      Sorry, Master, the water fried my weapon.
      QUI-GON
      You forgot to turn your power off again, didn't you?
      QUI-GON
      It won't take long to recharge, but this is a lesson I hope you've learned, my young Padawan.
      OBI-WAN
      Yes, Master.
      JAR JAR
      Yousa sav-ed my again, hey?
      OBI-WAN
      What's this?
      QUI-GON
      A local. Let's go, before more of those droids show up.
      JAR JAR
      Mure? Mure did you spake??!?
      JAR JAR
      Ex-squeeze me, but da moto grande safe place would be Otoh Gunga. Tis where I grew up...Tis safe city.
      QUI-GON
      A city! Can you take us there?
      JAR JAR
      Ahhh, will...on second taut...no, not willy.
      QUI-GO
      No??!
      JAR JAR
      Iss embarrissing, boot... My afrai my've bean banished. My forgoten der Bosses would do terrible tings to my. Terrible tings if my goen back dare.
      QUI-GON
      You hear that?
      QUI-GON
      That's the sound of a thousand terrible things heading this way...
      OBI-WAN
      When they find us, they will crush us, grind us into little pieces, then blast us into oblivion!
      JAR JAR
      Oh! Yousa point is well seen. Dis way! Hurry!

    81. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by bornyesterday · · Score: 1
      What do you have against cannibals?

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating human flesh as long it is properly prepared.

      What you have a problem with is the intentional killing of a person, i.e. murder. A totally separate issue.

      As is the vampirism statement made by one of the children posts.

    82. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but as a Member of the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria, who do not exist, and of which said non-existant organisation I am not a member of, I'm going to have to say that I find your lack of offensiveness down right defensive.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    83. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think a politician would follow the light side of the Force?

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    84. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by filtur · · Score: 1
      The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.

      George? Is that you?

    85. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you sure do seem to know an awful lot about Jedis.

    86. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think its a toss up

    87. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jayloden · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Also, watch this post be modded down promptly as a troll, which should tell you something of the power of long entrenched religions.

      No, this is slashdot. The majority (or at least the vocal/mod majority) seems to be fairly negative towards Christians and Christian ideas. Witness any of the articles that even broach the topic of evolution, and how many posts are modded up for being anti-creationist and how many are modded down for pointing out that evolution is a theory, not a fact, etc.

      Without getting into an argument about it, I just wanted to point out that it's unlikely you'll be modded down for what you said. The only time I've ever been modded Flamebait was for a sarcastic comment pointing out that you can believe in Creation AND microevolution at the same time. If it were all about the power of entrenched religions, I'd not have been modded flamebait, but instead Insightful, just because I defended Creationism.

      Just a thought

    88. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by geekwithsoul · · Score: 1

      And while we're at it, somebody show me some proof of Yahweh, Vishnu, or Christ. These guys have been going on way too long without anyone calling bullshit.

      Or even better, use your in with the deity of your choice to walk on water, part a sea, raise the dead, or heal the sick.

      I'm not saying the Jedi stuff isn't silly, but is it really any sillier than any other faith? The whole idea of religion is antithetical to a rational mind.

      As best as we can tell, the Universe just sort of happened and things happen more or less randomly within certain limits. The human mind seems to be unsuited for grasping and dealing with the reality of this and so we invent all these nice little stories we tell ourselves.

      Religion is simply a coping mechanism, just like telling yourself that you really didn't want that jop you got turned down for, or that even though everyone always thinks they're funny, you really are.

    89. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guys with a talent for oration, performing magic tricks on a scene, with accomplices in wheelchairs suddenly rising up when the guy touches their foreheads and shouting "miracle", subjugating their audiences and usually asking for money at the end, are called crooks. They are called prophets by the followers, yet they're crooks. History is rife with them.

      There were also numerous madmen starting cults and preaching this and that, sometimes asking followers to commit mass suicide, or dress in plain white robes to go beg in airport terminals. Those are usually not considered prophets either, apart by their followers. They're madmen. There has been plenty of them too.

      Crooks and madmen don't go to crook-and-madmen school. They just are.

      Now, ignoring whatever faith you may have in him, based solely on a neutral reading of the scriptures, even considering most accounts of his life are paraboles and not actual fact, what honestly makes you think Jesus wasn't either a crook or a madman? honestly? I can't see much difference myself, try as I might (and believe me, I tried)...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    90. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by metlin · · Score: 1

      > It was eventually found along with Luke's arm
      > which was then used to clone an evil Luke.

      Who was called Luuke Skywalker.

    91. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Only if they want a Jedi to build a lightsaber.

    92. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      Technically, a good Jedi couldn't "force choke" you


      Luke force-choked Jabba's pig guards when he entered Jabba's palace.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    93. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Older religions are centuries old. So let's wait until Star Wars is 2000 years old, then we can start a Jedi religion. :D

    94. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Ugmo · · Score: 1

      The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.

      As well written as the romantic dialogue in Episodes 1,2,3? :)

    95. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just like the other religionists waited, right?

    96. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by yiantsbro · · Score: 1

      To be fare he did say "Jedi Knight" which I believe would be widely understood applies to one have "force" powers. The term "Christian" does not imply that one can turn water into wine--but does involve belief in one that could (or really believe in one that can to really be Christian).

      However, his dare could be equated to Christianity in that just as Jesus refused to be lured into it (sorry, can't cite the acutal story/book that this was in) I'm certain a Jedi would not as well (only a Sith type person). So, dare a Jedi to use his powers and he will, in accordance with his beliefs, refuse to.

      Man, I can't believe I just typed all that shit--did I really hit the "Submit" button--crap.

    97. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by centauri · · Score: 1

      How much older can you get than "Long ago"? Besides, the Jedi were old even by the time of Knights of the Old Republic.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    98. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      There's such a thing as a statistical sample. I know enough people who put "Jedi" on their census form to make a reasonable speculation.

    99. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Potato+Battle+Bot · · Score: 1

      Also, watch this post be modded down promptly as a troll, which should tell you something of the power of long entrenched religions.

      Considering that you haven't been modded down, your point about the influence of long entrenched religions is false, meaning that your are not worthy of your high moderation and summarily should be modded down, thus validating your point which would then require you to be modded up, because the validity of your point is proven. But by being modded up your point is disproved meaning ... something.

      ARGH!!!!

    100. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      formally chronicled in writing 300 years after the facts

      A number of the books of the bible were written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses to the events, or even by the eyewitnesses. This site lists the dates of the entire New Testament as being within 40ish years of Jesus' ministry.

    101. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Sir+Pallas · · Score: 1

      You don't have to turn water into wine to be a Christian. But you do have to turn a crystal into a lightsabre as part of the Jedi training. The force choke thing is right out because Jedi training doesn't develop that skill. It's interesting that Lucas said that Jedi is not modeled after any particular religion, but that it was intended to get people interested in exploring faith in general.

    102. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, 7Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

      Wait a minute, Jesus is allegedly the son of yahweh and of Mary who was supposed to be a virgin at the time right? So the hell is the point of showing Joseph's decent from Solomon, when Jesus isn't supposed to be his son anyway?

    103. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      True, but was Luke a truely pure Jedi? I'd be inclined to disagree. First off, his training was much shorter than any other Jedi's. It took Anakin how many years until he faced the trials, and he was on the accelerated path, so what kind of "we don't do this, or that" instruction did he receive. In addition, even when Luke battles Vader at the end, he does show the inclination of being tempted by the Dark Side. You see his anger, and his hate towards the Emperor, and he even uses this to disarm Vader in the battle. Any true Jedi would not have been this aggressive, as agression is not part of a Jedi's nature. So I would still argue that it is a Sith ability.

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    104. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess. I was really talking about people who claim to be of the Jedi religion. This minister didn't claim to be a Jedi Knight. Simply a Jedi. so he believes in the force. Or at least pretends that he does.

    105. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Winkhorst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This goes along with my cow manure theory of religion. When it's really fresh, it's not much good for anything. But after sufficient ripening time it does have a certain usefulness as fertilizer. And after a couple of thousand years, it's good for research into the state of the human intellect in the past.

      I know, it's still just BS, Mr. Smartypants.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    106. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they wouldn't be cannibals because Christ is not human.

    107. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Beware, for I am a Jedi Knight AND a MSCE!

    108. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      All Jedi knights are known to have these abilities. However, not all of those who claim to be of the Jedi religion have these abilities.

      I guess the other poster did say "Jedi Knights". I should have been clearer about the difference.

    109. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So for me, claiming to believe in a Jedi creed is no more ludicrous than being a Christian.

      Well, for me, believing in something that didn't happened while believing that it happened is completely different thing than believing in something that didn't happened while knowing that it didn't happened. Christians believe (they might be wrong or right, but it doesn't matter) that the Bible is a documentary work and that events described in it have really happened; "Jedis" know that Star Wars is a work of fiction ceated by George Lucas and hence that events described in it are all fictional. That is a world of difference.

    110. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Gondola · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have mod points, but I've got to respond to this troll or poor deluded soul.. I'm not sure which.

      What's sad is seeing people who still believe in hokey old religions that don't make any sense, and they do it without proof.

      Heck, if god came down in a burning chariot, and said Follow Me, well, I'd know which side I'd put my money on THEN.

      Oh, but religion is worthless without faith, you say. Bull. Why should WE believe, when the people that were THERE had to be shown miracles and such in order to believe? That's not belief, that's just being proven there's someone that can do extraordinary things, or is a real slick huckster.

      Well, you just send me every cent you have. No? Why don't you have faith that I will pay back all of your money if you send it to me? I can get AT LEAST 12 people to tell you how trustworthy I am.

      You know, people used to worship the sun and moon, ancestors, the spirits of animals and ideas. Would you just call them superstitious primitives? They had just as ardent a belief as you do. The ones who worshipped the sun, the moon, the wind, and their ancestors at least had something concrete to worship, whereas you just have the word of people who existed a couple thousand years ago and wrote letters and ran a despised religion out of basements and catacombs.

      Intellectual children, the superstitious, the desperate, or the confused. Those are the kinds of people that believe in a god.

    111. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 3, Funny

      No the real Force is with you if you are accelerating, or decelerating.

      My the second derivative of your momentum with respect to time be with you.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    112. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "This whole Jedi religion dreck has now officially gone too far. To those misguided simpletons out there who insist on calling themselves 'Jedi knights', I offer you this chance to prove yourselves:"

      How has it gone too far? How is declaring ones self a Jedi worse than admitting to being a Scientologist? I know which "fake" scifi-based religion I'd choose out of the two of them.

      At least "the Force" is based upon Taoism, which is a real religion.

      And we should also give credit to Lucas for not trying himself to make the Jedi beliefs an actual religion, despite the assertions from Coppola that he should.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    113. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by fitten · · Score: 1

      I'm with TripMasterMonkey on this one... either prove it or stop claiming it.

    114. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the dp/dt was not with my left pinky when I was typing the word mAy...

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    115. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Jedi never promises any powers without training. What would you call someone who believes that there is an all encompassing force, and that with training it can be harnessed?

    116. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      so powerful you need an extra l, amazing !!

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    117. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Which, by the way, makes these morons cannibals"

      Very original. Christians have only been accused of this since the first century. But I am sure there is still some room left on that bandwagon.

    118. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Catholics aren't Christians. They are Catholics and believe in all kinds of superstitions.

      Christians on the other hand don't believe that nonsense.

    119. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by fitten · · Score: 1

      besides those to groups, most Christians believe the bread and wine are symbolic of Christ's body and blood, take in rememberence of Him.

      That's what I was thinking. I was trying to remember back to what they said and I thought it was something like:

      Take this wine (grape juice, depending on your denomination) and bread as a symbol in rememberence...

      but you beat me to it.

    120. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Gondola · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I hope you're just trolling, because otherwise I'd have to feel true pity for you because your brain must be hung like a gnat.

      I've NEVER SEEN ANY PROOF OF A RELIGION. I *have* seen lots of good software, and lots of bad software.

      Countries do in fact exist, and there is lots of proof of them. Edible food that doesn't kill you does in fact exist because we're here to fucking read your asinine words.

      Your analogy sucks Jesus-riding donkey dick.

    121. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1

      Thats not in a movie, its is cannon though. Its in Shadows of the Empire.

    122. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      May not be quit as great a miricle but I can turn Beer in to Pee!!! I do it regularly. Wanna see?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    123. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jdbo · · Score: 4, Funny

      And WTF is inherently moronic (let along immoral) with cannibalism, so long as its conducted between mutually consenting adults?

      Nothing, says I!

      And my army of the undead agree with me, too!

      So don't be a bigot about something that's so clearly a matter of taste.... tasty... human... flesh... mmmmm....

    124. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "Youngling"

      Ah, is that what he meant. I'd thought he meant Jungling, indicating that all of the children were advocates of utilizing their collective unconscious by way of the force. Oh well...

      I guess now you're going to tell me there are no Freudlings either?

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    125. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by mrogers · · Score: 1
      What's sad is seeing people who still believe in hokey old religions that don't make any sense, and they do it without proof.

      Read some Kierkegaard. The essence of belief is the absence of objective proof.

      Heck, if god came down in a burning chariot, and said Follow Me, well, I'd know which side I'd put my money on THEN.

      I imagine it would probably be too late at that point.

    126. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Himring · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure Christ made any claim -- others claimed to have seen him do these things. "Dubious" is neither proven nor disproven since, now, we cannot prove anything.

      Your second point is entropic. The logic set is the same as: "dogs bite/I have a dog/he will bite" when the truth is he might just as well not bite. It's equivalent to stating since something can happen it will always happen, and that's murphian negativism and nothing more....

      We have pretty good evidence that the concept of "Jedi" was fairly recently created by a man named George Lucas. Anything is possible, but I doubt there is really a Jedi religion alive and well in a galaxy far, far away. Even if there is (spare me alternate universe discussions) I think chances are even much smaller that that religion made it here. More likely, this fellow is responding to popular films -- ya think?

      Christianity, on the other hand, cannot be, necessarily, linked to a popular theatrical play or cultural, entertainment phenomenon of its day. Sure, there are those arguments which tie it to the Egyptian Phoenix myth (later made known by Alexander the Great who attempted to apply it to himself), et al., but none of this is proven either. As a matter of fact, there is more evidence that this concept of dying/rising god is represented in all major civilization centers in the world. Baldur, Mythra, Phoenix, etc. These seemingly unconnected cultures all came up with the same concept -- a god dying and rising. No historian or literary scholar has yet proven how this is so -- maybe they will. Theologians do argue that this is evidence pointing forward and not evidence of a copy-cat.

      Finally, there is the argument that the New Testament itself is written in only two possible ways: as modern fiction 2000 years ahead of its time or as factual truth of its day. This is all based off of the "en de nux" translated, "and it was night." I.e., an ancient writer adding details to the narrative not necessary to the telling -- a trick that makes modern fiction what it is, but that is also done when describing factual events. The ancients did the latter. I doubt they did the former.

      There is futhermore the very fact of the incredible amount of copies of the ancient texts of the New Testament -- unrivaled by any other documents. Yet, critics still doubt its authenticity. Compare this to Caesar's Gaelic Wars: 12 extant copies which have suffered no criticism in their detailing of those happenings.

      Now, I am not arguing 'for' Christianity, but I am arguing 'for' religion. The Jedi Religion should best be described as a cultural phenomenon, but not a religion. Religion -- from relegare, "to bind back" or "to tie down, fasten" -- was described by Matthew Arnold as something genetic, a deep belief, and perhaps in that sense it is the person who makes it what it is, but we are discussing tangible evidence. So, although we cannot "prove" the acts of Christ, we can certainly prove those of a Jedi or someone who would claim to be one. The latter is clearly fabricated, the former -- although suspect -- is not so clear....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    127. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      Grab any unpowered handtools you like. Build a wooden boat big enough to house 2 of every land mammal for 40 days (incl. their food). Start building, I'll give you 60 days.

      Dork!

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    128. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by SonicBurst · · Score: 1

      and what nasty crap that is too...dunno what the deal is, but every bar/restaurant/store around here have just recently been invaded by the shit. Must be some new sales rep or something. I don't know what anyone sees in that beer... /prefers Long Trail Ale...

      --

      Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
    129. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Which office has certified that threshold? You believe what you want, they believe what they want. Until they justify some kind of unacceptable action with their faith in some unproveable, yet overwhelming fact, they're harmless. You know, like swinging lightsabers and force choking people.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    130. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      None of your respondents are making the right point.

      Saying what you just said may be considered illegal in England, based on the law they were debating and this dude's (idiotic) religious status as a Jedi.

      So he may have called himself a Jedi solely in order to highlight the bill's idiocy. Or maybe not. I can't tell. I'm only an American.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    131. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Surt · · Score: 1

      You're not a cannibal if the 'person' you're eating isn't human, but rather god.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    132. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      On the other hand most Jedi think they are Luke Skywalker.

      This is simply inaccurate. Most Jedi think they are Mark Hamill. And, in many cases, they are.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    133. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by zoomzit · · Score: 1

      You've been modded "5, Interesting." Ha Ha!

    134. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      To be fare he did say "Jedi Knight" which I believe would be widely understood applies to one have "force" powers.

      You're quite right. I should have been clearer.

      Man, I can't believe I just typed all that shit--did I really hit the "Submit" button--crap.

      :) This has now been nabbed as my sig.

    135. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 3, Funny
      Well, as long as they're not claiming to be Yoda, there's hope

      Correct you are. Yoda, there only one of is. And here among you appeared he has. Strong am I with the Force.

      (Better would it work, if more like Kermit the Frog sounded I.)

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    136. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      yesssssss

      --
      --- What
    137. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll worry when they have Mark Hamill's hair style.

    138. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Kainaw · · Score: 1

      Care to explain how you're accomplishing a single short beam of light?

      Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT MY IDEA.

      I saw a Magic Stage presentation in North Carolina back about 1994. When you cross two laser pointers, they make a point of light. Try it - get two laser pointers and cross the beams. I mount one straight up and move the other beam up and down. You get a short visible streak of light. Move it up and down faster than 60 times a second and it looks like a glowing beam. I'm working on mounting three of the beams on a spinner inside a flashlight case. The trouble is that small parts break quickly when moving that fast, so I'm redesigning it to use less moving parts by using a spinning curved mirror to move the second beam up and down.

      Warning: when laser pointers cross, it barely makes a warm dot. When lasers cross, they can create a lot of heat. The method has been used to pinpoint tumors and burn them inside the body without cutting it open. So, I was intending the remark about using real lasers as a joke.

      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    139. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as the force, and there never will be :)

      I find your lack of faith...disturbing. ;)

    140. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Catholics aren't Christians. They are Catholics and believe in all kinds of superstitions."

      How exactly do you figure *Catholics* AREN'T *Christians*?

      The Catholic/Orothodox Church is the original Christian denomination. Throw in the Egyptian Church in there as well.

      From my experience, people who claim to be *Christians* exclusively tend to be non-denominational Baptists, in fact. By declaring themselves as *Christians*, they imply that they are the true Church of Christ and thus slights all the other Christian denominations. They also tend to be the so-called *Bible Thumpers* who also believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, evolution is a fraud, and all homosexuals shall burn in Hell, along with false Christians (of the other denominations), non-believers, and other sinful folk.

      I find such a comment insulting, and I'm not even a Catholic. In fact, it makes me pitty such folk for being such outright simpletons. At least the Jehovah's Witnesses (who can't even spell their God's name correctly) have the decency not to vote.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    141. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1

      On the other hand most Jedi think they are Luke Skywalker

      I'd rather be Han Solo any day - he had a wicked fast ship and a Wookiee. Seems he did pretty well without getting entangled with any religious mumbo-jumbo.

      All the Luke Skywalker wannabe's can go suck Bantha rod.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    142. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by sukotto · · Score: 1
      Also, watch this post be modded down promptly as a troll, which should tell you something of the power of long entrenched religions.

      The fact that you're +5 tells me something about your inability to foresee the future. :-)
      I just wish you'd said mod me down, as I have foreseen or maybe mod me down, and I shall become more powerful than you can imagine
      --
      Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
    143. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Oniko · · Score: 1

      Yeah... it and Schaeffer's (sp?) are the shitty cheap beers the frats give out at large parties round here...

      /prefers pretty much anything

    144. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Cobralisk · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as they're not claiming to be Yoda, there's hope...

      Backwards your grammar is. Last in a sentence, the verb must be.

      --
      Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
    145. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So are you saying that Jesus was in league with the loaves and fishes? Or perhaps he had some guys underwater holding him up? Or that all the lepers were faking?

      If the New Testament is true (in terms of events, ignoring the sentiments of the writers), Jesus was far different from a crook or a madman.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    146. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 3, Funny
      >> The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.

      >As well written as the romantic dialogue in Episodes 1,2,3? :)


      Better written than the romance in the book of Genesis...

      2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
      3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
      4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
      5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
      6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
      ...

      30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
      31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
      32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.


      All that begatting and not one scene of what causes the begatting!
    147. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      But, but, but... is everyone involved in making those things happen a believer? If not, then it still doesn't prove a thing.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    148. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      There's also the possibility that Anakin's destiny of bringing balance to the force was fulfilled through producing offspring that were capable of using both the light side and the dark side of the force.

    149. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by gstovall · · Score: 1

      No. It rained for 40 days. The actual duration of the voyage was more like 11 months.

    150. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Ok, here's a question: Show proof that no god exists. And for all our sakes, please don't implicitly assume the conclusion in your arguments... That is altogether too common a tactic, among both atheistic and theistic arguments. Its been done by Thomas Aquinas, and its been done by Bertrand Russell, just to name two off the top of my head.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    151. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      No. If you remember in ROTJ, it is not Luke that kills the Emperor... it is Vader. He does fulfill the prophecy... just 20 years later.

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    152. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And if the Star Wars movies are true, then so is the Jedi Religion.

    153. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by morcego · · Score: 1

      From your post, one would think you have even less faith in humankind than you have in god.

      I, for one, like the take the agnostic point of view. I mean, if we can't even fully understand physical questions, and find concrete answers for those questions, how can we even try to understand spiritual ones ? Or even if a spirit exists ?

      Claiming absolute knowledge of the non existance of a god is just as "confused" (to use your own words) as claiming abusolute knowledge of existance.

      --
      morcego
    154. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      Rosco P. Coltrane...

      I sense your disturbance of the Farce.

      I recognize you for the Sith you are, Darth Caustic!

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    155. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody remember the girl who was allergic to wheat or some such ingredient found in communion wafers? Her mother tried to get the church to allow her to use some kind of substitute wafer (made with rice or something), but the church refused. So basically, if the girl refuses the communion wafer, she burns in hell. And if the girl eats the wheat wafer, she knowingly risks death by allergic reaction, which is suicide (she burns in hell). But of course if she does die, it means she is also allergic to the flesh of Jesus, due to transubstantiation. Or is that the real test of her faith? Hmmm ...

    156. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by morcego · · Score: 1

      Which is not even claimed by the real theologists of the catholic church.

      The real miracle, according to them, was that Jesus managed to feed all those people starting with only that small number of breads. What he achived has convincing people to help each other. Which, giving what we see everyday of our lives, is enough of a miracle.

      Many of the atendees had food and water with them. They Just shared with others.

      --
      morcego
    157. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      Regardless though, it doesn't have anything to do w/ Jedi being agressive. It is against the Jedi teachings to be agressive. I'm not arguing that Luke could use both sides of the force, I'm arguing that it's not the Jedi way to go around chocking people with your mind... Heck, obi-wan, could have been capable of using the dark side had he given into Dookoo, but he didnt. Its not a matter of being capable of it, its a matter of choosing a destiny. A true Jedi, would not have done a force choke.

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    158. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      Show that the Force doesn't exist.

    159. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catholics are definitely Christians. I'm always impressed with the fact that most christians from the USA are unable to grasp that simple concept.

      In fact, if anything the Catholic Church is genetically "more christian" than the Protestant sects popular in North America, since those came from it and, in theory, the original church is closer to Christ (original as in parent; any church can claim to be the remnants of "the original church"). I say "genetically" because you can always say that catholicism -- or any other religious sect for that matter -- has deviated from "the Truth" to the point that they are not anymore what they were at one point -- in this case, "Christian". And, from what I understand, they did deviate a LOT from their beginnings, but I guess most of it was before the Protestant churches were even born.

      Of course, I don't believe in any religion, but I'm just trying to point out the logic of the thing.

      tmegapscm

    160. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by TrailerTrash · · Score: 1

      Except for the dialogue, of course.

    161. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are some...

      That would gladly embrace Hamill's hair style, if only we had hair...

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    162. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, Transsubstantiation is a belief held only by certain sects within Christianity, and certainly nowhere near the majority. Jesus said to have communion in memory of his sacrifice, and it was also to be symbolic of the ancient Passover Feast.

      It is In Memoriam, you're not actually eating Jesus's flesh, nor are you drinking his blood. If you want proof you can always pick up a Bible before putting your foot in your mouth...

    163. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by apropos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no such thing as the force, and there never will be

      I happen to disagree with you. Try taking some Kung Fu classes, you'll soon enough learn otherwise. Better yet, try Tai Chi or Qigong.

    164. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by ex-geek · · Score: 1

      Look, the knowledge how to use the force has withered over time and is lost for now. But everybody who has enough midiclorians, is clearly a Jedi. The midiclorians of course can't be measured. But a true Jedi can of course feel the force of anotherone.

      It's like the selection of the pope. The holy ghost decides who the next pope will be. It is only known that he will choose among male catholics. So far he always chose a cardinal, which seems kind of strange at first. But since the selection of cardinals is too guided by the holy spirit, it makes perfect sense.

    165. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Cstryon · · Score: 1

      OR... God was once man, with his God, and this happend over and over. And God now knows why we should have imperfect bodys, and imperfect lives. When discussing Religion, we need to look at the God, or gods. and why they do anything. Well, THey are GOD, and GODS. WHy they do anything doesn't matter and we should just follow Faithfully.

      --
      Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
    166. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Well, Lucas is more of a jewdi knight. The best of both Forces are strong with him.

    167. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Parham · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's no such thing as "the force", but I'm still a firm believer in gravity as "a force"... does that count?

    168. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      First of all, the events were not chronicled 300 years after the facts. They were chronicled within the lifetime of eye witnesses to the events.

      Christ died in AD 33.

      The earliest verified manuscript is known as P52, part of the Gospel of St John. It has been dated to around 125AD. This puts it within 92 years after the events.

      Another piece of papyrus has been discovered, 7Q5. While it's still being questioned, many scholars believe it to be from the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 6, verse 52-53. 7Q5 was discovered in Cave 7 of the Qumran community and is believed to have been part of a larger Qumran library. We know the Qumran's disbanded no later than AD 68. If this is in fact Mark, this would put the Gospel of Mark beign written 35 years after the fact.

      The other evidence the Gospels were written even closer to AD 33 is in the book of Acts. Luke intended Acts to be the second part to his Gospel. There is much evidence, of which you can read about on wikipedia, that Acts was written around AD 70.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P52

    169. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Oh for mod points, that's the best laugh I've had in a while.

      (Me = A-Level Physics student, it gets to you after a while)

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    170. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Ah, but Luke wasn't Sith, nor was he trained by a Sith. Vader was, and in the grand Sith tradition, he killed his master. Luke was a Jedi, who shows capability of using force powers that have so far only been used by Sith. (And, one might argue, that in the end Anakin was able to use light side powers to appear with Obi-Wan and Yoda.)

    171. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by DrStrangeLoop · · Score: 1
      OK...that's fair...how about this, then:
      Force choke me. From where you are right now. Go ahead...it's OK.

      Are you doing it? I'm not feeNO CARRIER
      just retelling is as it was, in case the mindtrick worked on a few weak /.ers as well :)
    172. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by CrashPanic · · Score: 0

      At least the Jehovah's Witnesses (who can't even spell their God's name correctly) have the decency not to vote.

      Thats funny. Last I checked, most Christians can't even spell Christ's name correctly

      --
      "There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" -Microsoft
    173. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish Kevin Smith was here right now to throw his $0.02 into the mix.

    174. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by CapnGrunge · · Score: 1


      These are not the trolls you're looking for

      --
      I see 57005 people
    175. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      get two laser pointers and cross the beams. I mount one straight up and move the other beam up and down. You get a short visible streak of light. Move it up and down faster than 60 times a second and it looks like a glowing beam.

      This is an interesting idea, but it's not a lightsaber. More like a laser cutting torch.

      - Lightsabers have the ability to block each other when used in a sword fight, which a laser doesn't.

      - If you use lasers powerful enough to be a weapon, you will have not only a very long effective "saber," but also a second beam extending out at a varying angle, which will make it even more dangerous.

      - Unless you have a very tiny fusion or antimatter source, a weapon like this will probably last less than a second on battery power.

      - The lightsabers in the movies have some sort of "gripping" effect around the blade. Watch Yoda throw his and impale a clonetrooper in Ep3. If it were a plasma or laser beam, gravity would pull the handle down and it would either swing around and bisect the trooper, or fall straight down and disembowel him.

      IMO there's so much theatrical sword basis for the film weapons that it would be difficult or impossible to make an identical one in the real world.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    176. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      Catholics are definitely Christians. I'm always impressed with the fact that most christians from the USA are unable to grasp that simple concept.

      While I know many people here in the USA that are christians, I don't know any that somehow think Catholics are not christians. Perhaps your "fact" isn't factual.

      I personally am an athiest, but I know that Catholics are christians, and I even live in the USA!

    177. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by gronofer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The New Testament was written to promote the religion, and is hardly likely to be true. It's spam and propaganda written by unknown madmen, criminals or idealists.

    178. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by eqkivaro · · Score: 1

      The burden of proof doesn't lie with agnostics. Go take a philosophy class.

    179. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Cobralisk · · Score: 1

      As a politician, I'm pretty sure he's mastered the art of getting the weak minded to believe something they wouldn't otherwise want to, also known as the Jedi Mind Trick.

      --
      Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
    180. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by FCAdcock · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you took them yourself, you'd know it was not some mystical "force" creating the power of those styles. Even in asia, fery few people believe in chi these days. The entire chi meridian system has been explained through the nervous system. Bruce Lee explained his one-inch punch's power as comming from his body's fluid motion and rapid muscle expansion rather than "chi".

      His teachings are great example of modern masters who truely understand not only THAT martial arts work, but WHY martial arts works.

      Forest C. Adcock
      3rd degree Tae Kwon Do
      4th degree Shinjukki-Jin Jitsu

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    181. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by caseydk · · Score: 1

      Did a jedi hit you as a kid?

      No, I think a Jedi chopped off his father's head.

    182. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      How exactly do you figure *Catholics* AREN'T *Christians*?

      The Roman Catholic Church has invented many traditions out of the logic of man rather than through direct revelation (too many for me to enumerate here). This makes them an apostate church. Sorry, but you can't "vote" on church doctrine like they did in the Council of Nicea, etc.

      They also come dangerously close to placing Mary above Jesus, making her an idol, even if they don't claim to worship her directly. Christ taught that He and His Father are the only beings one needs to believe in in order to achieve salvation.

    183. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      By the way, I can't help noticing that verified religious crooks of recent centuries past have claimed to be able to perform those very things,

      Not all were considered religious crooks (at least not universally), and not all were exposed (at least not in everyone's eyes). Take the Popes for example; they have to have performed ... is it four? ... documented miracles to get to wear the cool hat.

    184. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jedi's can't force choke you dumbass. Thats a Sith Lord jackass

    185. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the New Testament is true (in terms of events)"

      You're a riot.

      http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long .html

      Metaphorically true, possible. You'd have to be an idiot to find it to be word-for-word truthful.

    186. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's no such thing as the force, and there never will be

      People who have telekinetic ability at present are the first stage in human development down the Jedi path.

    187. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dubious9 · · Score: 1

      Yoda says:

      Not couldn't. Wouldn't. Powerful difference there is.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    188. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by wrightam · · Score: 1

      Actually, I consider myself a "Christian" of the non-denominational variety. I disagree a great deal with the Baptist, I beleave in the possiblity of evolution, that it is possible for the universe to be 13.5 - 15 billion years old, that aspects of the Bible are figurative, not literal, I play D&D and hang out with other Christians of other denominations (my best man was Catholic), atheist (both my DM and host for my D&D game are), and one Wiccan. I try to hold myself to standards set by Christ, I fail, and I keep on going. And if I can't do it, I don't yell that all those others who can't will burn in hell (They may, but that's not for me to judge).

      Oh, and I do vote - Libertarian. Just because I worship Christ doesn't mean that I think everyone should nor that our government should force Christian based standards on everyone else. My experience is that those who are likely to turn towards Christ will do so when it is time - forcing it down their throats only pushes them away.

    189. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 1
      No the real Force is with you if you are accelerating, or decelerating.
      Farce = mess * accretion
    190. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Trikshot · · Score: 1
      Did a jedi hit you as a kid?
      Perhaps he was hit by the Star Wars Kid.
      --
      I reject your reality and substitute my own!
    191. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The body is an extraordinarily feindishly concieved and devised ephemeral prison for a thing so eternal as the soul.

      Some serious questions for you:

      Did my soul exist before I was born? If so, were was it? Heaven?

      Does my soul only ever get one "go" in a body? or is reincarnation the norm?

      Do only human beings have souls?

    192. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by MenTaLguY · · Score: 3, Informative

      The importance of Joseph's geneology is that it made Jesus a patrilineal descendant of David by adoption -- note that the culture of the time placed equal weight on adoptive and biological fatherhood.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    193. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by lastchance_000 · · Score: 1

      Well, it DOES bind the galaxy together...

    194. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by alpha_foobar · · Score: 1

      So obviously your implying that Scientology stunk ripely from its conception?

      See above sibling of parent post.

    195. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by oconnorcjo · · Score: 1

      Well maybe because he did not ask for money and the only one who died was himself. I don't know if he was the son of god but I would say he was a very wise and generous man rather than a crook or mad.

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
    196. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Remember when geeks just learned Elvish, before the whole Klingon fetish got started?

      You know, Heinlein had a pack of whackos try to start a "Martian religion" after Stranger in a Strange Land was published, and he told them to get a life. It would be a good thing if Lucas did likewise.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    197. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      The real miracle, according to them, was that Jesus managed to feed all those people starting with only that small number of breads. What he achived has convincing people to help each other. Which, giving what we see everyday of our lives, is enough of a miracle.

      Many of the atendees had food and water with them. They Just shared with others.

      That claim isn't compatible with the gospel record where it clearly states that all the food they had was the small number of loaves and fish. It clearly makes the point that Jesus multiplies the bread and fish, after taking and blessing it. He provides them with the food they need and provides it abundantly, having given them the spiritual food they needed in the form of teaching about the kingdom of God and the need for repentance.

    198. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Wolfkin · · Score: 1

      Or: I've seen bad countries, so I'm not going to live in one.

      I'll buy into that one. :)

      --
      Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
    199. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Funny

      And when you think it's old and dried out, someone will start burning things with it.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    200. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying the new testament is mostly bullshit.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    201. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by sg3000 · · Score: 1
      > No, this is slashdot. The majority (or at least the vocal/mod
      > majority) seems to be fairly negative towards Christians and
      > Christian ideas.

      In America, something like 75% people are self-declared Christians. And you practically can't get elected in this country without being a Christian of some sort. To suggest that Christians are being persecuted is laughable.

      The issue is there's a difference between Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity. Few people have a problem with love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

      The mocking begins when the Fundamentalist Christians enter the picture. The world is 6,000 years old and your fossils are lying to you! I found Noah's Ark in my backyard! The Bible told me to hate this group of people! Looka me, I'm speaking in tongues and healing people with the Powa ah Pra-ya!

      The Fundamentalists want everyone to believe that their version of Christianity is the only version (strange how all Fundamentalist variants of religions seem to be like that). They perpetuate this by repositioning mocking of their silliness as an attack on the whole religion.

      Fundamentalist Christianity diverges from being a philosophy that's supposed to better people and it becomes a crutch for the ignorant and a tool for the unscrupulous who turn it into just another excuse to hate your neighbor.

      Remember, a wise man once said,
      When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to stand in the synagogues and on the street corners and pray so people will see them...Your Father sees what is done in secret, and he will reward you

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    202. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by ex-geek · · Score: 3, Informative

      The texts of Paul, which are the earliest of the NT, don't contain any references to what Jesus supposedly did. Paul saw Christ only in a vision, as he claimed himself. And this was after the time-frame Jesus supposedly died. Theologians say that he wasn't interested in his earthly life.

      The numbers on the site you were refering to are way optimistic for some kind of christianity. There is evidence that one of todays gospels existed 110AD, but that's it. Even the catholic church would disagree with the figures you gave. In fact, the catholic church is much more open to historically acurate research about the NT, since they don't depend on it to be the direct and historical word of god anyway. The NT was put together by the catholic church, so it's basically their book. Since they basically claim to be god's one and only branch office on earth, the book is automatically godly, since the church produced it and everything done by the church is guided by the holy ghost.

      There used to be numerous alternative gospels which disagreed in major points. They were destroyed but some were rediscovered, or at least quoted or outlined in secondary literature.

      Alternative Gospels can be found here

      An article about the formation of the NT, based on current scholarship, by Richard Carrier (an eval atheist)

    203. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Now, ignoring whatever faith you may have in him, based solely on a neutral reading of the scriptures, even considering most accounts of his life are paraboles and not actual fact, what honestly makes you think Jesus wasn't either a crook or a madman? honestly? I can't see much difference myself, try as I might (and believe me, I tried)..

      The religious authorities hated him with a passion, yet they could not deny the miracles he performed. All they could do was claim that he had performed them by the power and the devil, rather than God.

      The religious and secular authorities would have loved to stamp Christianity out at the start - witness the purging performed by Saul - yet they could produce no body from the tomb Jesus had been buried in and which had been guarded by Roman soldiers who knew that the penalty for failure was death. There were hundreds, then thousands of people running round claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead and all it would have taken to crush their faith is produce is body. But no-one could do that.

      The disciples knew whether what they were preaching about the resurrection was true or not and they willingly went to their deaths for the sake of what they preached. Why die a horrific death for a lie?

    204. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The+Monster · · Score: 1
      (Better would it work, if more like Kermit the Frog sounded I.)
      That would be what you'd want if you're doing Carl Sagan. But for Yoda, Grover is a much closer match.
      --

      [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
      SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

    205. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      You have tried?

      Can you properly frame the term "epignosis" in its correct Biblical context and provide examples of how it is important?

      Can you elucidate the central tennents of the Bible with concerning to the status of mankind with respect to the other creatures in creation and why the current arrangement is necessary, again according to the Bible?

      Can you discribe what the Bible says with regards to the interchange of essence that occurs at the moment of faith in Christ and the eternal repercussions for the believer?

      Can you sum up the constituent parts of the integrity of God as discribed in the Bible and use those to show the policy and strategy that God uses to approach and deal with the creatures in the universe?

      If you cannot do those things you have not even scratched the surface of the Bible and therefore cannot understand how the things that Christ did and said interlock with the rest of the scriptures.

      Without that basic understanding, your attempts to see Christ as He is portrayed in the Bible are going to be fruitless because you do not understand the context. You are at the very least more than 2000 years out of that context and fundamentally seperated from it due to lack of grounding in systematic theology and Jewish and Christian doctrine.

      If you do give yourself the opportunity to view this internal symetry between the Bible and Jesus the conclusions you will come to will be a bit different I think. I suspect that you will come to the crossroads of "fact or fiction" instead of thinking that he was a real person who was a crook or madman. The reason I say this is that the correlations and meshing with the rest of scripture is so good as to seem either perfect, indication divinity, or suspiciously contrived, indicating a fraud of colossal proportions.

      However, until you can see the whole tapestry, and understand the way it is constructed and how the parts fit together you will forever be sidelined in your own self-assured yet ignorant position.

      In addition, and in my opinion most importantly, the "message" of Jesus is the reason that I see a difference between him and an unscrupulous or unhinged character as you imagine him. Gaining the perspective to properly evaluate Him on this basis requires a bit more than just reading the Bible from cover to cover. Systematic theology will help a bit, but understanding the original languages is really the key.

      So the price of entry is high, but at least then you could say that you *really* tried.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    206. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Lucas realises that this is just a bunch of geeks having fun.

    207. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was told that duct tape was the force that bound the galaxy together, not gravity. Have I been lied to all this time?

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    208. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by danila · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing is how what used to be a rather exact replication of some hinduist drivel (force, levitation, telekinesis, gurus, etc.) turned into a much more scientific (albeit bordering on pseudoscientific) vision in prequels.

      I personally applaud Lucas for silently dropping the hinduism/New Age crap that was popular in 1970s. Midichlorians are the way to go.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    209. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by snilloc · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse strong flavor with "nasty crap". Yuengling is yummy. So much in demand that they've had to expand their production facilities, and in certain markets it sells as a "premium" along with Heineken, Sam Adams, and Beck's.

    210. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      I pretty sure that I can't... which was the point of my post in the first place. If you can't prove any of the available alternatives, then whichever one you choose (yes, even atheism) is, in fact, a matter of faith.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    211. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      The Catholic/Orothodox Church is the original Christian denomination. Throw in the Egyptian Church in there as well.

      The church was originally composed of the disciples and th early converts of Acts. Going on a century you end up with the early church fathers whose teachings differ substantially from Catholic doctrine. The Roman Catholic church has long been largely comprised of people who teach things contrary to the Bible, which is the only source of what true church doctrine should be. Regardless of what denomination was around first, it is what they teach now that matters ans the RC church is way off base.

      They also tend to be the so-called *Bible Thumpers* who also believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, evolution is a fraud, and all homosexuals shall burn in Hell, along with false Christians (of the other denominations), non-believers, and other sinful folk.

      That's what the Bbile teaches. Aside from the homosexuals burning in hell bit. It teaches that all who sin are deserving of that fate, but that all can be saved by turning away from their sin and trusting in Jesus' death on the cross to pay the price for them. Being a homosexual isn't regarded as a sin; homosexual practise is. Just like many other things, such as heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

      I find such a comment insulting, and I'm not even a Catholic. In fact, it makes me pitty such folk for being such outright simpletons. At least the Jehovah's Witnesses (who can't even spell their God's name correctly) have the decency not to vote.

      Do you not find that how much you like an idea is a poor method for evaluating whether it is true or not? and that resorting to ad hominens is a poor manner of conducting a debate?

    212. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Most "Jedi" are simply making a statement that belief in the force is no more rational than belief in any other religion.

      Didn't you mean to say "no less rational"?

      Anyhow, I've certainly seen enough people at SF cons who take their "let's play church!" kind of religions seriously. Most of them are harmless, but you never know when you might get another debacle like scientology..

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    213. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jcr · · Score: 1

      The issue is there's a difference between Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity.

      There's also a difference between fundamentalist Christianity, and the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world. Not all fundamentalists practice the idolatry of the bible, for one thing. Several fundamentalist Christians I know, have no trouble at all understanding that Genesis is allegory.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    214. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the evil Luke named Bo?

      That would be cool.

    215. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jcr · · Score: 1

      A certain famous one claims to have produced fish out of thin air

      Not out of thin air.. He divided a small portion of fish, and made more, according to the biblical account. What he was, was a financial genius!

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    216. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dominyx · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sad, this got modded funny, but it actually 'happened' in some comic book.

    217. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by katarac · · Score: 1
      wrote letters and ran a despised religion out of basements and catacombs.
      Wait, are we talking about Christianity or OSS?
    218. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by meta.chris · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's a decently tasting/priced local (though it's distribution is growing rapidly) beer.

    219. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by qigong · · Score: 0

      No such thing as "chi", huh? Perhaps you can explain to me what the difference is between you and a fresh corpse, then?

      It seems your objection is that there's nothing mystical or mysterious in the world. If you hold this view, I suggest that you simply don't know enough science. The Big Bang, quantum physics, embryology, string theory... I'd argue that they all meet the criteria for mystical phenomena. Do you blindly reject these as well?

      Oh, but those aren't Chinese names!

    220. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      The burden of proof (if proof is applicable) lies with whoever makes a claim. You're quite correct that it does not lie with agnostics, because agnostics don't claim anything (about the theism/atheism issue).

      I claim that no proof can be made that no god exists. This is simple to prove: there are definitions of god which include the property that his/hers/its/their existence is unprovable.

      By asking for proof from theists, atheists implicitly claim that proof is required. This claim can be proven, of course, from the idea that one should only believe in things which are proven. So I challenge that idea. Can anyone prove it? (lots of people seem to make this claim, so the burden of proof lies with them) If so, I challenge the fundamental assumptions involved in the proof. Can anyone prove those? You can never get away with making no unprovable assumptions. So, any and every choice of assumptions to make is arbitrary (from a pure logic standpoint). Since your choice of theism vs. atheism is dependent upon the assumptions that you make, that too is arbitrary.

      One might thus decide that the only logical decision then is in fact agnosticism... but taken to its logical extreme, this leads you to... precisely nothing. No assumptions, no claims, no beliefs, no actions, no logic, nothing. Most people find this uncomfortable, and wind up making assumptions. However, I find it very odd that some people (who have decided to make unfounded assumptions) ask for proof from others without a) considering that if you really and truly look for proof, you wind up with pure and total nothing, and b) asking for proof from themselves.

      It must have been a very strange philosophy class that you took that ignored all this. Perhaps you should sue the university and get your tuition refunded.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    221. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are primarily 3 Christian schools of thought regarding the practise of the Lord's Supper (and only one of them calls it the Eucharist, just so you know)

      Transubstantiation, which claims that the items of the sacrement are the physical body and blood of Christ.

      Consubstantiation, which says that the essence of body and blood surround the items of the sacrement.

      And A-substantiation, which believes the items to be a tool of rememberance, and nothing more.

      Lutherans, by doctrine, believe in consubstatiation, and Catholics transubstantiation. Most of the rest of Protestant Christianity (Baptists, etc) generally purport to defend asubstantiation, although the recent drives for ecumenism with Rome and otherwise tend to lead to them professing a "hey, believe whatever you want" stance.

    222. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jayloden · · Score: 1
      In America, something like 75% people are self-declared Christians. And you practically can't get elected in this country without being a Christian of some sort. To suggest that Christians are being persecuted is laughable.

      Not that I want to get into any kind of argument over this but: if the majority (as you claim) are Christians, wouldn't it make sense that they want to elect a leader who holds the same values?

      Anyway, the real reason I replied was just to point out that I wasn't saying Christians are persecuted. I was just saying that on slashdot there happens to be a highly vocal majority that dislike Christianity and its ideas.

    223. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Kainaw · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting idea, but it's not a lightsaber.

      I do not disagree at all. However, this is not a plastic tube with a christmas tree light in it. That was my point. It is a 'saber' made solely of light.

      Now, I've hit a new problem with it - pictures. As it turns out, you can't take pictures of it with a normal digital camera because the picture is taken so quickly that you see the base unit and a small wisp of light - but no beam. I'm going to have to go get a real camera that will allow me to hold the aperture open for more than a split second. Damn technology.

      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    224. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Redwin · · Score: 1

      "There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating human flesh as long it is properly prepared."

      And served with with some fava beans and a nice chianti. :-)

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    225. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that Luke was Sith, and I'm in no way implying that Yoda or Obi-wan were Sith. However, just like his father, he did show signs of (for lack of a better word) Sith Tendencies (ie, Anakin killing the sandpeople and Count Dookoo when he was unarmed). Granted those arent Sith skills, but who's to say that the Force Choke isn't a simple skill to learn or realize. I mean, you do see Anakin using it almost immediately after he turns to the Dark Side, and I'm really doubting that in between him killing the Younglings and him heading off to kill the Seperatists, he sat down w/ the Emperor for a quick few lessons.

      Also, Vader did not follow in the grand sith tradition, for the simple fact that he did not kill the emperor out of any "Sith Reason". He saw his own son being tortured and he sacraficed himself for him... VERY VERY opposite of the Sith instinct. Killing him in a "Sith Tradition" would have only been true had he killed the Emperor to gain more power... but at this point, the good in him had "returned"...

      my 2c...

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    226. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by sg3000 · · Score: 1

      > if the majority (as you claim) are Christians, wouldn't it make
      > sense that they want to elect a leader who holds the same
      > values?

      You'd think they would, but 51% of the voting public voted for Bush instead. I can't figure it out either.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    227. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll never get a black belt, then -- not enough "midichlorians".

    228. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      I think you're asking the wrong questions because you've never read the bible.

      One way to look at it. string theory.

      Everything is dynamic, there are no objects. Everything is constantly popping into and out of existence. Everything is part of god, we are all one, we're vibrations set in motion by the first sound. Supposedly only humans have free-will. If you look at nature everything follows a pattern. The patterns break down when you get to humans. Humans can influence 'random' events, since everything is constantly popping into and out of existence, we are creating reality. We are god.

      People who believe science is truth are dumb because they assume that the foundation that science is built on is truth. Any competent scientist knows this is false. You can't possibly discredit anything if you don't even examine it. All of history is pretty much up for grabs considering that archaeologists seem to care more about keeping the status quo and their reputations than scientifically analyzing anything that is counter to their theories.

      There is factual evidence out there that contradicts the theory of evolution. However, it seems to get drowned out by the freaks on both side of the creationism/evolution debate.

      I won't even get into the religious freaks that are basically like secular society and their understanding of science.

    229. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 1

      Go learn Kung Fu

      That's almost as convenient a way of answering a question as "God is invisible".

    230. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... no. The Pope is elected by the college of cardinals, no miracles necessary. (Unless you count the fact that the process is said to be "guided by the Holy Spirit".)

      Where miracles come in is when a dead person is proposed for sainthood. There have to be two (used to be three, but they loosened the standards...) documented miracles, which are defined as events occuring in response to call on that person (who is assumed to be in a heaven and thus to have the ear of God) that cannot be explained by naturalist means. Most end up being medical miracles, and we aren't talking normal "faith healing" in which someone's migraine feels better. The miracles that are accepted by the Church (and they have teams of scientists and doctors to do the investigations) are usually pretty wild - stuff like terminal cancers disappearing without a trace, and all the tissue damage from the tumor regenerating, instantaneously or in a matter of hours or days. There have already been some reports (as yet unconfirmed) of such events in relation to Pope John Paul II (see here: http://www.turnto10.com/news/4659988/detail.html?r ss=pro&psp=news)

    231. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Do you not find that how much you like an idea is a poor method for evaluating whether it is true or not? and that resorting to ad hominens is a poor manner of conducting a debate?"

      I think its an accurate critique. If a follower of a deity cannot even spell HIS name correctly (referring to him as "Jehovah" when his name is "Yeweh") then I do not place much stock in them or their message. And that's not even counting the fact that said sect has predicted the end of the world several times, giving the exact year of the end, and then being wrong each time.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    232. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by rhakka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't want to come off as unsympathetic to what you are saying... I'm very sympathetic, and my own tai chi teacher was very good at incorporating the physical aspects of tai chi into our lessons for us.. he was a student of Chen's, so it stands to reason.

      However, your belief does not explain reikki. Maybe reikki doesn't work, but to those who believe it does, and there are a lot of them, your personal belief doesn't hold water.

    233. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "The Roman Catholic Church has invented many traditions out of the logic of man rather than through direct revelation (too many for me to enumerate here). This makes them an apostate church. Sorry, but you can't "vote" on church doctrine like they did in the Council of Nicea, etc. They also come dangerously close to placing Mary above Jesus, making her an idol, even if they don't claim to worship her directly. Christ taught that He and His Father are the only beings one needs to believe in in order to achieve salvation."

      Do they worship Jesus Christ? Yes. Is the Bible their official book? Yes. Where they the original Christian Church that was given sanction by Emperor Constantine? Yes. Then they are *Christian.*

      If you are going to get technical about additions to the Church teachings, then maybe *you* shouldn't celebrate Christmas in December, better not use the Yule Log, better not use a Christmas tree, and many other things that were taken from earlier traditions too. Otherwise, somebody else will say your beliefs aren't *Christian* either.

      Geez, its not like the Catholics came up with some absurd idea that the Garden of Eden was in North America, or that Jesus preached to non-existent "white" Native Americans right after his resurrection! :)

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    234. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Bun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he Big Bang, quantum physics, embryology, string theory... I'd argue that they all meet the criteria for mystical phenomena.

      And you would argue out of ignorance. All of those theories are based on observation and founded in mathematics. The concept of 'chi' has no such foundation, and has not stood up to observation.

      --
      "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
    235. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think we are without traditions. Do you serve communion from one cup or many? Are you sure your right? Does it matter? Where do we draw the line? I very much hope that my salvation does not depend on me coming to a correct understanding of the Bible or how I should worship on Sunday. I disagree with a great deal of Catholic theology but they say that they believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the Living God and that salvation comes only through him. I am going to have to give them the benefit of the doubt and trust that they are conducting their worship the best of their understanding. I am just glad I am not getting graded on my own performance.

      The whole Mary and the other saints thing doesn't turn out to be as weird is it first seems. It mostly follows from the whole purgatory idea which I entirely don't get. Saints, according to the Catholics, are people who have lived such an obviously good life and have been so obviously in tune with God and His will that they reason that this person must be in heaven, having skipped purgatory. If that person is in heaven then they have access to come before the Father and the Son and intercede on the prayer's behalf. Now a person can ask the Father and the Son directly for what ever they want but how much better if a few others were up there asking on our behalf as well. This is why you have to confirm a couple of post-humus miracles. The reasoning is that if you ask St. Eddie to go talk to God about healing your cancer and it happens then St. Eddie must really be in heaven. It is not a matter of worshiping the saints but rather believing that they are there right now, that they can hear us and that they care about and agree with what we are asking. A lot of assumptions here in my opinion but if you can get past all that then sure, why not?

    236. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "That's what the Bbile teaches. Aside from the homosexuals burning in hell bit. It teaches that all who sin are deserving of that fate, but that all can be saved by turning away from their sin and trusting in Jesus' death on the cross to pay the price for them. Being a homosexual isn't regarded as a sin; homosexual practise is. Just like many other things, such as heterosexual sex outside of marriage."

      That's another thing that bugs me, and I'm not a homosexual. *Christians* pulling stuff out the *Old Testament* and trying to place its restrictions on non-Jews. If *Christians* want to impose segments of Old Testament morality onto people, then they themselves better not eat pork, better not eat shellfish at Red Lobster on Sunday, better not masturbate (or suffer being struck to death by God for wasting precious semen), and better not fail to beat their wives or children for being unruly and challenging their authority. Or, the whole "eye for an eye" routine which is counter to the teachings of Jesus. That's why the argument for stressing the *Ten Commandments* is absurd too. To a Christian, they are the *Ten Suggestions.*

      I also forgot that under the Old Testament, and even New Testament thinking, epileptics (sic) are to be treated as if they are possessed by evil spirits and exorcized instead of treating them with modern medicine.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    237. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Rostin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, for one thing, no one would be modded +5 insightful for pointing out that the force is fake.*

      You may draw your own conclusions about the significance of this fact.

      *now that i've posted this, I fully expect the gp to be modded +5 insightful.

    238. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by baudbarf · · Score: 1

      Not only did you get the first comment, but you've contributed a well spoken comment, one which speaks for me as well. Thank you. Taking the whole Jedi thing outside of television validates what people have been saying about TV and video games molding young minds. If people are living out Star Wars in reality, why not Grand Theft Auto, etc?

      --
      You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
    239. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Nephaestous · · Score: 1

      popes don't have to have performed miracles, saints do.

      --
      /\/ephaestous
    240. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      You think that just because the 'gospel record' says something, that it must automatically be true?

    241. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by erik_fredricks · · Score: 1

      I'm Han Solo. What's that make me?

      Oh, an Unitarian, I guess.

      --

      THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
      Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18

    242. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by zaphod123 · · Score: 1

      >Also, watch this post be modded down promptly as a troll, which should tell you something of the power of long entrenched religions.

      Ahh.. you see, this is Slashdot. Anti-religious sentiment is modded as funny here.

      --
      :q!
    243. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with a name like adcock...you will need those degrees of martial arts.

    244. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Interesting


      You have to be a complete idiot.

      The Roman Church is the first Christian Church. Everybody else is a fucking schism and even less interesting than the Catholics. "Wannabe Christians" are even more ridiculous than "real" Christians.

      Not to mention that Jesus was a fanatical Jew and had absolutely NO intention of founding a new religion of any kind - especially one that persecuted his own people for two thousand years for something that never happened. As a result, Christianity is the biggest joke - or tragedy, depending on your viewpoint - in human history.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    245. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dcam · · Score: 1

      ...formally chronicled in writing 300 years after the facts, on top of that...

      More like 40 years.

      --
      meh
    246. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dcam · · Score: 1

      And so the wheel of time turns.

      Do you realise that early Christians were ridiculed as cannibals?

      --
      meh
    247. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Did he have a moustache and goatee?

    248. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, in other words, the effect is there, but since there is a scientific explination for it, for some reason we can't call it chi anymore?

    249. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by SonicBurst · · Score: 1

      I'm not confusing the two at all...strong flavor is not the problem...the problem is the flavor of it PERIOD :) I like beers with strong flavor, which I get a lot of through some local Vermont microbreweries. Lots of good local beer around here and relatively cheap too.

      --

      Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
    250. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget duct tape has a light side and a dark side.

    251. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Stauf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, your belief does not explain reikki. Maybe reikki doesn't work, but to those who believe it does, and there are a lot of them, your personal belief doesn't hold water.

      Not commenting on Reikki, but this is a non-argument.

      'Maybe the sky is blue, but to those who believe it's green, and there are a lot of them, your personal belief doesn't hold water.'

      You're effectively saying that since one person thinks one thing is true and one person thinks it's false, the second person doesn't think the thing is true. To say it another way, you're claiming that if one person, anywhere, disagrees with you, to them, you're wrong.

    252. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Even in asia, fery few people believe in chi these days. The entire chi meridian system has been explained through the nervous system.

      There are several physiological theories about the meridians and points of acupressure. Nervous reflexes are one; there are others involving the electrical properties of fascia, and another involving a network of less-differentiated cells throughout the body. It's possible that different points work by different mechanisms. The explanation is far from complete.

      Most pracitioners of Chinese Medicine don't care much about trying to find a Western Medicine explanation for why acupuncture, Asian bodywork therapy, and Chinese herbs, are effective; any more than most musicians are deeply interested in the physics of sound, or the physiology of hearing.

      As for "believing" in qi, qi is not something one has to "believe" in. Qi is something that is experienced. If you get up in the morning as say "I feel full of energy today!" - you just made an observation about qi.

      "O genki desu ka?" - "How is your ki (qi)?"- is the Japanese version of "How are you?" (Specifically, "genki" is what the Chinese call "yuan" or "original" qi, a specific type.) It doesn't require a voltmeter or any objective observation to answer. :-)

      It's unfortunate that many practitioners of CM and of Asian martial arts have latched on to the idea that qi is some sort of electromagnetic like energy field. This is a misinterpretation, attempting to fit Taoist concepts of the Universe into a Platonic/Aristotelian grid.

      Like other aspects of Chinese Medicine's model of the human being, qi is best understood not by what it is but by what is does. The CM model is very much a functional, not a structural, one.

      I recommend Tad Kaptchuk's The Web That Has No Weaver to those interested in learning more.

      Bruce Lee explained his one-inch punch's power as comming from his body's fluid motion and rapid muscle expansion rather than "chi".

      The two are no more incompatible than the description of a certain sound in terms of a time-varying frequency spectrum, versus "that's an A chord played on a steel-string guitar". The former description may tell you why, when you play it through your amp, it makes your speaker buzz because of some resonance; the latter tells you how it works in the music. They're both correct.

      Forest C. Adcock 3rd degree Tae Kwon Do 4th degree Shinjukki-Jin Jitsu

      (Tom Swiss, NCCAOM Diplomate in Asian Body Therapy; Sandan, World Seido Karate Organization)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    253. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by rhakka · · Score: 1

      he stated very few people believe in chi. I put forth an example of a relatively popular form of alternative medicine as a counter arguement.

      All I'm saying is, his statement makes it sound like the entire eastern martial art and spiritual community has abandoned thousands of years of tradition and whole heartedly embraced western scientific explanations for all of their formerly "mystical" powers. While I definitely agree that the vast majority of martial arts features can be explained by "mere" physical means, not all can (yet), and there are still plenty of practitioners of all ability levels that DO believe in a more spiritual aspect to martial arts and Qigong. Not "very few".

      I never said he was wrong for believing what he believes.. to be perfectly frank, it sounds like he and I think exactly the same way about the matter. I just don't pretend that everyone else sees it like me.

    254. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by CoronalPendragon · · Score: 1
      I won't attempt to argue with you about how martial arts work, but to say that chi has no existence, is incorrect and demonstrates a lack of understanding of acupuncture.

      That aside, even if we accepted that it did not exist, there most certainly is NOT a proper and sufficient explanation. Yes, that is right, the nerve explanation does not begin to cut it as a real theory. It may be the best explanation is terms of modern medicine, but it lacks the one true credential of true good theories, predictive power. Right now, about all we can say, is that there are nerves at pressure points - and no one can tell you if that is cause, effect or correlation.

      I have felt chi move when I have give massage, or when I have had acupuncture done on me. Dismiss my experience if you will, but we just don't have a real scientific explanation yet. But that DOES NOT make it nonexistent. The proper scientific attitude is to observe the phenomena (hard because it is subjective, and not just belittle it because it is contrary to popular opinion) and then to model it. As weird as chinese medicine is, that is what they have done. They just have not done it in ways modern science likes to measure.

    255. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      Several fundamentalist Christians I know, have no trouble at all understanding that Genesis is allegory.

      What's your definition of a fundamentalist Christian if it's not one who interprets Genesis literally?

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
    256. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but according to that definition, Mace Windu could be using Sith abilities too, despite having a very long training and being one of the most regarded Jedi...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    257. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Stauf · · Score: 1

      ...he stated very few people believe in chi. I put forth an example of a relatively popular form of alternative medicine as a counter arguement.

      I wasn't very clear, my apologies. What I meant was more along the lines of 'you didn't address his point, you made a sweeping statement that doesn't really hold water'. My tone probably wasn't very helpful either.

      I would guess that you meant 'a lot of people believe in reikki and so the quote fery [sic] few people believe in chi these days is incorrect', but you said something different.

    258. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Gondola · · Score: 1

      And this is why Jimmy Hoffa is the new Messiah. They couldn't find that body either.

    259. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Oh for all we know George was being twisted. Before Anakin: 2 Sith, dozens of Jedi. After Anakin: 2 Sith, 2 Jedi... Balance in the force.

    260. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by lupin_sansei · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It differs in that most religions aren't derived from a series of increasingly lame fictional movies.

    261. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by NoMoreBS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think you spent very much time thinking about this. Saying you don't believe in Chi is like you saying "I don't believe in love". If you have never experienced it, you won't believe in it, or have any hope of really understanding it. If you have experienced it, you don't need convincing.

      Sure, doctors and scientists might be able to describe it in bland chemical and physical terms, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And when you do, you are missing most of the point.

    262. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you can explain to me what the difference is between you and a fresh corpse, then?

      My heart is moving. That's one difference, there are many other.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    263. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Sig I've seen here: "May the product of mass and acceleration be with you, Luke!"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    264. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, he's a regarded Jedi, but if you'd taken a moment to read the article you linked to...

      "However, Vaapad borders on the edge of falling to the Dark Side, as it channels one's anger and darkness into the attack. Only Windu's mastery and concentration of the Light Side prevents him from succumbing, which is why Vaapad is rarely practiced and very dangerous. The two other known practitioners of Vaapad, Sora Bulq and Depa Billaba, both fell to the Dark Side of the Force."

      So its not purely of the Sith, but it borders, so yes, that is somewhat what I'm saying... sort of...

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    265. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      What balance do you speak of? After Anakin, the 2 Jedi remaining were forced to flee for their lives b/c they knew that they were not a match against Vader/Palpatine.

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    266. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      No, they didn't. It's very important to remember this: "Live free or Diebold."

      Bush did NOT win the popular OR the electoral vote. He was handed them by the people in charge of counting the votes.

      And they learned from 2000: this time, it wasn't neck-and-neck, but appeared to have been "a decided victory." (90% to 10% is a decided victory. 51% to 49%? That's well within the margin of error!)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    267. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It differs in that most religions aren't derived from a series of increasingly lame fictional movies.

      ...but I can think of one founded (or indpired?) by sci-fi books... (R.H.)

    268. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      At least Lucas hasn't started a moneymaking cult. It would probably be quite easy.

      "And for $500,000, you can be a Sith!"

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    269. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


      In this non-canononical sector of the Expanded Universe, we just make something out of origami.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    270. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Books were made before movies, perhaps you would like to comment on a series of lame fictional books out of history.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    271. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Of course I took the moment to read it, and as you said it's a similar situation to the one you pointed out. Eh, nevermind, after all this is not real, it's just Star Wars :)

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    272. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      What do you mean its not real?!? hehe

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    273. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      ;)

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    274. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dvk · · Score: 1

      > Better written than the romance in the book of Genesis...

      Uhm... try reading OTHER parts of the book. Song of Songs, for example.

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    275. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 1
      Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
      Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
      Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

      And, a little further on...

      While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.
      A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
      My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi.
      Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes.
      Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant: also our bed is green.
      The beams of our house are cedar, and our rafters of fir.

      Do you need me to draw you a picture or will that suffice?

    276. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... I think he means the numerical balance. 2 Jedi, 2 Sith.

    277. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jcr · · Score: 1

      What's your definition of a fundamentalist Christian if it's not one who interprets Genesis literally?

      Well, it's not my definition, but theirs...

      They would tell you that their fundamentalism consists of believing that the Bible is direct moral instruction from God.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    278. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by harborpirate · · Score: 1

      Way offtopic here, but I've got Slashdot Karma to burn.

      In the strictest sense, Catholics are Christians. They believe:

      "...in God, the Father Almighty,
      the Creator of heaven and earth,
      and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
      Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
      born of the Virgin Mary,
      suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried.
      He descended into hell.
      The third day He arose again from the dead.
      He ascended into heaven
      and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
      whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead..."

      This, from the Apostles Creed, recited by Catholics. This is actually from the "modern" version - I remember actually reciting the Traditional version when I was a Catholic.

      All Christians would agree with those phrases from the Creed.

      The problem that other Christians have is that some Catholic beliefs contradict the Bible, which most Cristians believe is without flaw (including Catholics).

      Problems include:
      "Intercessory prayer", in which one prays to Mary, or one of the other Saints to "intercede" for them, rather than praying directly to God. The Bible does not mention this behavior, and commands us to pray only to the one, true God (the holy trinity of the Fater, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are as one). In addition, the Catholics believe that one is addmitted into heaven on the basis of good works, rather than faith alone. The Bible does not agree. Catholics believe that sins are forgiven though a priest in confession (again in a sort of intercession to God). The Bible says that only God has the power to forgive all sins. At least a few other major problems exist, but I won't go into an exhaustive list here.

      Many of these beliefs did not exist in the early Christian church. The process of "indulgences" in which one bought "get out of jail free cards" from Catholic priests, so that they could freely sin did not emerge until the middle ages. In fact, it is indulgences primarly (along with other corruptions in the Catholic church) that caused the great schism (or the Protestant Reformation, depending on who you're talking to). Luther posted the 95 theses as a formal protest against the ways of the Catholic church. This made public the growing protest of many priests against the ways of the Catholic church.

      Some of the things which Luther protested against, such as the reciting of Mass in Latin, which was not understood in his native Germany (or to almost anyone outside the priesthood), and especially indulgences, have since been revised by the Catholic church. Others have not.

      In closing, to say that the "Catholic Church is genetically "more christian"" may be true, but is useless. The Catholic church is an institution. Institutions can and will become corrupted by men, especially those who believe themselves infallible (Catholics believe the Pope is infallible - other Christians do not).

      So I say your logic is flawed, for it does not account for corruption.

      Many Christians think of the Catholics as not being truly Christian, because their beliefs contradict the Bible.

      --
      // harborpirate
      // Slashbots off the starboard bow!
    279. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm force choking my chicken right now, so I'll have to get back to you on that one.

    280. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Perseus25 · · Score: 1

      Actually force is the *first* derivative of linear momentum, but i still enjoyed the joke ;)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

    281. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I regret to inform everyone, TripMaster Monkey was choked by the force.

    282. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Siener · · Score: 1

      note that the culture of the time placed equal weight on adoptive and biological fatherhood

      Do you have a reference to back that up?

      While you're at it please explain why there are two completely different genealogies for Jesus in the Bible

    283. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quiet. We can keep it to ourselves if you only think it.

    284. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Nimrangul · · Score: 1
      No, there were Christian Churhes before it became the major religion of Rome. It just so happens that the Romans decided to unite Christianity under one doctrine and leadership.

      The Roman Church destroyed the other churches.

      Before the uniting, there was a great deal of debate as to what Jesus was and how Mary played into all this and what the Bible meant to everyone.

      So the Holy Roman Church is the oldest remaining church of Christianity, not the first.

      We know Jesus did exist and he was probably killed, there are no major records talking about any of his supposed deeds, but there are records of his name from that era. He did want a new religion, he wanted the Jews to stop being a Race and become a Religion alone. He wanted everyone to be Jews and to be good people to everyone.

      The Jews didn't like the idea, so there was a split.

      He probably did not intend for much of what has happened and I highly doubt the Rabbis that wrote the Torah and mass of the Tanakh thought some wackos were going to come along and start another religion based on it all.

      Such is life though, you cannot take back a word that is said or a deed that is done.

      You don't need to go insulting people's mythology just because you don't like it.

      --
      I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
    285. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may experienced with so called "external" (physical) styles of martial arts, but it sounds like you have not really tried "internal" (energy based) arts like tai chi, chi gung or aikido, where you would learn that the "force" is an experiencial reality...

      Investigate the amazing feats performed by true masters of such arts such as Aikido's Ueshiba and you may change your mind, but if you are closed to it, your martial art practice will not reach perfection.

      Make sure you have a good teacher though!

    286. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      My daughter takes Aikido lessons. One of the instructors believes in the "Ki" energy and the senior instructor sees it as a physical discipline. They have a long running argument, and everything that the one instructor can do to demonstrate the "Ki" the other can do without claiming special powers. If there is some "force" it does not appear to be able to do anything we would consider supernormal.

    287. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      NOT trying to step on your beliefs or even those of the 'Jedi' or anyone else. I'll say right here I've run into some out there things myself and can claim there are a lot of things outside current scientific explanation.
      But that said the efficacy of acupunture (for pain controll) was tested a while back and it was shown those in the accupuncture group reported less pain than the controll group.
      However a recent study showed the SAME results are obtained when one does acupuncture 'by the book' and when one just wings it (same needles, but applied nearly at random).
      One suggestion was that the tiny pains of the needles cause the body to release more endorphins to deal with the pain. Another ascribes this effect to the placebo effect.
      Not that because we know how what was once mysterious works it suddenly becomes less than it is. A rose no matter what the chemist says still smells like a rose.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    288. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why is your name in your post three times?

      Wanker.

    289. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      A certain famous one claims to have produced fish out of thin air, and also cured paralysis and blindness amongst other unprovable, highly dubious things.

      He never claimed any such thing. Later authors, writing about 20-100 years after his death, claimed he did. That's not the same thing.

      We have enough evidence to believe in the factual existence of Jesus and in the authenticity of some of the precepts attributed to him (the important word here is 'some'), because they can be found in different early sources (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas). However it seems that all the magical stuff like raising the dead and creating food out of thin air appears only in the later sources.

      Thomas-

    290. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      And this is why Jimmy Hoffa is the new Messiah. They couldn't find that body either.

      Lets see how well this situation compares with the historical facts surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection:

      Jesus claimed he would rise from the dead on the third day. Jimmy Hoffa didn't.

      Jesus' death was witnesses and his body was placed in a guarded tomb. Jimmy Hoffa's wasn't.

      If Jesus was dead, it would have been possible for the authorities to prove it by producing the body. The authorities, on the other hand, did not know where Jimmy Hoffa's body was at any point.

      Hundreds claimed to see the body of the risen Lord Jesus and died still proclaiming that testimony, knowing if it was true or not. No-one has died claiming that they have seen Jimy Hoffa be resurrected.

    291. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      You think that just because the 'gospel record' says something, that it must automatically be true?

      Yes, I do. Anyway, the point is that the previous poster had made a claim for which there was no evidence and in fact contradicted the recorded facts.

    292. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      I think its an accurate critique. If a follower of a deity cannot even spell HIS name correctly (referring to him as "Jehovah" when his name is "Yeweh") then I do not place much stock in them or their message.

      I don't recall the Bible ever spelling God's name wrong and as it contains the Christian message, surely it is that you should evaluate, not people who claim the be Christian and get things wrong from time to time? Incidentally, the Hebrew is simply YHWH or YHVH. The assumed vowels would make it YAHWEH.

      And that's not even counting the fact that said sect has predicted the end of the world several times, giving the exact year of the end, and then being wrong each time.

      What sect? Some Baptists may have claimed to know the end of the world, but it's hardly the whole denomination, or even the majority of it and they flat out contradict the Bible, which is the final authority on Christianity, not the claims of any man. Jesus said in several places that we would not know the time when he would return. The practise of predicting when he would come back is in fact condemned in the Bible.

    293. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      That's another thing that bugs me, and I'm not a homosexual. *Christians* pulling stuff out the *Old Testament* and trying to place its restrictions on non-Jews.

      In the Old Testament, God revealed himself to the Jews as his chosen people. Part of that revelation was a revelation of his character, a revelation of activities that he abhorred. Another part was a revelation of how they were to act as a chosen people, in order to be a witness to the world. As an unchanging God, what we learn of his character then is still true now and activities he detests are still detestable, regardless of who commits them. The Jews were never supposed to keep what they knew of God to themselves. They were to be a light to the Gentiles and tell them about God. The ceremonial things, however, such as circumcision, are purely intended to mark out the Jewish people and are therefore not to be placed on Gentiles, as Paul makes clear in his letter to the Galatians.

      If *Christians* want to impose segments of Old Testament morality onto people, then they themselves better not eat pork, better not eat shellfish at Red Lobster

      In the book of Acts, such things are declared clean and edible by God, as sign that Gentiles are now clean and have access to the grace that Jesus offers.

      better not fail to beat their wives or children for being unruly and challenging their authority.

      There is a difference between disciplining and beating and every law must be applied within the context of the greatest commandments - love God with all you heart and soul and mind and strength and love your neighbour (including your wife and kids) as yourself. There are pretty clear guidelines in the New Testament about how to treat your wife e.g. Ephesians 5, where husbands are to love their wives as Christ does the church i.e. sacrificially, at a cost to himself.

      Or, the whole "eye for an eye" routine which is counter to the teachings of Jesus.

      Why do you think that? Jesus said he had come to uphold the law, not to abolish it and affirms every teaching of Scripture. 'An eye for an eye,' was not a requirement for revenge to be carried out - it was a restriction on punishments to be imposed. The punishment should fit the crime. If someone steals a sheep from you, you receive compensation rather than killing their family. Jesus says that while that is a good limit, it is even better to be merciful, as individuals.

      That's why the argument for stressing the *Ten Commandments* is absurd too. To a Christian, they are the *Ten Suggestions.*

      Again, I refer you to the words of Jesus in the sermon on the mount. He did not get rid of the law. In fact, he summarises it as the two greatest commandments and says that Christians should follow them.

      I also forgot that under the Old Testament, and even New Testament thinking, epileptics (sic) are to be treated as if they are possessed by evil spirits and exorcized instead of treating them with modern medicine.

      The Bible never mentions epilepsy. It mentions some people possessed by evil spirits and some of the symptoms may be the same, but it is very clear that it is a spiritual, rather than physical problem.

    294. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by vdboor · · Score: 1
      If you took them yourself, you'd know it was not some mystical "force" creating the power of those styles. Even in Asia, very few people believe in chi these days.

      Perhaps the following arguments don't hold water, but saying there isn't anything like Chi doesn't hold water either. Basides, not every martial art has a strong adherence to things like Chi.

      Your assumption does not explain why something like Reiki can have such a powerful impact on the human well-being. Strange at it may seam at first sight, but energy just appears to flow by laying down your hands. This energy can be felt by people sensitive to it. Even stranger, it appears animals also notice it, respond to it, ask for their share. It can sure give one a lot to think about.

      Things like Reiki have been measured with scientific equipment, and significant results have been noticed/observed by professional doctors. Perhaps there is indeed some scientific explanation behind this. You could interpretit this as something that binds all living things, or try to find an answer in quantum-mechanics/Einsteins vacuum equations. Those scientific models state things like "particles respond to each other without having a connection", "energy/particles pop-up, dissolve and form energy keeping the universe temperature above the absolute zero".

      --
      The best way to accelerate a windows server is by 9.81 m/s2 ;-)
    295. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And after Luke: 0 Sith, 1 Jedi.

    296. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Those who say 'Evolution is *just* a theory' don't actually understand what a theory is. They are confusing a theory with a hypothesis.

    297. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Asprin · · Score: 1


      I find your lack of faith disturbing.


      (...had to do it! :)

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    298. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's unfortunate that many practitioners of CM and of Asian martial arts have latched on to the idea that qi is some sort of electromagnetic like energy field. This is a misinterpretation, attempting to fit Taoist concepts of the Universe into a Platonic/Aristotelian grid."

      But that is what it feels like when I practice... It feels like some kind of thick "something" that I can compress or expand... I can't explain what's going on; I can just tell you what I observe...

      And you can't bring it down to simple nerve/elecrtical stuff since I can do it onto my Taichi classmates...

    299. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have never experienced it, you won't believe in it, or have any hope of really understanding it. If you have experienced it, you don't need convincing.

      Just like dragons.

      Sure, doctors and scientists might be able to describe it in bland chemical and physical terms, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      Dragons again!

      And when you do, you are missing most of the point.

      When I do what?

    300. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Actually, as far as everyone I've talked to, "chi," or "ki" as it's called here, is alive and well in Japan. As a student of aikido (guess what the "ki" stands for?) I can tell you there are thousands of firm believers. Also, my acupuncturist is doing a damn fine job believing in the stuff, and he has done wonders for my chronic back and shoulder problems.

      The Japanese believe in ki as simply a fact of being; to them, it is the energy that animates your body, much as we talk about having a spirit or a soul. They have the most amazing ability to not really care whether Westerners approve of it or not, either; rather, they simply seem bemused and wonder how one can *not* believe in it (like saying you don't believe in wind, for example.) Most of them just accept it and go on with their lives.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    301. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Kirth · · Score: 1

      *Just build a lightsaber. A real one. That's all.

      * Force choke me. From where you are right now. Go ahead...it's OK.


      So you'd expect christians to turn water into wine and to raise from the dead three days after being crucified?

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    302. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dylan_- · · Score: 1
      I don't know. Scientology is extremely well written.
      Then it must be true. Divine intervention is the only possible way L. Ron Hubbard could ever write "extremely well".
      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    303. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Heineken is _not_ a premium beer (although it's usually priced like one in Australia). I'll concede it's drinkable, but so is VB.

      Becks, otoh, is extremely nice - really hoppy and well-balanced malt.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    304. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      This Jedi faith is quaint, but you will be better off by far in the one true religion, The Elvites! Praise be unto The King!

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    305. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by qigong · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And you would argue out of ignorance. All of those theories are based on observation and founded in mathematics. The concept of 'chi' has no such foundation, and has not stood up to observation.

      Chinese Medicine is no less strigent of a science and based on thousands of years of observation, and trial and error, with a quarter of the world's population! It's creation was dependent on careful observation.

      But to refute your position that it has "not stood up to observation", I'll point you to 127 scientific medical publications on the topic, most of which would seem to support these theories:

      References

      I'm amused that you think a foundation of mathematics is a magic bullet; that somehow math magically makes hypotheses true. String theory is indeed based heavily on math, but it is far from achieving a conscensus in the scientific community on its "truth". In fact, there's plenty of debate on whether or not it even qualifies as science!

    306. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by kai.chan · · Score: 1

      Even in asia, fery few people believe in chi these days.

      This is inaccurate. I am not sure if you went to the wrong place, or if you did not speak the language, but I can guarantee you that "chi" is part of Chinese culture. There are always people practicing Tai Chi in China. There are always people demonstrating how the channeling of chi stops spears from harming the body.

      To take Bruce Lee's words as the end-all-be-all is where a lot of modern martial artists limit their knowledge. Bruce Lee was a martial artists who is good at the modern martial arts where the practitioner cannot devote their whole lives studying. Wing Chun (Bruce Lee's first martial arts) was developed by the Shaolin Monks to teach regular people how to defend themselves within a short period of time. The movements are made linear and direct.

      However, Shaolin Kung Fu and Chi is deeper than that. Linearity and directness becomes too simple to someone who devote day and night practicing. Shaolin Kung Fu and Chi Gong is very complex. However, people think it is impractical because it looks "flowery". The truth is, the "flowery" movements is required for at a higher level where linearity becomes too simple.

    307. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by qigong · · Score: 1
      My heart is moving. That's one difference, there are many other.

      Autorhythmicity... sure, that's certainly one difference. The ancients called that "tong chi". You're not alive because your heart is beating, though- it's the other way around. Even in Western medicine they call a heartbeat a "sign of life."

    308. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dvk · · Score: 1

      Can you do a split in a commodities market?

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    309. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      LOL! Wish I had the mod points today! :) Good one!

    310. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by badhack · · Score: 1

      I believe the word you're looking for is "transmogrify".

    311. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dvk · · Score: 1

      > The religious authorities hated him with a passion, yet they could not deny the miracles he performed. All they could do was claim that he had performed them by the power and the devil, rather than God.

      Eh? What are you smoknig and where can I get some?
      "the devil" that you mention was - guess what - a Cristian invention.

      That's right. Neither of the two religious authorities in existance in Israel at the time - Roman priests and/or Jewish Pharesees - had a concept of "devil".

      BTW, "The religious authorities hated him with a passion" is just as much bullshit.

      The *authorities* hated him with a passion 'cause he was undermining them by having mass following. Theological issues nonwithstanding. If he was just a simple violator of the First commandment (which he was), they most likely wouldn't have bothered with him - the self-declared messiahs at the time were a dime a dozen. Worst thing they would have done would have been excommunicate him, or whatever the proper technical term for the procedure was in Judaism at that time.

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    312. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by magarity · · Score: 1

      If Lucas counts as one, lots

      Since he isn't British, I'd say he doesn't count in the UK census.

    313. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Denn du bist, was du isst.

    314. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by StormKrow · · Score: 1

      I find your lack of faith, disturbing.

      --
      Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
    315. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by rhakka · · Score: 1

      you're right, I wasn't very clear. I meant to post that in the last response but I had already hit "submit" lol..

    316. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      "the devil" that you mention was - guess what - a Cristian invention.

      That's right. Neither of the two religious authorities in existance in Israel at the time - Roman priests and/or Jewish Pharesees - had a concept of "devil".

      Actually they did. He appears in Genesis and Job for example. The Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons 'by the prince of demons.' They also refer to him as Beelzebul.

      BTW, "The religious authorities hated him with a passion" is just as much bullshit.

      The *authorities* hated him with a passion

      That sounds a little contradictory, or have I misunderstood something?

      'cause he was undermining them by having mass following. Theological issues nonwithstanding. If he was just a simple violator of the First commandment (which he was), they most likely wouldn't have bothered with him - the self-declared messiahs at the time were a dime a dozen. Worst thing they would have done would have been excommunicate him, or whatever the proper technical term for the procedure was in Judaism at that time.

      What point are you trying to make? How does this relate to them being unable to disprove his miracles and on the contrary verifying them?

    317. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For this "christ" to have died, he would have had to have lived.

      There is quite a bit of evidence that he didn't.

    318. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by essreenim · · Score: 0
      "I see you have constructed a new lightsaber." -- Darth Vader in ROTJ wielding Luke's new lightsaber. Luke lost Annakin's old lightsaber because it was still being held by the arm that fell onto Bespin in ESB.

      If I remember correctly though, it wasn't so much the significance of it being new as in "new car"... but "new" as in modified. Wasn't the handle much larger in his new light sabre in ROTJ, with a magnet 'thingy' on it or something...

    319. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1

      Nice reference. It made me fall out of my chair and have a floor-gasm :)

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    320. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      I'd like to add that, in fact, things that are 100% based on mathematics are quite certainly not applicable to the real world.

      Science that base their theories on mathematics work by making observations and constructing mathematical formulas to generalize their observations. But then those observations can be false or inaccurate, or that the generalization does not work (*).

      The only reason why "pure" mathematics is "true" is because we believe it is true. Think about it. All the axioms in mathematics do not have further explanations other than "how can that be false?!". But that's practically no different to "we think it's true, no further questions".

      (*): This is how science works:
      f(1) = 2, f(2) = 4, f(3) = 6, f(4) = 8, ... [finite observations]... etc therefore f(x) = x * 2. As you can easily see, it's possible for such generalizations to fail.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    321. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by HG+Slashdot · · Score: 0

      Mod me down and I shall become more powerfull than you could ever imagine
      Wow it works thanks for the advice :)

      --
      j0b.org - A famous domain name for sale
    322. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

      You stated: "The Roman Church is the first Christian Church."

      According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
      The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

      The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.

      The Bible says that the Christian church was founded in Jerusalem and not in Rome. Furthermore, Peter was not the head of this church James was.

      Jesus was a fanatical Jew and had absolutely NO intention of founding a new religion of any kind
      You are correct. Jesus did not want to start a new "religion" like Catholicism. True Christianity is not a religion

    323. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's only wafer thin...

    324. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by lyphorm · · Score: 1

      Apparently nobody with mod points gets it...

      Unfortunately I don't have any mod points, or I would have used them all on the parent.

      --
      ______-___--_-__-_---_-----__-_-___-_-_---_-----_- __--_____
    325. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      However a recent study showed the SAME results are obtained when one does acupuncture 'by the book' and when one just wings it (same needles, but applied nearly at random).

      Interesting, but other studies disagree and have found quite specific response using the traditional points.

      The points are also quite distinct when self-acupressure is applied.

      Of course, it's entirely possible that if you took a random guy off the steeet and told him "stick a needle here" you'd get no better results if he was righ on top of a point than if he was a little off. Proper stimulation of acupoints requires skill, and part of the ambiguity of studies of acupuncture (or any treament) is how much what goes on in the lab resembles what goes on in clinical practice. Studies that attempt to use acupuncture outside of the assessment/diagnostic framework of Chinese medicine, for example, are pretty useless (it's not as simple as "needle here for headache").

      One suggestion was that the tiny pains of the needles cause the body to release more endorphins to deal with the pain. Another ascribes this effect to the placebo effect.

      Certainly the placebo effect plays a role in any treatment - including modern Western drugs and surgery. (Goole "placebo surgery" sometime,it's fascinating.) But acupuncture has been consistently found to have a greater effect than placebo alone - and is also effective in animals, where it's difficult to attribute a placebo effect.

      And the endorphin link is well known, it probably is another factor in the physiological action of acupuncture and moxabustion.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    326. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Jesus was a fanatical follower of the Jewish Law as was his followers, some of whom were likely Sicarii as well, who were the world's first "terrorists" in their operations.

      Indeed, the cult was founded in Israel, but it was Paul who launched the Roman Church after being driven out of Israel by the Jews incensed by his alteration of doctrine and his confrontation with Jesus's brother in Jerusalem. Paul was a Roman double agent who infiltrated the cult and then hijacked it for his own purposes. This is established by the Dead Sea scrolls.

      The Roman Church was started by Paul, who reversed Jesus's doctrine 180 degrees. What most moron Christians do not comprehend is that the ENTIRE Christian doctrine spouted by Catholics and fundamentalists alike was created by PAUL, NOT Jesus. Jesus's doctrine seems to be simply the Jewish Law with perhaps some spiritual modifications of the sort mentioned in some of the apocryphal works that have surfaced. Jesus said nothing about him "redeeming" mankind, or about resurrection, or celibacy for priests (since as a Jewish rabbi, he was REQUIRED to be married), or any of the rest of the nonsense comprising the Christian doctrine today.

      And I repeat, the Bible has been so rewritten and edited over the centuries that anybody expecting to find Jesus's real doctrine in it is hopelessly confused. Jefferson made his "Jefferson Bible" out of the moral teachings in it and dumped the rest. If this is to be considered "true Christianity", it is pointless because the term "Christianity" has been applied to the doctrines of the Roman Church and its schisms for two thousand years. Find another name for it.

      In any event, it is IRRELEVANT what HE believed since the doctrines that Christians espouse today - from ANY quarter - are based entirely on Paul's doctrine and the various schisms that have occurred since then.

      And those doctrines are both ignorant and malicious and have done untold damage to the human species for two thousand years.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    327. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're at it please explain why there are two completely different genealogies for Jesus in the Bible

      It's a miracle!

      HTH

    328. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. That is just so ignorant on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. Go back to basket weaving, where you belong.

    329. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Furry*Hatchet · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing that one out, so I didn't have to.

    330. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by cswiii · · Score: 1

      No, he means transubstantiation.

    331. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Bun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only reason why "pure" mathematics is "true" is because we believe it is true. Think about it.

      I suggest you think about it. Mathematical proof are proofs of logic and are inherently self-consistent. They are therefor about as 'true' as anything can be in this world. While mathematics doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality as we see (and measure) it, it just so happens that in many cases it does. If mathematics *didn't* serve as a useful tool to describe physical processes and observed phenomena, we wouldn't be communicating through the interaction of about 500 devices right now, none of which would be even possible to conceive of, let alone construct, without mathematics.

      This is how science works:
      f(1) = 2, f(2) = 4, f(3) = 6, f(4) = 8, ... [finite observations]... etc therefore f(x) = x * 2. As you can easily see, it's possible for such generalizations to fail.


      Your understanding of how science works is misguided. To use your (limited) analogy, it is more like:
      We observe 2, 4, 6, 8
      We postulate, f(x)=2x, x=1, 2, ...
      We predict: f(5)=10, f(6)=12, f(7)=14
      We measure again: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16
      We conclude theory is ok for x=5 and look for physical reasons why it falls off, and attempt to refine the theory.

      --
      "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
    332. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Bun · · Score: 1

      Oops. Tried to right in for x less than or equal to 5, but don't know enough HTML to get the less than sign to appear.

      --
      "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
    333. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by badhack · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It appears they have nearly the same definition. (A detailed analysis of the differences in a reply will be both annoying and not necessary.)

    334. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by blueskies · · Score: 1

      any more than most musicians are deeply interested in the physics of sound, or the physiology of hearing.

      I guess you haven't talked to any trained opera singers or advanced vocalists. The one I know has books analyzing the physics of sound, the physiology of creating sound, and the physiology of hearing.

    335. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by CoronalPendragon · · Score: 1
      two words: Godels Theorem

      Mathematics can not prove itself.

    336. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Bun · · Score: 1

      "Mathematics can not prove itself."

      Fine. ...They are therefore about as 'true' as anything can be in this world

      What part of that statment was absolute?

      --
      "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
    337. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      Ya think!?!

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    338. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by v00d00420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Obviously the one year it took you to get a 3rd degree bb "tae kwon do" taught you all there is to know about martial arts. Tae Kwon Do And "Jin Jitsu" (I assume you mean jiu-jitsu) are not martial arts at all. One (TKD) is a bastardized sport-version of a once-beautiful form (Tae Kyon) made for whities with no patience for a real art, and the other is a group of martial skills with a focus on grappling, also intended for sport. Therein lies the difference between a martial art and a martial skill, the art component is the learning of chi and breath control, self-reflection and meditation, without which you have only martial skill, a set of techniques designed to score points or hurt people. Real martial artists don't only believe in chi, entire arts are based solely on the movement of chi(Aikido, Hapkido, tai chi), and most forms include chi manipulations as part of their core curriculum. Bruce Lee believed very strongly in chi, implementing blindfolding exercises into JKD in order to expand the students mind. That said, IMHO anyone who calls themselves a Jedi is definitely a douche. Dan S Student of the Way

    339. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jedi Order of the real world more follows the code of the Jedi. Not all of them believe that the force is real and that they can build a real lightsabre. Idiot.

    340. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      With respects, Sensei Adcock:

      C.M. Shifflet makes the point in her books, pertaining to Ki Society Aikido, that there are noticeable physical effects that are observable from something as simple as changing what you are thinking about from something positive to something negative.

      Now, maybe somewhere down the line we'll have the science to explain that. Maybe somewhere down the line we'll have the science to explain that there is no such thing as free will and that a human of configuration X, given inputs Y and Z, will make a decision whose outcomes can be described by a probability function very exactly.

      It is quite possible that down the road we'll discover that what we know about the human condition, while not wrong, is incomplete. Perhaps the Force does not exist as a telekinetic power. But perhaps there is something to be said for the mind having an ability to affect the physical world.

      I forget the particular luminary who said this (I'm sure someone in the erudite /. audience will recall and correct my quotation):

      If a great man of science tells you a thing is possible, he is almost certainly right. If he tells you something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong.

      There is a certain wisdom in this. Over the course of time, we have discovered many things. And then later yet, we have discovered others that totally revamped our understanding of our original discoveries. Perhaps this is something of that variety.

      Then again, it could just all be a made up hokey religion which just won't hold up against a blaster...

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    341. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      I guess now you're going to tell me there are no Freudlings either?

      Sure, but they were all playing with their lightsabers.... or maybe that was just a cigar...?

      (I should be giving Mel Brooks royalties after using that joke)
      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    342. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Luthair · · Score: 1

      The last study I saw about acupuncture showed that being jabbed with a needle in 'the wrong areas' had the exact same effect as being poked 'in the right areas'; the effect of both was apparently beneficial.

      Most studies on eastern medicine have shown that they have no effect. Don't forget that some members promote ideas like eating tiger gonads for an aphrodisiac.

    343. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      Xinji-Kwan, Chin-Na, Doro-Jitsu, Kyusho-Jitsu, and Shinjukki-Jin all deal with "chi". just because Someone only mentions two styles of martial arts does not mean that they have not trained in others. I don't know many high ranking black belts who only know one style of martial arts.

      My instructors have almost always been great martialists. Master Dennis Conway is my current instructor, and I'm hard pressed to think of anyone I've ever trained with who was a better instructor.

      Just because some small kid can beat the hell out of the huge guy at the bar dosen't mean he uses Chi to do it... Sometimes all it takes is a propper stance and punching as hard and as fast as you can.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    344. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sugar pills have also been proven to help reduce the chances of heart attack by as much as 7% in lab tests. Does this mean that sugar is good for the heart? No! People thought they were taking heart medicine, so they reported feeling better, had less stress, and had fewer heart attacks.

      If you THINK something will help, it probably will. It's called the placeabo effect, and even works with eastern medicine.

    345. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've trained in TaeKwonDo for 16 years. And Shinjukki-Jin Jitsu has nothing to do with Jin Jitsu. Shunjukki-Jin translates into "small man". It was developed from Kyusho-Jitsu and Doro-Jitsu as a way for anyone, even the small man, to end a fight quickly.

      How does blindfolding yourself improve your chi? Is it the same way that people who become blind say that their hearing gets better? That instead of using your eyes, you use your ears? I don't see how this and Chi have anything to do with one another?

      You want to prove Chi to me? Show me proof of the fabled one touch kill? The closest thing I've ever seen was a good solid punch to the adam's apple... And boy did that do the trick!

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    346. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      The study I heard about (program on local radio) mentioned that they were studying pain and stress relief. They used accredited/liscensed acupuncturist on the group getting accupuncture and medical personell (RN's mostly a few md's and lpn IIRC) for the other group.
      But again it is just one study, however the result seem reasonably credible and make sense.
      At any rate I suspect the human body is sufficiently complex to make simple answers less likely.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    347. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      We need to forget that George Lucas ever made up the idea of midiclorians. Kind of the same way that we try to forget that they ever made a Highlander 2. Kind of the way the new Superman movie pretends that the series stopped after the second movie and that's where they're picking up.

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    348. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words: "you just don't get it, and I don't have to argue with you, la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you". Pathetic. If you really believe in these concepts, shouldn't you at least be able to discuss them? Shouldn't you be able to admit at least a theoretical possibility that your opponent is right, not you? And if you find that your opponent has the better arguments and that there's nothing you can say anymore, then shouldn't you be able to contemplate these arguments in hopes of reaching a better understanding of what things really are like?

      You're really just a weak-minded idiot who resorts to the classic "I'm right because I'm right" defense, and you even do it in a rather condescending way. I pity you.

    349. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by dual_boot_brain · · Score: 1
      ummm how about respiration, circulation, and brain function? If you are older then 10 and don't understand the difference between pre-mortum body and a post-mortum body then my only suggestion is to learn about the above. Particularly neuroscience.

      Then again, why bother educating yourself when you can remain ignorant and just play the race card when someone calls you on it.

      --
      There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
    350. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Digz · · Score: 1
      Not just assumptions. Proof is given in Revelations 5 (and more, just a quick response)

      REV 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

      Check out this for a more in-depth discussion.

      --
      SYS 64738
    351. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Digz · · Score: 1
      Wha? Church fathers disagree with the Catholic Church? You do realize that the corpus of fathers' writings make up the Magesterium, no? It was the writings of the Church fathers that led me to embrace the Catholic Church.

      This should remove any doubt that the fathers were far more Catholic than Protestant.

      --
      SYS 64738
    352. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by v00d00420 · · Score: 1

      Ok, Pal, You've studied 16 years of tae kwon do. (That doesn't make it a real martial art) Dim-Mak is probably a myth. I'm not aware of any reliable recordings of it's demonstration. Tai Chi has a similar principle called vibrating palm, which is demonstrated at many martial arts exhibits, but I digress. Chi is measurable in western science, and simply accepted in eastern philosophy. I'll explain in the example we have for some, unexplainable reason fixated on in the course of this discussion.

      Blindfolding: I'll break this down into western and eastern views of this principle. In western terms, blindfolding reduces the stimulus entering your brain via the optic nerve, hence allowing your brain time to process other forms of stimuli. These include not only hearing, but also somacentric(deep body in western science, hana or center in eastern doctrine) senses as well. The chi aspect comes in the form of electro chemical charges(chi) stored in the cell soma of our neurons. The less neurons are firing, the more action potential builds in those neurons, allowing neurons to respond to significantly more subtle stimuli. In other words, the less stimulation you receive with your eyes, the more electro-chemical energy(Chi) is stored up in your brain cells ready to fire.

      Western science can measure the level of electro chemical energy(chi) in our brains and CNS in volts. Moreover, western science has documented that exercises such as deep breathing, blindfolding, and meditation increase the levels of said energy significantly, a fact that martial artists and acupuncturists have known for years.

      I'm skeptical that someone with 20 years of martial arts experience would be asking these questions, instead of seeking the answers for themselves. I'm not suggesting you're lying, just that maybe it's time for you to take a true martial art and feel it for yourself. Tae Kwon Do is for little kids.

      Regards,

      Dan

    353. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's been posted in different formats a couple of times now, but just because you believe doesn't mean you can achieve. If we place ourselves in the universe of the Jedi, can we call anyone in that universe who believes the Jedi exist a Jedi? No, because the Jedi have 'powers' which vary. But in this universe, perhaps we can call anyone a 'Jedi' who believes that such powers may/do exist, even if they themselves do not possess them.

      Of course, maybe we all possess the power... It's just that Alec Guinness never taught us how to use it...

    354. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by galego · · Score: 1
      Force choke me. From where you are right now. Go ahead...it's OK.

      Ya see though ... that would be something a Sith would do ... not a Jedi Knight.

      --

      Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas

      [May God give you double that which you wish for me]

    355. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... as an anonymous coward... *snickers*... where was I...

      Just because the senior instructor doesn't claim special powers (by special I mean spiritual or super-physical, though clearly not super-human, if anyone can learn them) doesn't mean he doesn't have them, or that he isn't using them without realizing or admitting it.

  2. Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
    1. Re:Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cast off your old name! Your Jedi name isIBEVI CRMAI of the planet imodium!

      Find your Jedi Name!

    2. Re:Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by techfury90 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cast off your old name! Your Jedi name isIBEVI CRMAI of the planet imodium!
      Sounds a bit constipated.

      --
      I'm friends with the youngest daughter of the former head of the PowerPC division of IBM you insensitive clod!
    3. Re:Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PETER COFON of the planet Cialas!

    4. Re:Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by flood6 · · Score: 1
      Imodium is not a prescription drug. You've been kicked out of the order for not following the rules.

      I, on the other hand, am SMIDA EAHOU of the planet Levitra!

    5. Re:Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by ehiris · · Score: 1

      I want to see Jedi soccer players playing the Shaolin soccer players.

    6. Re:Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I think I got an email from you today. Why do you want me to buy your planet?

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    7. Re:Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by flood6 · · Score: 1
      I think I got an email from you today. Why do you want me to buy your planet?

      No, that's the dumb-ass planet next-door, "L@veetra". Outlanders get us confused us all the time.

    8. Re:Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by kusanagi374 · · Score: 1

      Mine is way cooler:

      MÜLRA PABEN of the planet Xanax!

      Totally calm by nature, just like everyone else from my home planet.

  3. Scared by islandrain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only person who doesn't see the Jedi belief system flawed? I could only imagine the devestation to the republic if this became popular.

    --
    Peace out, homies.
    1. Re:Scared by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Do you hear that sound in the background? It's crickets.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:Scared by m50d · · Score: 1

      Seems less flawed than most popular religions. Respect for life, protecting the weak but never being aggressive, don't fear, don't be angry, don't hate. Also, crucially, no claim to be the one true faith, no claim that other gods are false. Sounds a very good religion to me.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Britain isn't even a republic, let alone The Republic. It's a kingdom...

    4. Re:Scared by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      I follow that religion then. Without the hand waving.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    5. Re:Scared by mrogers · · Score: 1

      If that's the religion you want, just tear the first 500 pages out of your Bible. Er, and the last 200 pages. Come to think of it, just tear out Matthew's Gospel and staple it along one side.

    6. Re:Scared by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      And thus why it will never become popular. The true point in religion isn't to explain the unknown. Its to give a sense of belonging and exclusion. It sets you above another segment of the population because they are "wrong" while connecting you to another because they are "right". Religions schism for much the same reason- not because the differences are so major, but to increase the exclusivity, to make people think they're above a greater population. A religion based on equality and kindness doesn't provide that, and doesn't work. Its not like it hasn't been tried- the Christians tried it, the Buddhist tried it. The end result- Christians perhaps killed more people in religious wars than any other religion in history, and Buddhism split into dozens of small sects which sneer at each other over who follows the teachings closer.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    7. Re:Scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the last 200 pages are the best part.

      "Hic sapientia est. Qui habet intellectum, computet numerum bestiae. Numerus enim hominis est, et numerus eius est sescenti sexaginta sex"

      I mean, who can't like a religion with that sort of damn fine shit being smoked?

    8. Re:Scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the sound of leather on willow when I visit England.

    9. Re:Scared by qyiet · · Score: 0

      I also find disturbing the popularity with politicians, I dread to think what would happen if a zealot of this (or a jedi splinter group) held power.

    10. Re:Scared by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      The true point in religion isn't to explain the unknown. Its to give a sense of belonging and exclusion.

      I'd disagree.. the true meaning of religion is to disipline one's self to be prepared to the hereafter.

      Of course, the danger lies when people extrapolate this disipline into community and politics.

      Pan

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    11. Re:Scared by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      You might get that idea from Christianity, but msot religiosn do not have the fixation on death it has. Judaism doesn't mention an afterlife. Buddhism teaches reincarnation, but an impersonal reincarnation where no self is carried over. Its really only Christianity and Islam that focus on the afterlife.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    12. Re:Scared by agraupe · · Score: 1

      You're the first person I've seen today who "gets it". I am not a Jedi, but I can tell (and it's fairly obvious) that people who identify them as Jedis are clear on the fact that they cannot *actually* use the Force and so on. But the concepts that you've listed above are at least as good as any other religion, and without all the craziness.

    13. Re:Scared by m50d · · Score: 1

      Don't you still have Jesus teaching that loving his god is more important than loving your neighbor, and getting angry with the whole money-changers-in-the-temple thing?

      --
      I am trolling
    14. Re:Scared by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      No, actually I don't get that idea.

      In Buddhism, there is reincarnation, but from my talks with many of them - there is also a potential for the perfection of the spirit. Upon perfection one may attain obtain the ultimate goal to escape the cycle of death and rebirth. To obtain nirvana is the final goal.

      In Judiasm, it is believed that the afterlife does exist - however it is quite open to interpretation. What the Torah does say is that the righteous will be reunited with their loved ones after death, while the wicked will be excluded from this reunion.

      I would disagree that only Christianity and Islam focus on the afterlife. In truth, the older religions focus on the immediacy of life and it's consequences, which the newer ones focus on the eventuality that one will die, and how one's life has figured into a judgement (whether by God or otherwise).

      Perhaps these "attitudes" towards death are due to the life spans of people during the times they were revealed to mankind - but it doesn't really matter. They each contain Truth, and to say they don't focus on the afterlife is to ignore an important part of each.

      All these religions have immaculate beauty to me, and I am fortunate to live in a place, day and age when we can discuss and contemplate their many facets.

      -Pan

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  4. There is nothing to see here. by dstewart · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is not the article you are looking for.

    --
    Not every argument requires reduction to absurdity.
    1. Re:There is nothing to see here. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative


      This isn't offtopic; it's an obscure reference to Star Wars ep. IV

      It's hardly obscure...it's probably the most heavily quoted/referenced line from episode IV.

      Don't blame the mods...they're on crack...they really can't help themselves.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:There is nothing to see here. by dstewart · · Score: 1

      They can't help it, it just wasn't very funny.

      Now this, THIS is funny!

      http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=15432 2&cid=12943127

      --
      Not every argument requires reduction to absurdity.
    3. Re:There is nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you do anything other than post on slashdot?

    4. Re:There is nothing to see here. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1, Flamebait


      Do you do anything other than post on slashdot?

      Actually, in a few minutes, I'll be going over to my fiancee's place of employment, to surprise her with flowers and take her out to dinner (it's her birthday), so I won't be posting much during that time.

      Thanks for caring, though.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    5. Re:There is nothing to see here. by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      It's a trap!

    6. Re:There is nothing to see here. by kisielk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hopefully she doesn't read slashdot as much as you, otherwise it will no longer be much of a surprise ;)

    7. Re:There is nothing to see here. by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      it's probably the most heavily quoted/referenced line from episode IV

      I'd say "Use the force" beats it handily.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    8. Re:There is nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An avid slashdot reader like you has a girlfriend?

      I call BS.

    9. Re:There is nothing to see here. by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Only on slashdot will you get modded flamebait for answering a question put to you.

    10. Re:There is nothing to see here. by Ill_Omen · · Score: 2, Funny

      I feel sorry for the women who do regularly read Slashdot but don't know their boyfriends' Slashdot IDs, who are sitting at work wondering when the flowers are arriving.

    11. Re:There is nothing to see here. by StikyPad · · Score: 0

      I feel sorry for the women who do regularly read Slashdot

      HAHAHAHahahahahahaha... women regularly reading Slashdot.... that's a good one.

      Wait, you were being serious?

      HA! You almost had me there. Ahhh.. wiping the tears, wiping the tears.

    12. Re:There is nothing to see here. by stor · · Score: 1

      Actually, in a few minutes, I'll be going over to my fiancee's place of employment, to surprise her with flowers and take her out to dinner (it's her birthday), so I won't be posting much during that time.

      This was modded informative. TM, you might want to ensure you're not being followed. Good man.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  5. They'd already controlled it. by Musteval · · Score: 0

    I can't say this is too much of a surprise. The Jedi already had a stranglehold on Parliament, and actually having a member IN it merely seals the deal.

    --
    Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
  6. Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Silverlancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is not the congressman you're looking for.

    1. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by s20451 · · Score: 4, Funny

      At first I thought it was ridiculous to openly espouse a hokey religion invented by a science fiction hack. But then I realized, it sure helped this guy ...

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    2. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 1

      How long before we have a Congressional equivelant?
      We had one, from the Mahoning Valley in Ohio. He is currently in Federal Prison. James Traficant, D, representitive from Ohio. He completed his speeches with the phrase "Beam me up Scotty." He wore an amazingly bad toupee with sideburns, and wore leisure suits on the House floor. He was a Democrat who voted with the Republicans.

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    3. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Nytewynd · · Score: 1

      On the contrary. TC is being raked over the coals by the media for his ridiculous hyping of his religion. If he wasn't already huge, he would be laughed out of Hollywood.

      --
      /. ++
    4. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by justforaday · · Score: 1

      But I thought he was a Sith. At least, that's the impression I got from that video of him and Oprah...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    5. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by shawnce · · Score: 1

      hokey religion

      Isn't "hokey" redundant in the above?

    6. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

      I assure you, Tom Cruise is successful IN SPITE OF his espousing of a hokey religion invented by a science fiction hack.

    7. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call "lead role in the latest Spielburg film" being all that difficult.

      At any rate, though, it's really hard for me to look at either him or Travolta andnot see "vapid brainwashee." Even their smiles frighten me.

    8. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh oh! now you have done it. your name has just been entered into a database in Clearwater, FL.

      I would suggest changing your name and moving before it is too late.

    9. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Skimming through the Wikipedia article on Scientology, I really think Hubbard should've gone through and made a movie version of the scientology back-story. It would've been a pretty fun B-rated sci-fi flick:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Xenu

      Most famously, those who reach OT level III will learn about Xenu, the galactic tyrant who stacked hundreds of billions of his frozen victims around Earth's volcanoes 75 million years ago before blowing them up with hydrogen bombs and brainwashing them with a "three-D, super colossal motion picture" for 36 days. The traumatised thetans subsequently clustered around human bodies, in effect acting as invisible spiritual head lice that can only be removed using advanced Scientology techniques. Reportedly, the cost of reaching OT III approaches $360,000.

  7. Rawr! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Sith, I must protest this!

  8. Hmmm by Bonzor · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of him!

  9. Needless to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The farce is strong in this one.

  10. Read his speech I did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is how he introduced himself in the house of commons today:

    "Mr. Speaker, yes, Jedi I am"

  11. Answer by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

    How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?

    Oh, but we have. Problem is... they're all Siths. And the greedy kind.

    1. Re:Answer by shut_up_man · · Score: 4, Funny

      So... the greedy kind of Sith, eh? As opposed to the kind, gentle, happy Sith who does charity work on the weekends and pats kittens?

    2. Re:Answer by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Emperor Palpatine wasn't greedy. Neither Vader. They wanted power, not money.

    3. Re:Answer by sdemelo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I Disagree. Greedy has nothing to do with what you want. Greedy is all about how much you want.

    4. Re:Answer by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Green Greedo is greedy. Agree?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    5. Re:Answer by Brandybuck · · Score: 0

      I hope never! Jedis are evil. Jedis are anti freedom. Jedis are tyrants. Don't believe me, believe the six movies about Jedis so see the truth.

      These aren't the good guys. They're also stupid and inconsistant. A Jedi congressman will not govern by ration and reason, but by "searching his feelings." They will agitate for a return to a corrupt and undemocratic republic. They will spy on their superiors, ignore violations of their own code if committed by one of their own, steal children away from their parents, and force the government to fund their religion.

      By God man, they don't even show remorse when fscking around in people's minds! They have no compunctions against cheating businessmen using mind control. This is what Orwell warned us against!

      Would *YOU* want someone who would unquestioningly accept a clone army from an unknown source to be on a defense procurement committee?

      Yes, I know that Jedi aren't real. But the thought of congressment who would willingly adopt the Jedi code as a philosophy of behavior chills me to the bone.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:Answer by KagatoLNX · · Score: 1

      I would give almost anything to watch Dick Cheney and John Kerry duke it out with red light sabers, force push, force throw, force lightning, etc. on the floor of Congress.

      I'd watch CSPAN for THAT!

      I'd love to see some House of Representatives lightsaber battles too!

      --
      I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
    7. Re:Answer by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      The difference between greed, ambition, vanity, and lust is only in what it is you obsessed with taking.

      All is entrapment in desire. The rest is merely flavor and color.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    8. Re:Answer by JofCoRe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Precisely. The Sith philosophy is all about power. (and grabbing the universe by the balls and shaping it to your will :)

      Peace is a lie, there is only passion
      Through passion I gain strength
      Through strength I gain power
      Through power I gain victory
      In victory my chains are broken
      The force shall free me

      --

      Place sig here.
    9. Re:Answer by noamsml · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yep, sounds like the president ofthe US

    10. Re:Answer by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      That would be the most evil sith of all. It's the perfect cover.

    11. Re:Answer by rbarreira · · Score: 1
      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  12. They get Jedi by MECC · · Score: 5, Funny

    "How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?"

    They get Jedi, we get Sith...

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:They get Jedi by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 0

      They get Jedi, we get Sith...

      Now that's funny.

      --
      Quality Hosting e3 Servers
    2. Re:They get Jedi by BiloxiGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please use a spell checker next time. I think what you meant to post was:

      They get Jedi, we get Shit...

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.
    3. Re:They get Jedi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Sith deal in absolutes.

    4. Re:They get Jedi by MrTick · · Score: 1

      Like the dyslexics always say... Sith Happens.

    5. Re:They get Jedi by IcyNeko · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, the Sith are there to confuse and mislead people, sometimes appearing as Jedi... So maybe our Jedi friend in parliament is really a Sith, and bush is... the master? Darth Stupidious?

    6. Re:They get Jedi by B5_geek · · Score: 1

      Oh my...
      I now have spewed Coke all over my monitor and keyboard. Everybody in the office is looking at me, and I almost fell out of my chair!!!

      Fuck that was funny.

      Good job. You just made my week!

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    7. Re:They get Jedi by IcyNeko · · Score: 2, Funny

      Easily influenced by the powers of the farce, eh? Force Coke Spit!

    8. Re:They get Jedi by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      If we have sith, then why is our president JarJar binks?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:They get Jedi by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      They get Jedi, we get Sith...

      Isn't that better? After all, to be a wise and effective leader, one must embrace a larger view of the force.

    10. Re:They get Jedi by Avenger337 · · Score: 1
    11. Re:They get Jedi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, one night while playing City of Heroes I did run into Darth Cheney.

    12. Re:They get Jedi by julesh · · Score: 1

      So maybe our Jedi friend in parliament is really a Sith, and bush is...

      Darth Ane?
      Darth Sipid?
      Darth Ept?
      Darth Crediblystupid?
      Darth Stitutionalizable?
      Darth Natemoron?
      Darth Cestuous?
      Darth Fantile?
      Darth Humane? ...
      Darth Dictable?

    13. Re:They get Jedi by IcyNeko · · Score: 1

      I'm more of a fan of Jedi Master Jon Stewart and his Council at the Daily Show.

    14. Re:They get Jedi by Selanit · · Score: 1

      Because in our republic, Palpatine ran for vice president with a handy sock puppet as his running mate.

    15. Re:They get Jedi by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      He just hasn't revealed himself yet. Remember, in Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine reveals himself to be the a Sith lord only after the cause for extending his term - the war against the trade federation, which he orchestrated - ends. Your republic's war on terror is still on...

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  13. perfect... by Stir · · Score: 0

    We already have an Emperor and a Vader. Before long we'll be ready for a rebellion.

    1. Re:perfect... by robertjw · · Score: 1

      And a Death Star. Woo Hoo!

  14. Oy vey by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 4, Funny

    As if there wasn't enough lunacy in Parliament.

    1. Re:Oy vey by Jonny_eh · · Score: 1

      At least they can prove someone's not a Vulcan by doing a blood test.

    2. Re:Oy vey by mbrewthx · · Score: 5, Funny

      A strange green man lying in a swamp handing out Lightsabers is no basis for a system of Government.
      Help!!Help!!! I'm being opressed..

      --
      __________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
    3. Re:Oy vey by m50d · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't notice, he's using it to point out the insanity of the proposed religious hatred bill, not seriously claiming he should have protection as a Jedi.

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:Oy vey by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Oh, but for the lack of points mod I.

      Very, very funny.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    5. Re:Oy vey by stienman · · Score: 1


      Mixing movie quotes is like pinning the tail on the horse after it has left the barn.

      -Adam

    6. Re:Oy vey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, if I ran around telling everyone I was Darth Vader just because some green muppet lobbed a lightsaber at me, they'd put me away!

    7. Re:Oy vey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant.

    8. Re:Oy vey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A strange green man lying in a swamp handing out Lightsabers is no basis for a system of Government.

      Very true.

      The only thing it has going for it is that it makes more sense than a system of Government based on self-interest, public deceit, and business-led consumer slavery.

    9. Re:Oy vey by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but we still see that there is violence inherent in the system:)

      ...bloody peasants!

    10. Re:Oy vey by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

      A strange green man lying in a swamp handing out Lightsabers is no basis for a system of Government.
      Help!!Help!!! I'm being opressed..


      monty python and star wars together at last. My life has found completion...on slashdot. Oh suicide is the only option. Good bye cruel mods...

      --

      If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

    11. Re:Oy vey by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look, if I went around saying a little green leperchaun taught me how to lift rocks with my mind they'd put me away!

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  15. So when will we have... by rminsk · · Score: 1

    So this has clear the way to have our first Starfleet member of Parliament. This is a great day indeed.

    1. Re:So when will we have... by ipxodi · · Score: 1

      Why not? We've already had a Starfleet officer serve on Jury Duty for a high profile court case.

      --
      load "windows7" ,8,1
    2. Re:So when will we have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wesley Crusher for Parliament!

  16. Good for him by Richie1984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad that he's paying attention to this ridiculous bill by showing how daft the implications of it would be. Hopefully, along with Rowan Atkinson's recent attack, the bill will be defeated

    --
    I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
    1. Re:Good for him by ettlz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spot on. For those posters who don't understand, this MP isn't making a mockery of Parliament or taking the mick. He's pointing out stupidity in currently proposed legislation that would make a crime of "incitement to religious hatred". A lot of people here in the UK are quite rightly worried that this will put religions (which, let us not forget are lifestyle choices and private members' clubs) beyond questionability, and allow New Labour to cry "yoink" on yet another freedom.

    2. Re:Good for him by Zediker · · Score: 0

      Aha! So there is a method to the jedi's madness... Its just a political stunt to stop a piece of bad legislation... well... more of a bad add-on to a decent peice of legislation...

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    3. Re:Good for him by myheroBobHope · · Score: 1

      /.ers getting dry british wit? That's like expecting them to actually read the article instead of just posting on the blurb. It's not about understanding and making valid comments on the article and the issue, it's about posting something as quickly as possible.

      --
      http://www.pterrys.com
    4. Re:Good for him by imarsman · · Score: 1

      Reading the linked article discussing Mr. Atkinson's and others' criticisms of the proposed law, the whole thrust of the disagreement with the law is that it will tend to disallow the open and useful debate of ideas when those ideas fall under the umbrella of the label "religion". Being able to debate ideas is foundational to the life of a free society. The framing of religions as lifestyle choices or private members' clubs seems to be irrelevant to the discussion and is presumably a reflection of the parent poster's viewpoints.

    5. Re:Good for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dangerous, these kinds of laws. PC gone amok. I reckon this bill came into being by the hand of Muslims who felt they were persecuted and hated on, when in fact, there are none more hateful of other religions than Muslims, but nobody dares say that lest they be labeled a racist. What's going on in Europe is no less than a full scale invasion from within. It would not be totally surprising to me if in 20 years, we look up and we have the United Kingdom Emirates or the Islamic Republic of The Netherlands.

    6. Re:Good for him by fitten · · Score: 1

      I liked him for his comedy and now he sounds like a pretty smart guy, too. Even more reason to like him.

    7. Re:Good for him by Cecil · · Score: 0, Troll

      s/this bill/some other bill, and s/Muslims/Jews and you've got yourself some neo-nazi rhetoric right there. But it's okay when it's applied to Muslims? I think not.

      And yes, I know; Godwin, I invoke thee!

    8. Re:Good for him by jd · · Score: 4, Informative
      In part, yes. The other statements by the Conservatives was that religion was ill-defined and therefore open to malicious interpretation (see virtually everything said about Scientology), and also that there were many who are pre-disposed to violence who may be antagonized by so much as a "good morning" in the wrong accent. If such people are incited to violence, who is to "blame" under this legislation?


      The thrust of John "feed my daughter BSE burgers" Selwin Gummer was that there seemed to be a lack of context. If only he'd thought of that when he was a Minister of the British Government. He, and others, also talked about how it was the actions that people often hated, not other people. The final point given was that existing laws protected Jews (because they are a culture as well as a religion) but exempted Muslims (because there is no recognized, unified concept of Muslim culture in British law).


      British politicians frequently hit on some excellent points, but just as frequently pick themselves up and carry on regardless. The new law could be modified to become workable, by tightening up on the definition of incitement to only include direct and deliberate instructions to attack (eg: the fatwah against S. Rusdie) or the direct and deliberate attempt to cause irreperable harm to another group of people, for the explicit purpose of creating hostilities.


      You notice that this is extremely specific and narrow. And so it should be. Laws should cover situations that cannot be resolved in a civilized manner by tolerence, acceptance and discussion. They should never be a substitute - which is what this law seems to be. But where things would otherwise get out of hand, there needs to be some mechanism for the authorities to step in and keep the sides apart.


      Ideally, I would throw away this bill, all blasphemy laws and all race hate laws, and simply make a generic law that protects people's rights to protest, assemble, hold a faith, do whatever they damn well feel like, with the sole limit that they cannot deliberately seek to have others come to harm in the process.


      I don't see the need to have a billion special-interest laws that cover this case or that case, when there's a single, common, underlying issue that can equally well be put in check.


      I also don't see the benefit in vagary, when the purported aim is to prevent abuse. Vague laws are one reason why the US has get-rich-quick lawsuits and only minimal order. The aim of the US legal system has been to make lawyers rich and lobbyists powerful over whoever is the selected victim group of the day.


      I absolutely hate the way that all laws in all countries define what is "wrong", but never define what is "ok". Well, that should be everything that's not prohibited, right? Well, the problem is that just about everything is prohibited by some law or other and those doing the interpreting are often the least-qualified to do so.


      (And if laws need interpreting by experts, how are average people supposed to follow them?? Remember, ignorance isn't an excuse.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Good for him by ettlz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please note (lest the worst ever be inferred) that I would never begrudge anyone their faith. My point was that one is (at least in the UK) free to choose one's religion; this is in contrast to race, sexuality, etc. Incitement to the hatred of the latter two is, as Atkinson says, irrational and deplorable. Maybe I carried an abstraction a bit too far.

      I think that in a free society, the overall message of the law should be criticism and ridicule of ideas (of which I count lifestyle choices as a subset) is acceptable. Practitioners of these ideas are free to answer criticism, counter-ridicule, or simply walk away and carry on unhindered, as per their human rights. According to Atkinson,

      A law which attempts to say you can criticise and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.

      What is unacceptable is bullying: be it in the name of race, sexuality, religion, or something as seemingly trivial as choice of hobby.

    10. Re:Good for him by julesh · · Score: 1

      While I initially believed your interpretation was correct, I've now read more of the debate and think you're wrong. He was just trying to be funny without considering the implications that could be drawn from his joke. After waffling about how great his constituency is, he went on to say:

      Legislation such as this Bill is required to ensure that Britain not only safeguards but improves its record on protecting civil rights and liberties. It will also further cultural understanding and social integration. Against a backdrop of rising race-related crime in some areas--Northern Ireland in particular, if the figures published yesterday are to be believed--and the growth of far-right parties in the UK, it is difficult to present a coherent objection to the Bill. I am satisfied that, provided it is undertaken in a sensible, sensitive and effective manner, the implementation of the law envisaged by the Bill would not result in critics' fears being realised. Instead, it would complement existing legislation while assisting in the development of a culture of mutual respect and acceptance among all our many faiths and--

      But was interrupted at that point.

    11. Re:Good for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you keep reading, it gets even better -- the next speaker is a Protestant minister... who gets heckled.

    12. Re:Good for him by gsfprez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait a second - thats total bullshit.

      "To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom."

      Hold the phone... how can it be "manifestly irrational" to criticize someone's race (and what he REALLY means is culture, not race, and we all know it) and yet NOT the same to do so when its their religion.

      I reserve the right to mock Mormons, Hindus, hip-hop artists, those who woof, wear bling-bling, thow down 24" spinners on their Escalades, Bhuddists, and all types of niggas equally. The problem becomes when people ASSUME i'm talking about skin colors. I have absolutely no issue with your race - there's nothing you can do about it...

      but i have also no issue rightfully criticizing the Mexican culture and its lack of educational discipline by bringing the US 10 million uneducated and pregnant illegal entrants...

      i can also criticize white American culture for its inane love of NASCAR as a leitimate sport, belt buckles thge size of satellte dishes, and their insessent need to overfill their homes with crap made by Chinese slave labor.

      Niether one of these makes any derrogatory comment about race... i've seen very pale skinned Mexican nationals bring 5 kids here to be clothed, fed, educated, and medicated by my tax dollars (and the money they save me in the price of lettuce doesn't come close to covering the bill, sorry), and i've met some absolutely humbling African people of tremendous stature, wisdom, and courage.

      as John Cleese said.. Race "doesntenterintoit!"

      I judge by the content of character, not on the content of skin...

      but what Rowan says means that i wouldn't get the chance to call him the pasty simpleton cracker limey that he is... and that's just not fair.

      --
      guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    13. Re:Good for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is precisely why I have the register and inquirer (british news websites) high on my links to news websites, well above slashdot.

      I am not british but I use those sites (such as bbc) for alternate perspectives since its very difficult to get that from my fellow Americans.

      Seems that news websites and now people have latched onto that age-old rule that loud and obnoxious fools are heard better than the wise and inquisitive gentle voice.

    14. Re:Good for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail to even consider if there is any truth to what he says. "The Nazis stole our gold and threw our children in the furnaces". I can't say that because if I substitute Jews or Sikhs or Unitarians for Nazis it sounds too much like hate speech to you?! Because every derogatory statement about a group is (is, is, by definition is!!) wrong and untrue? Get your head out of your politically correct ass. Islam == Nazism. It is a religion that openly declares it will conquer the world and that anyone who does not bow down to it will be killed, enslaved, or reduced to subhuman status. This is sadly the first step in the implementation of sharia law in Britain.

    15. Re:Good for him by Generic+Insanity · · Score: 1

      You sir, are a waste of the limited resources on this planet. Kindly spare us the imbecility of your rhetoric and give yourself to the earth as a sacrifice. Under such circumstances you can benefit us all, and redeem your pathetic soul.

    16. Re:Good for him by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      We already have laws about incitement to violence. If someone is suggesting violence against a religious group, these can be enacted.

      If people are spreading lies, these can be countered.

    17. Re:Good for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really that lost in this argument that you must resort to ridiculous grandstanding insults? Explain WHY he's wrong if you want to be taken seriously.

    18. Re:Good for him by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Oh, that's very true. My suggestion is not that we don't have enough laws, but rather that we have rather too many and that it's very hard to know what applies when, or if all situations are covered.


      If, instead of a mass of piecemeal laws, you simply stated in a single law "this is what (and who) is protected, this is what is prohibited", it would be very clear and very specific as to what was acceptable and what wasn't. Nobody would have to guess anymore.


      My problem is that laws are so scattered and scatter-brained, that most people DO have to guess most of the time, to know what is OK and what isn't. Clarification would be a good thing, in that there would be less uncertainty by those who want (or need) to protest against what they see as wrong or unacceptable, but would also close the more dangerous loopholes created by uncertainty by abusers of the law.


      The most dangerous criminals of all are not those who break the law - the law knows how to deal with such cases. The truly dangerous crimimals are those who operate entirely within a believable interpretation of the law, such that they can talk their way out of it. What you need is to divide the problem into three parts - what is definitely OK, what is definitely NOT OK, and what is an acceptable grey area that can depend on curcumstance and the like.


      A written Constitution - such as that in the US - attempts to define the OK parts, although it generally does a pretty naff job of it, to be honest. It would be far better if the laws were more explicit as to what is intended to be protected (from the perspective of both sides) and what is intended to be illegal, with enough fuzz in the middle for Common Law to operate correctly.


      This sort of system would be better than a Constitution, as Constitutions can be abused just as easily as laws but are harder to fix afterwards. (See Prohibition for more details. They added more amendments to fix the balls-up, because it was near-impossible to remove the balls-up.) Laws can be tweaked as necessary, should things change, which they will.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    19. Re:Good for him by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Firstly, you have to make a point of starting with a blank sheet of paper. Then, you work out over a time the bare minimum set of simple, clear laws. Doing the same with taxation also makes sense.

      The problem right now is that we have hundreds of small laws and taxes. And our solution is generally to add another law to correct problems with an existing one, instead of reforming the law.

    20. Re:Good for him by Mjlner · · Score: 1
      Hold the phone... how can it be "manifestly irrational" to criticize someone's race (and what he REALLY means is culture, not race, and we all know it) and yet NOT the same to do so when its their religion.

      No, he means race, not culture. And he said "criticise a person", not "criticise a race". What he means is that it is manifestly irrational to make a judgement about a persons quality, based on his race. I think you'll find that Mr Atkinson *does* reserve the right to criticise a culture, eg. a culture for mutilating a female child's genitalia.

      --
      Lemon curry???
    21. Re:Good for him by Generic+Insanity · · Score: 1

      Honestly, i really dont care about explaining why he's wrong. if anyone following the thread hasnt worked out that the original AC isnt stating a serious opinion, they can try debating him. I dont argue with trolls, i wouldnt normally reply to them either, but sometimes flaming is good for taking out ones frustrations.

    22. Re:Good for him by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Ideally, I would throw away this bill, all blasphemy laws and all race hate laws, and simply make a generic law that protects people's rights to protest, assemble, hold a faith, do whatever they damn well feel like, with the sole limit that they cannot deliberately seek to have others come to harm in the process.


      Hmmm. Throwing away all blasphemy laws would probably require the disestablisment of the Church of England. The last time I heard legislation/ House of Commons specialists give an estimate of the time for that it was several years of parliamentary time to allow all the necessary acts to be changed after due debate. That's not allowing for any obstructive debating tactics.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  17. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jedi MP also admits he is immature and needs to grow up and move out of his parents' basement

  18. They Voted Him In by millahtime · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    This gives immense insight into the type of people that get voted into Parliment. The voters are either oblivious, don't care, don't know better or maybe they are also members of that movement.

    Either way, the next time the British Parliment critizes something in the world I will be rethinking where they are coming from.

    1. Re:They Voted Him In by ShelbyCobra · · Score: 2, Funny

      This gives immense insight into the type of people that get voted into Parliment. The voters are either oblivious, don't care, don't know better or maybe they are also members of that movement.

      Or perhaps they have a really twisted sense of humor...

      --

      -ShelbyCobra

      Living life in the right side of the s-plane

    2. Re:They Voted Him In by Angostura · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds to me as if he went straight over your head. He is opposing a bill that would outlaw the the stirring up of hatred against members of a religion. That includes jedi, sith, scientologist, whatever. The bill is very loosely worded as to what could be considered stirring up hatred. "Yoda was an arsehole, it all Jedi should be done away with" might qualify.

      So this is a smart guy using satire to ridicule the bill in a fairly subtle way. So yes, I suppose you could say that it does give insight into the type of people who get voted in.

      And in case anyone is wondering about the obsequious thanks to Jack Cunningham in the speech, it is traditional to thank your predecessor in your first speech to the commons.

    3. Re:They Voted Him In by D-Cypell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps he was voted in by an electorate who believes he would do a good job of representing the people regardless of his peronal beliefs (no matter how unconventional).

      Perhaps he was voted in by an electorate who are concerned about the bill outlawing 'incitement to relgious hatred' that is about to pass through the commons and runs a risk of making various forms of satire and free speech (including your post) potentially illegal.

      In any case, we now how cllr's from the BNP, I would rather see a self-proclaimed 'Jedi' in parliment than a nazi-wannabe.

    4. Re:They Voted Him In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm impressed that a /.er managed to figure this out, and one who doesn't post anonymously, at that. Cheers!

    5. Re:They Voted Him In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way, the next time the British Parliment critizes something in the world I will be rethinking where they are coming from.

      Yeah, finding a headline grabbing way of standing up against an injustice is absolutely something to be ashamed of.
      The bally cheek of it. He should sit down, shut the fuck up and be a good little sheep like you evidently are.

    6. Re:They Voted Him In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are stupid.

    7. Re:They Voted Him In by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Your post gives more insight into you.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    8. Re:They Voted Him In by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I woonder if discordians have to turn themselves in? After all, Discordianism is the greatest mockery of itself...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:They Voted Him In by dajak · · Score: 1

      He is opposing a bill that would outlaw the stirring up of hatred against members of a religion. That includes jedi, sith, scientologist, whatever. The bill is very loosely worded as to what could be considered stirring up hatred. "Yoda was an arsehole, it all Jedi should be done away with" might qualify.

      On the other hand this bill would have been useful for prosecuting senator Palpatine before the massacre of the jedi. He was saying things like this about the jedi all the time. Let's not forget that!

    10. Re:They Voted Him In by jafac · · Score: 1

      If this bill would outlaw stirring up of hatred against "infidels" "atheists" "secular humanists" or just plain "liberals" - I'd support it.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    11. Re:They Voted Him In by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sounds to me as if he went straight over your head. He is opposing a bill that would outlaw the the stirring up of hatred against members of a religion.

      Actually, he supports it. Read the last paragraph of his speech, just before he gets cut off for exceeding his time limit.

      His joke doesn't fit with his position, but since when do we expect MPs to be consistent?

    12. Re:They Voted Him In by Angostura · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. I dozed off before the last paragraph. Mod this man up insightful, mod my original post down as over-rated.

      Ahem, as I was saying, UK MPs are dullards and the Jedis are the worst of the bunch.

    13. Re:They Voted Him In by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps they have a really twisted sense of humor...

      Welcome to British politics.

      Just because the issues are important doesn't mean we can't have a little levity. Mockery and satire are essential parts of British politics. Not having a sense of humour would be fatal to a british politician.

    14. Re:They Voted Him In by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

      Just thinking about the bill - it could do wonders for Sith/Jedi relations!

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
    15. Re:They Voted Him In by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      If I declare a belief in Adam Smith as a god, can I then have protection against criticism of capitalism?

      Or how about Marx and Communism?

      What about Bacchus? Would that put an end to the government banging on about "binge drinking"? (3 pints isn't binge drinking, it's a short lunch)

    16. Re:They Voted Him In by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You can't simply enact a law that forces everyone to walk on glass so as to not offend anyone. The truth is, anyone and everyone gets angry or offended from time to time, but you will never have total control of how that person feels. Feelings require personal responsibility. What this law would do is effectively relinquish personal responsibility to someone else by virtue of blame.

      We should not live in a world where we have to fear speaking our minds. If you are offended because of what I say, then tough shit. This rule also applies to me as well by the way.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    17. Re:They Voted Him In by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Non-religious people are protected too: "Religious hatred is defined in the bill as "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief" - showing it will also cover atheists."

      Though I still disagree with it. It shouldn't be illegal to say that you hate a group of people.

    18. Re:They Voted Him In by jafac · · Score: 1

      Though I still disagree with it. It shouldn't be illegal to say that you hate a group of people.

      True - I was being semi-sarcastic there. But on the other hand, an Imam can use his Mosque to preach that it's a good thing to strap on a vest of c-4, and kill infidels and go to paradise. In my opinion, that crosses the line - this is a British bill, of course, but in America, there are exceptions to free speech. One notable test is the famous "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" case. The purpose of such speech is to incite chaos, violence, and injury. It doesn't add to debate, it doesn't solve problems, or make people think.

      Of course, I recognize the difference, and the value of the jihadist message: it's not pure violence and chaos. It DOES add value to the public debate, because it indicates a level of cultural hatred and bigotry, which, if banned, would be even MORE dangerous - because such speech would then be driven "underground" - the hate-speech would still exist, only as a society, we'd be less aware of it's existance, and less aware and able to react to the obvious threat. It's a huge, ugly, gray area, and a slippery slope. The debate on free speech has always been: you can't ban it all, and you can't free it all, AND, it's VERY difficult to draw that line.

      I don't think that that line should be drawn to include "offensive speech" in the ban. But the jihadist call to violence and destruction of our civilization, it's freedoms, the very freedoms that permit such speech - means we need to very closely examine these cases, perhaps individually, and if nothing else, respond to them as a society. We let this speech go unanswered for decades. We protected it under the guise of "cultural sensitivity" - and it festered and grew into the disaster that has now become, as Bush referred to it in his speech the other night, the "Third World War". That's some serious shit.

      The whole point of "Free Speech" in the first place, is to allow ALL ideas to be discussed, and debated openly. Our failure was not in failing to ban jihadist hate speech. Our failure was in simply remaining silent, and not answering it. Our corporate newsmedia's spinelessness allowed this to happen. Our "cultural sensitivity" and unwillingness to offend allowed this to happen. Our ignorance behind the Enlightenment, the reasons why our Founding Fathers built our Constitution and Bill of Rights the way they did allowed this to happen. And out collective cultural greed, and worship of "money money money no matter what" allowed this to happen.

      My fondest desire is that, perhaps in a few years or so, when we've recovered from the disaster wrought by our plunge into fascism that was a response to these events, that we, (Western Culture) re-examine the reasons behind why we started down this road with the Magna Carta, the Enlightenment, Democracy, Rights, etc. And figure out where we, as a society, went wrong, and correct this. Educating our Children on these subjects, as we once did, would be a good start.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  19. Does Darth Hillary count? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or maybe Count Obama?

    Somehow "Master Kennedy" just doesn't have the same ring to it. And "Darth Delay" is only slightly better than "General Grievous"

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Does Darth Hillary count? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Funny


      I think Darth Frist and Lord Cheney sound good. Grand Moff Rumsfeld has a nice ring to it, too.

      -B

    2. Re:Does Darth Hillary count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You forgot:
      Lord Kennedy and his minnoin Darth Kerry

    3. Re:Does Darth Hillary count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      Darth Bush sound right to me...

    4. Re:Does Darth Hillary count? by Oniko · · Score: 1

      Darth Rove? Rovius? Rover? Heh... Darth Rover....

    5. Re:Does Darth Hillary count? by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Emperor Bush, on the other hand, sounds a bit perverse.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    6. Re:Does Darth Hillary count? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      George George Bush

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  20. No Jedi Congressmen by Aumaden · · Score: 1

    Sith Congressmen

    1. Re:No Jedi Congressmen by blueZhift · · Score: 1

      There are no Jedi yet, but if he can resist the temptations of the dark side of the Force, then Obama may become the first! Well, actually I think the late Senator Paul Simon may have been the first... So I guess that makes Barack Obama A New Hope.

  21. I think this goes to prove by winkydink · · Score: 0, Troll

    that Britain's island gene pool needs an immediate injection of diversity.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:I think this goes to prove by ettlz · · Score: 1
      Britain's island gene pool needs an immediate injection of diversity

      No, that's just Cornwall.

    2. Re:I think this goes to prove by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Sure us Americans will help you, rightly. We will send you some healthy stock from appalachia to shore up the numbers and you will be whistling dixie in no time.

    3. Re:I think this goes to prove by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1

      It's a tough job, but as an American, I'm willing to do my part.

    4. Re:I think this goes to prove by EricTheGreen · · Score: 1

      I find your lack of faith disturbing...

    5. Re:I think this goes to prove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that Britain's island gene pool needs an immediate injection of diversity.

      I see what you mean. Generations of inbreeding have left them capable of using irony. Even in Parliament!

  22. Just one thing by eclectro · · Score: 1

    How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?

    But aren't Jedi supposed to be good??

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  23. Oh no.... by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

    I know what all the supporters of this person are thinking:

    "It's as if millions of voices cried out "D'oh!" and suddenly smacked themselves on the forehead with the palm of their hand"...

    --
    "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    1. Re:Oh no.... by IcyNeko · · Score: 1

      LOL! A great disturbance in the farce. :D

  24. WHAT!? by BlueWaldo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    WHAT!?

  25. dont ridicule it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Ron L Hubbard did ok, Tom Cruise however.....

  26. Congressional equivalent? by bobalu · · Score: 1

    Pay any attention to the last election much, didja?

    You can't get elected to a school board in the US if you're not the "right" religion.

    Of course there's always California...

    --
    The revolution will NOT be televised.
    1. Re:Congressional equivalent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those pesky Americans, always choosing who they want to be elected. It would be much better if we could just tell them, no?

  27. What The... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Jedi...? We need no stinking Jedi here! We need leaders who serve the people in the government. We don't don't need anymore self-righteous idiots running around the talk shows swinging their color-of-the-month light sabers. Bah... What's next? A Sith Lord running for President?

    1. Re:What The... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Kerry already ran! ;-)

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    2. Re:What The... by Homology · · Score: 1
      We don't don't need anymore self-righteous idiots running around the talk shows swinging their color-of-the-month light sabers. Bah... What's next? A Sith Lord running for President?

      You mean this one?

    3. Re:What The... by StarManta.Mini · · Score: 1

      What's next? A Sith Lord running for President?

      Well, no, but we do have one that ran for Pope a bit ago.

    4. Re:What The... by raider_red · · Score: 1

      And Darth Cheney was his master. Now that Kerry's out, they'll have to find another Democrat apprentice.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    5. Re:What The... by william_w_bush · · Score: 1

      No, thats silly, Darth Rove is happy behind the scenes, in the shadows. You underestimate the power of the dark side.

      that gollum cackle before he tries to fry sam jackson is hilarious though.

      --
      The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
  28. While it is unlikely that a Jedi will run... by monopole · · Score: 1

    I would suspect that a large proportion of Sith lords are already present in the current administration.

    1. Re:While it is unlikely that a Jedi will run... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      "Always two there are. No more, no less."
      How can there be a "large proportion"?

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    2. Re:While it is unlikely that a Jedi will run... by IcyNeko · · Score: 1

      Before the edicts of Darth Bane, the sith was an empire spanning many galaxies. That is of course until they started killing each other to see who has more power/WMD/Bushisms. We are clearly before teh era of Darth Bane.

    3. Re:While it is unlikely that a Jedi will run... by Masami+Eiri · · Score: 1

      2/2 would be a large proportion of the Sith Lords.

    4. Re:While it is unlikely that a Jedi will run... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      I see your schwartz is as big as mine!

      Apparently I need to go back to school, and study math again. I agree your math is better than mine, but "good is a point of view"

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  29. Jamie Reed MP on theyworkforyou.com by InsomniaCity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is Jamie Reed's MP page on My Society's excellent TheyWorkForYou project.

    And here is the screen scraped debate, that you can comment on like a blog.

    --
    You cant make anything foolproof, they'll only invent better fools.
  30. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are the only one.

  31. FUNNY by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1, Insightful

    godalmighty, there should be a sense of humor test for mods.

  32. Hansard: A New Hope by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
    > Furthermore, as the first Jedi Member of this place, I look forward to the protection under the law that will be provided to me by the Bill.

    Mr. Han Solo (Corellia) (Reb):
    Listen, Mr. Reed, hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.

    Greedo (Tatooine) (Hutt):
    free-boo-blee~fttz~Solo wise. Solo speak truth. Lucas speak false. Smuggler from Corellia shoot first. Still not having paid campaign donations, mind you.~ftttzgrbl~

  33. ... I hope Jedi has a second meaning... by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

    Okay... either the word Jedi have a difference meaning before George Lucas used it... or that guy is on crack and watches WAY too much Star Wars... or maybe an attempt at a joke. ... I hope its a joke.

    --
    In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  34. Insult! by t'mbert · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is an absolute insult to those of us who hold religious beliefs. Now the faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Muslimism are on par with something made up in a movie!

    1. Re:Insult! by wk633 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly not sure if you're joking- but if not then it raises an all important point that one person's religsion is another person's wackiness. Wicca is a serious religion for many people, but is still viewed as 'wacky' by a large part of the US population. Whatever you think you know about Wicca, people who are serious Wiccans deserve the same protections that you do as whatever you are.

    2. Re:Insult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to something made up in a book.

    3. Re:Insult! by shish · · Score: 1, Troll
      the faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Muslimism are on par with something made up in a movie!

      No change there then...</militant atheist flamebait>

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    4. Re:Insult! by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 5, Funny

      +1 Funny, use of word "Muslimism"

      Also: there's been a religion based on sci-fi books for decades.

    5. Re:Insult! by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      Not to burst your bubble, but there are many people in the world who believed that before this. Not everyone sees organized religion as a benefitial corporation. It's all just a given subset of peoples' view on the world and no more important than anyone else's. As far as I can see, these "Jedi" have as much reason to believe in the "Force" (even if they can't use it or see it) as you do to believe in your "God" (even if you can't see him/her).

    6. Re:Insult! by an7ron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      made up in a movie, made up in a book, what's the diff?

    7. Re:Insult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yours was made up in a book, I'd call it progress.

    8. Re:Insult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...for the sake of Jesus and Snoopy and all the other beloved childrens characters."

    9. Re:Insult! by DeathFlame · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may be joking, but if your not...

      What if I stood up in Parliment (if an MP) and said I followed the ideals of Hobbits of Middle Earth, and that that was my religious belief.

      I mean, that's just something made up in a book...

      (kinda like the bible)

    10. Re:Insult! by davelowerson · · Score: 1

      WTF are you on about!!!!!?!?!?!?!?! Christianity etc came from a book!

    11. Re:Insult! by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That wouldn't make it an insult to be on par with something made up for a movie. That would be something of an elevation.

      But as far as I'm concerned, ALL religion is made up and it's merely a matter of how long ago and how many people actually believe it presently that marks it as valid or invalid. As early as the age of 10, I realized that all of these other "dead religions" (AKA mythologies) were just as important to those who followed them 'back then' as contemporary religion is today.

      I amaze myself even now to wonder if a 10 year old can realize this, then surely anyone should be able to. And from that I moved on to query that since all the others are "invalid" then what makes the "valid" ones different? "Nothing" I concluded.

      In short, anyone who is religious is a fool.

      That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

    12. Re:Insult! by failure-man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, hold on there. As a fellow atheist I say Star Wars is way better than all the other religions. Why? Because they've been the motivation behind millions of deaths over the millenia. (Star Wars has been responsible for, maybe 6.)

    13. Re:Insult! by failure-man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, a 10 year old can realize this, assuming they've not already been indoctrinated by then. When you were ten you hadn't been brainwashed by religion. If you had been you'd probably still be.

    14. Re:Insult! by nietsch · · Score: 1

      So what exactly makes an older religion more 'true'? Is christianity more true because it is ~900 years older than islam? And is judaism more true then because it is even older.
      Religions[sects cults] form, florish and wither all the time. Most of them die some time after the death of their leader, while others can make the transition to mainstream and grow after that. Their believers have all more or less the same age, so I think this anciennety is a wrong measure to judge a religion by. In fact I think there is no such measure at all, you cannot judge a religion at all.

      I think slashdot is missing the point the MP is trying to make. I don't know the point either (don't live there) but I think it has something to do with their census a few years back where people tried to get jedi-ism registered as an 'official' brittish religion by entering 'jedi' as their religion. (those votes where not counted IIRC) Maybe this guy did so too, and now has to either admit he filled those papers fraudently or continue stating he is a jedi. As noone is qualified to judge the truth in a religion, the later is much easier than admitting fraud.

      Or maybe he just needed to score some press points, which he did brilliantly. What was his name again?

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    15. Re:Insult! by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      ... and Muslimism ...

      Umm, Islam?

      And you missed Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc...

    16. Re:Insult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, coming from "erroneus"...

      Also:

      Congratulations!!! You, at a mere 10 years of age, have solved the questions that mankind has been struggling with since the dawn of time. Brilliant philosophers, theologians, mystics, physicists and mathematicians the world over can now relax. You have figured it all out. Everyone is stupid, and you have proved it to them with your brilliant logic.

    17. Re:Insult! by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Funny

      All of which qualified for Darwin Awards.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    18. Re:Insult! by aslate · · Score: 1

      And that's the point of this whole thing. He's poking a massive hole in the Government's proposed law against incitement to religious hatred.

      It's a stupid law, phrased poorly and will fail in a similar way.

    19. Re:Insult! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Unless you include the planet of Alderan.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    20. Re:Insult! by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

      But didn't your teachers and parents always tell you it was better to read a book than to watch a movie or TV?

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    21. Re:Insult! by Gondola · · Score: 1

      So innocent bystanders, children, etc killed during so-called holy wars are unfit to reproduce because they happened to be in the way of hundreds or thousands of morons using their religion as an excuse to pillage and rape?

      I see a flaw in your logic...

    22. Re:Insult! by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm, I was refering to the 6 star wars deaths.

      Although I do think anyone who went on the Children's Crusade deserves one.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    23. Re:Insult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actully, I hold people with any kind of religion in the same light: "Gullible"

    24. Re:Insult! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations!!! You, at a mere 10 years of age, have solved the questions that mankind has been struggling with since the dawn of time. Brilliant philosophers, theologians, mystics, physicists and mathematicians the world over can now relax. You have figured it all out. Everyone is stupid, and you have proved it to them with your brilliant logic.

      No, the question that physicists and mathematicians have been struggling over is how to tell the unenlightened masses that their gods don't exist, and not get censured, hurt, or killed outright for voicing that opinion.

      That was the big question: we're still working on it today. We've (mostly) managed to avoid being hurt or killed; we're working on the censured part. Eventually, we'll get there, if the religious fanatics don't manage to suppress freedom of speech with more draconic "anti-religious speech is now illegal" type laws.

    25. Re:Insult! by julesh · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. He's commenting on a proposed law that offers protection from religious hatred, but doesn't clearly define what can be considered a religion and what can't.

    26. Re:Insult! by davelowerson · · Score: 1

      Fiction is fiction, mate.

    27. Re:Insult! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      How dare you mock his deeply held religious beliefs!

    28. Re:Insult! by irrision · · Score: 1

      Apparently you haven't yet seen Mel Gibsons adaptation of the Passion of Christ...

      "This is an absolute insult to those of us who hold religious beliefs. Now the faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Muslimism are on par with something made up in a movie!"

    29. Re:Insult! by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Which, seeing as how being a devout follower of ANY religion is a personal choice, not a mandate under any law (and even prohibited from being mandated by law in the US Constitution), means you shouldn't be protected at all.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    30. Re:Insult! by dvk · · Score: 1

      > In short, anyone who is religious is a fool.

      By your definition, among the examples of fools are Newton, Einstein, and a bunch of Physics and CS PhDs I know personally. Yup. They are sure all dumber than you are.

      --
      "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes".
      - OB1.Kenobi (to bring this flamefest thread back on topic).

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    31. Re:Insult! by wk633 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how we got from the rights of people in general to follow a religion others consider wacky, to "you shouldn't be protected at all".

      In any case, the US Supreme Court says:
      ""No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution"

      http://www.becketfund.org/files/b71f71fcd6deea7dde 1a033d95f31b80.pdf/

      So if prisoners' rights to worship are at least somewhat protected- why not anyone else?

      And what about the right NOT to worship? Some would argue that athiesm is as much a religion as Christianity et al.

      'Not mandated' does not equate to 'not protected'.

    32. Re:Insult! by moz25 · · Score: 1

      The aspect of them following a religion is foolish. It doesn't mean all of their thinking is foolish or well or they are not capable of rational or intelligent thought outside the scope of their indoctrination.

      Btw, Einstein was not religious in the sense that you mean.

  35. Too Much Competition Here... by OmniGeek · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly, the Congresscritters in the US will never go Jedi, as they're already devotees of the Book of Bokonon. This can be seen by their tendency to speak in foma, or as the rest of us call them, "reassuring lies." ;-)

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
  36. maybe its a race between the sci-fi religions! by deft · · Score: 1

    put down your money now.

    will it be a jedi congressman first?
    or will it be a scientologist first?
    (cue tom cruise bouncing around)

    both "religions" spewed from sci-fi... so why not a race to the white house from the pages/silverscreen?

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  37. Don't worry by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    Emporer Palpatine will be along shortly
    to dissolve the Senate.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  38. Congressional equivalent by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have to realise that the British don't take anything too seriously, especially politics and religion.

    In the US, I suspect a politician making light of religion in this way would upset a lot of people in The Bible Belt.

  39. Well, we already have Jabba the Hutt - by SengirV · · Score: 1
    --

    Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

  40. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Okay, did anybody actually read the article? Did anybody bother to check the background?

    Or did people not even think that he was making a satarical attack against the new bill that Labour are seeking to impose?

    I read it, and then instantly saw the humour in it. Or did no one else think to read between the lines.

    Again, the slashdot community attempt to do the javelin and 100m sprint events together.

  41. How long before we have one? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1


    A long time, I hope. Serving in Congress is serious business (or at least it ought to be). Not the place for people who fantasize about fictional religions invented by second-rate movie directors.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:How long before we have one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and yet we already have Mormon congressmen ...

    2. Re:How long before we have one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key word there is 'business' ;)

    3. Re:How long before we have one? by zentinal · · Score: 1

      All. Religions. Fictional.

    4. Re:How long before we have one? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have them getting religion from second-rate movie directors than third rate ancient mistranslated pundits (the Bible/Torah/Koran/Vedas/Tao te Ching/Confuscious).

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  42. Just because you say you are, doesn't mean you are by varmittang · · Score: 1

    Doesn't he need to prove himself in front of the councel or something before he can just call himself a "Jedi". And where is this "councel" he proved himself too. Also, doesn't he need a master under which he trained. He can't just go around anouncing this stuff, he must stick to the order of things.

    --
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    12345
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  43. A far more readable link... by david.given · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...is available at the TheyWorkForYou.com page.

    If you read some of the rest of the debate --- surprisingly good stuff, provided you skim it and don't get bogged down in the interminable speeches --- you'll realise that the statement was in the context of a debate on the Racial And Religious Hatred Bill, now undergoing reading for the second time. I'm not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman saw fit to follow it up with a rather long lecture on Cumbrian history, that was only brought short by his running out of time and the Speaker cutting him off...

    1. Re:A far more readable link... by Flying+Purple+Wombat · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman saw fit to follow it up with a rather long lecture on Cumbrian history, that was only brought short by his running out of time and the Speaker cutting him off...

      Because that is what lawmakers do. BS, hot air and blah, blah, blah. They would get a lot more accomplished if they would just shut up and get down to business.

      --
      If God had meant for man to see the sunrise, He would have scheduled it later in the day.
    2. Re:A far more readable link... by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

      > I'm not entirely sure why the hon.
      > Gentleman saw fit to follow it up
      > with a rather long lecture on
      > Cumbrian history.

      That's simple.

      Whilst he's a Jedi at night, he's a born again asshole in during the day.

      Like most MPs then.

    3. Re:A far more readable link... by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 1
      Because that is what lawmakers do. BS, hot air and blah, blah, blah. They would get a lot more accomplished if they would just shut up and get down to business.

      Be grateful for small miracles.
    4. Re:A far more readable link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's because it was his maiden speach and it's traditional for members making their maiden speach to talk about their constituancy.

    5. Re:A far more readable link... by lilmouse · · Score: 1
      to talk about their constituancy
      His constituancy is cambrian? Isn't that a bunch of dinosaurs?

      --LWM
    6. Re:A far more readable link... by julesh · · Score: 1

      No, and no. His constituency is Cumbrian, and Cambrian predates dinosaurs by quite a bit.

    7. Re:A far more readable link... by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman saw fit to follow it up with a rather long lecture on Cumbrian history, that was only brought short by his running out of time and the Speaker cutting him off...

      As he said at the beginning, it was his maiden speech (his first, as a newly elected MP). It is customary to make some complementary remarks about the previous MP, and ones constituency on these occasions. If you go back a few pages to Mr Malik's speech, it follows the same traditional form.

  44. And where are the Sith in this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How soon until we see Sith loard as religion or offical state title

  45. Wrong Claim by Mr+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not really.

    It's entirely different to claim to believe in Jedi and to claim to BE a Jedi. According to the books I've read and the movies, a Jedi is capable of performing these actions. They all have their "talents" but to be a Jedi you have to be able to manipulate the force in some tangible and demonstrable way.

    The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers. If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.

    1. Re:Wrong Claim by smackjer · · Score: 1

      And Thomas hasn't shut up about it since!

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.

      Now that's fucked up.

      If someone wants to call themselves a Jedi, let them. It's not like they're likely to go do some kooky thing like stick their fingers in somebody's wounds.

    3. Re:Wrong Claim by czarangelus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think maybe someday I'll have an opportunity to stick my finger in the nail wounds, before being cast into everlasting darkness and fire for not believing the right thing?

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    4. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say they have powers.

      And now that it has been written once there is just as much evidence of it being true as there is that either Jesus or Thomas ever existed.

      Don't want to take the word of an AC? Then I'll call myself Bob and you'll have as much information on me as you do on any author of the New Testament.

    5. Re:Wrong Claim by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 0, Troll


      It's not like they're likely to go do some kooky thing like stick their fingers in somebody's wounds.

      Naaah...they'll just chop off their kids' hands.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    6. Re:Wrong Claim by geeber · · Score: 4, Informative

      The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers.

      For what it is worth, Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ during mass. which is not too far removed from your example.

    7. Re:Wrong Claim by phpWebber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok fine.
      Than as a Christian, prove you are _like_ Christ.

      - Treat all people no matter what their sickness or sexual conduct as God's children.
      - Suspend your criticism of other's sins unless you are without
      - Put other's well-being before your own
      - Live a life of spirituality, not wealth
      - Openly critize the leaders of your religion and texts
      - Refrain from any anger at any time except in the case when someone is profiting from your religion
      - Be willing to sacrifice yourself for what you believe in

      Lots of people claim to be Christians. How many really are?

    8. Re: Wrong claim by jjh37997 · · Score: 1
      It's entirely different to claim to believe in Jedi and to claim to BE a Jedi. According to the books I've read and the movies, a Jedi is capable of performing these actions. They all have their "talents" but to be a Jedi you have to be able to manipulate the force in some tangible and demonstrable way.

      The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers.

      Not true.... the Bible clearly states that Christians have been endowed with remarkable powers:

      Mar 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover".

      Luke 17:6 "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree 'be uprooted and planted in the sea' and it will obey you".

      Of course.... I've never seen a Christian with such powers and according to the Bible you can't be a Christain without being able to witness in such a manner but that does not stop stupid people from calling themselves Christains all the time. If some British wanker wants to call himself a Jedi yets lacks the ability to control the Force, I say let him.

    9. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically I don't believe the bible says the a Christian should be perfect, sinply that he should belive in Jesus (some level of "niceness" is generally also needed).

    10. Re:Wrong Claim by peragrin · · Score: 0, Troll

      >>For what it is worth, Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ during mass. which is not too far removed from your example.

      I knew I missed something while growing up. Catholics are Cannibals. No wonder why they like killing people in the name of their god.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:Wrong Claim by chucken · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers.

      No, they're just given powers; see the bible. Try drinking poisoning and living, and handling snakes.

      Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
      Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
      Strangely, many christians are curiously reiticient to try these out. And if they don't buy that part of the bible, why the rest?
    12. Re:Wrong Claim by Grant_Watson · · Score: 1

      Then I'll call myself Bob and you'll have as much information on me as you do on any author of the New Testament.

      Or Julius Ceasar, right?

    13. Re:Wrong Claim by RichardX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      For what it is worth, Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ during mass. which is not too far removed from your example.

      Yep.
      And yet, bizarrely, many of them now offer gluten free communion wafers for people with food allergies.
      Why?
      After all, you're not eating the wafer - you're eating the body of Jesus, so it doesn't matter what the wafer is made of.
      Or could it be that maybe they secretly know it's all a pile of steaming shite?

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    14. Re:Wrong Claim by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      No one is perfect. The best you can do is try.

      And since when is "openly criticizing leaders of your religion" a tenet of Christianity?

      Really, why don't you worry about yourself instead of criticizing people, most of whom are trying to be good?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    15. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you can take Bible quotes out of context.

    16. Re:Wrong Claim by bornyesterday · · Score: 1

      More than claim to be Jedi.

    17. Re:Wrong Claim by 3nd32 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is substantially more evidence for the existence of Jesus than you appear to believe. For example, the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus refer to "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...". This is from a book written around 94 as a history of the Jews. Tacitus, a Roman historian, also supports the existence of Jesus. Neither of these people would have any incentive to introduce a fictitious character into their histories. These, among other writings, have provided scholars with convincing evidence that there was a Jewish teacher named Jesus who was executed under Pontius Pilate, and whose followers claimed he was the Messiah.

    18. Re:Wrong Claim by Rahga · · Score: 1

      Catholics see the body and bread as a physical vessel of the spiritual body and blood of Jesus Christ. After all, before it's blessed, it's just bread, and after it's digested, it's goes down the toilet. It simply doesn't matter much what it's made of physically, in the same way it doesn't matter at all what people are made of physically... we all turn back to dust in the end.

    19. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      You miss the whole point of "Original Sin". Sure, Christians are supposed to strive to be like Christ, but, being human..it is impossible to do so 100%. According to most mainstream Christian sects, the fact that God recognized this and sent his only son to die for the world's sins IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH!!! Your insinuation of hypocrisy and your attempts to hang Christians by their own high standards is simply your lack of knowledge shining through.

      The fact that you get modded insightful shows how shallow many Slashdot'ers understanding of this particular religion is.

      Christians _try_ to live like Christ, but in the end, it's one's belief in the fact that Jesus is a) The Son of God b) and that he died for their sins that gets one into heaven. Read the Apostle's Creed sometime, it's basically the Christian Secret Code for salvation.

      And no, I'm not Christian. Just open minded enough to try to _understand_ their religion. I don't happen to agree with it, but it makes a certain sense if you understand its basic principles. (Which basically means, stop listening to the likes of Jerry Falwell on TV. TV is crap. TV preachers are double crap.)

    20. Re:Wrong Claim by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers.

      I'm too lazy to look it up, but there is something to the effect of "With the faith of a mustard seed (one of the smallest seeds), you can move a mountain." So, a Christian either can move a mountain by faith alone, doesn't have sufficient faith, or the Bible is flat out wrong. Requiring a Jedi to build a lightsaber or choke someone is no different than requiring a Christian to move a mountain. Move Everest to my back yard, and we'll talk.

    21. Re:Wrong Claim by kasparov · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Actually, you are wrong. Jesus himself commanded in Mathew 5:48
      "Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
      And, if the Bible is to be believed, Jesus required more than "some level of niceness" to those you happen to come into contact with: Mathew 22:36-40
      36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

      This brings up something else that can be irritating about some Christians (and people of other Religious faiths)--many of them don't know anything about the religion that they claim to believe. I can respect almost anyone who is at least consistant and knowledgeable of their own beliefs. Otherwise, I am afraid I must consider them and indoctrinated fool.

      --
      There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
    22. Re:Wrong Claim by WaterBreath · · Score: 1
      Lots of people claim to be Christians. How many really are?

      Only a very small number. Much smaller, I think, than most people expect....

      Matthew 7:14 --
      "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

    23. Re:Wrong Claim by phpWebber · · Score: 1

      Much of the gospels is Jesus arguing with Jewish leaders on the interpretation of Scripture. They tended not to like him very much.

    24. Re:Wrong Claim by geeber · · Score: 2, Informative

      For example, the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus refer to "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...".

      Of course there is also substaintial evidence that the writings of Josephus were edited after the fact in order to agree with biases of believers in Jesus. See, for example, "Jesus, A Life," (unfortunately, I forget the author), a book about the historical Jesus.

    25. Re:Wrong Claim by Sir+Pallas · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Literally" is probably the wrong word. They say that it is a substantial transformation, which in Classical terms means that the essence has changed, but the form has not. They say that it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine. There are reported cases of so-called "Eucharistic miracles" where there is a formal manifestation into Type O blood and/or cardiac tissue, but I've never seen one personally..

    26. Re:Wrong Claim by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      How many really are?

      Another key question is, how many of them are Christians solely to save their own asses from eternal punishment and to get a cushy place in paradise?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    27. Re:Wrong Claim by Mr_Huber · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I believe for the Jedi religion,that second quote now reads:

      Luke 10:19 But I wanted to go to Toshi Station to pick up some power converters!

    28. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I have know several Christians that live this way. I also know of others that have died for their beliefs. They don't make waves in life as they quietly live according to their beliefs.

    29. Re:Wrong Claim by pianophile · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is substantially more evidence for the existence of Jesus than you appear to believe. [...]Neither of these people would have any incentive to introduce a fictitious character into their histories.

      Yeah, but there's no scholarly consensus that the Jospehus and Tacitus texts on Jesus are authentic. Some think they are interpolations by Christians generations later, some don't. So, the texts have to accepted on faith and therefore don't settle anything. Links:

      Tacitus on Jesus
      Josephus on Jesus

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    30. Re:Wrong Claim by geeber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, I have read this also. The way I originally stated it is the way it was taught to me as a wee lad by the Catholic nuns.

      By the way, I absolutely love the idea of "substantial transformation". I am supposed to believe that this object in front of me has changed in a very profound way. Except that it is identical in form - meaning any physical or chemical test would detect no change whatsoever.

      Frankly, if a change in an object is unable to affect ANY of that objects interactions with the world it, it is not much of a change in my book. And claims to the contrary start to sound a lot like snake oil to me.

    31. Re:Wrong Claim by Zerbey · · Score: 1

      Than as a Christian, prove you are _like_ Christ.

      - Treat all people no matter what their sickness or sexual conduct as God's children.
      - Suspend your criticism of other's sins unless you are without
      - Put other's well-being before your own
      - Live a life of spirituality, not wealth
      - Openly critize the leaders of your religion and texts
      - Refrain from any anger at any time except in the case when someone is profiting from your religion
      - Be willing to sacrifice yourself for what you believe in


      The answer is: nobody can be like this, all of the time. Human spirit gets in the way. That's why every christian denomination has some kind of confession (Catholics confess through a Priest, Anglicans confess directly to God during group worship, etc.). The theory is you aspire to live your life as you interpret Christ feels you should, beg forgivness for your transgressions and if you're very, very lucky you'll get into Heaven at the end of it all. You can tell I was brought up in a strong Christian environment, can't you?

      My personal belief is this: just try to live a good life and don't piss anyone else off in the process. It usually works out fairly well.

    32. Re:Wrong Claim by krypt0s · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You sound as though you're implying that, Christian == similar to Christ == always exhibits all traits of Christ. If we were all exactly like Christ at all times, who would need Christ?

      Christians are humans. Humans are flawed. Just because they fail doesn't mean they're not Christians, even though you seem to imply as much.

      Most basketball players aren't Michael Jordan. But because you're no Michael Jordan doesn't mean you're not a basketball player.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    33. Re:Wrong Claim by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      And there are more citizens of China than the United States. So, what was your point again?

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    34. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know what..you Christians aren't trying fucking hard enough.

      Take Dubya for example, nothing about his words and actions is remotely "Christian"

      Fuck him, fuck you, have a nice day.

    35. Re:Wrong Claim by MynockGuano · · Score: 1
      On the next page, Rev. Ian Paisley remarks,
      I hope that before proceedings on the Bill are completed it will include a provision saying that quotations from the Bible, which I believe to be the word of God, and the great religious documents cannot be taken and used against someone because they adhere to them.
      Thought that was somehow fitting.
    36. Re:Wrong Claim by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      He criticized them when they were wrong, true. But he didn't criticize the texts, and in fact, everything He said and did was a fulfillment of the texts. While we are taught to be like Christ, we do not have the authority of Christ as priest, prophet and the Son of God, and therefore He had the right to do things we do not.

      This does rule out criticizing leaders, but it must be done with great care, because when Jesus disagrees with rulers, we know He is right, but when we disagree, there's a good chance we are wrong.

      Finally, I think the criticism of "Jedi" as a religion is that ultimately it is based on a movie. Admittedly, a cool movie (or series of movies, minus the ones that stunk, obviously), but the philosophy in this milieu is hopelessly simplistic at best and vacuous and meaningless at worst. It's hardly something worth enough to base your life, unless, perhaps, you don't have one. That said, there's nothing that rules out Jedi as a religion, after all it's just a watered-down kind of pantheism or natur worship, but I think what will make a real difference is the actions of those who claim to be Jedi. I'd rather see a "Jedi" who is honest, upstanding and helps the weak, rather than a greedy, corrupt and deceitful Christian (or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever the Subgenius people call themselves...).

      Of course, if they could levitate spaceships and shoot lightning out of their fingers, that would be wicked cool!

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    37. Re:Wrong Claim by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Naaah...they'll just chop off their kids' hands.

      Vader was a Sith at that point, not a Jedi.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    38. Re:Wrong Claim by sanctimonius+hypocrt · · Score: 1

      It's entirely different to claim to believe in Jedi and to claim to BE a Jedi.

      Maybe he's not a very good Jedi.

    39. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you shouldn't attack something you don't understand. The whole point of Christ's teachings is that we are going to fail, we can't possibly be like Christ. If we could then we wouldn't have need christ to come back and die for us.

      Treat all people no matter what their sickness or sexual conduct as God's children.

      As for sickness, I have no idea what you are talking about, certain sexual conduct is portraid as a sin in the bible. If you are refering to homosexuality, then you have to addmit that it mention as a sin in the bible and we are to avoid it. Though you can make the arguement that the homosexuality in the bible is a reference to rape, and that a loving homosexal couple didn't exsist at that time. Either way sexual promiscuity is not allowed for hetro or homosexuals and if that is more important to you than don't be a part of that religion, you have your priorities.

      Suspend your criticism of other's sins unless you are without

      We are suppose to realize our own sins as well as others. It is a way to help everyone who wants to be apart of things better themselves. Again, if you sin is so important to you don't belong, that is your choice.

      Put other's well-being before your own
      Live a life of spirituality, not wealth
      Be willing to sacrifice yourself for what you believe in

      There are now way that I can prove any of this to you. You can easily say well you aren't living in poverity and suffering enough. We all do what we can, and you can't satisfy everyone, it is up to God to judge me, not you.

      Openly critize the leaders of your religion and texts
      I do, I have left churchs over my leaders not preaching what the bible says, you can't just the whole based on a few.

      Refrain from any anger at any time except in the case when someone is profiting from your religion

      This doesn't make any sense. There is nothing against anger in the bible. Hatred, yes, anger no. Again, maybe you should know somthing about your topic before jumping to conclusions.

    40. Re:Wrong Claim by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Apostle Creed, that's this guy right ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    41. Re:Wrong Claim by uberdave · · Score: 1
      And since when is "openly criticizing leaders of your religion" a tenet of Christianity?
      # Acts 17:11

      Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
      Criticism, in the spirit of examination and verification of teachings, is definitely a tenet of Christianity. Criticism, in the spirit of being an argumentative crybaby, isn't.
    42. Re:Wrong Claim by bornyesterday · · Score: 1
      The parent wondered how many people who claim to be christian lived christian lives. I simply suggested that there are more true christians than there are true jedi.

      Since people have been arguing the validity of both belief systems, I thought it might be prudent to consider that there are more people who have successfully lived their lives as christians than who can ever live their lives as jedi.

    43. Re:Wrong Claim by RichardX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Catholics see the body and bread as a physical vessel of the spiritual body and blood of Jesus Christ. After all, before it's blessed, it's just bread, and after it's digested, it's goes down the toilet. It simply doesn't matter much what it's made of physically, in the same way it doesn't matter at all what people are made of physically... we all turn back to dust in the end.

      You're missing a very important part of the process. According to Catholic belief the wafer is not simply a piece of bread that is eaten and digested like any other wafer. It is subject to a miracle - in the very literal sense.

      Catholics believe in the miracle of transubstantiation. This states that at the moment of consumption the communion wafer literally, physically changes and becomes the flesh of Christ. It's important to understand that this is not simply seen as a symbolic or metaphorical thing, but that according to Catholic dogma it actually physically happens.

      If transubstantiation did take place then it wouldn't matter in the least what the wafer was made from - it could be made from arsenic and cyanide, and if the miracle of transubstantiation is correct, the person eating it would suffer no ill effects whatsoever, because those substances would not enter their body.

      Therefore, if the catholic church is so confident that this miracle takes place - and it is, after all, a fundamental part of their beliefs - then why do they bother getting gluten free wafers for people who can't consume gluten?

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    44. Re:Wrong Claim by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      I thought it might be prudent to consider that there are more people who have successfully lived their lives as christians than who can ever live their lives as jedi.

      Well, you may want to consider that the Christians have a head-start of two millenia.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    45. Re:Wrong Claim by phpWebber · · Score: 1

      I was responding more to the fellow that insisted someone prove they are Jedi and being critical of those who hypocritically attack a religion other than their own. And I agree with you. No one can _be_ Jesus but they can aspire to be like him. Having a mere sliver of the compassion portrayed by Jesus would be worthwhile but people tend to disregard the lessons and focus on Original Sin as if it gives them license to squirm out of responsibility.

    46. Re:Wrong Claim by uberdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is also the possibility, of course, Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and not literally.

    47. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they don't buy that part of the bible, why the rest?

      I am an atheist.

      That is a category fallacy. (Unless you are talking about fundamentalists, but they are irrational anyway so there isn't any point in arguing with them.)

      We don't throw out all of science when one theory fails.

    48. Re:Wrong Claim by phpWebber · · Score: 1

      True, he criticized their interpretation of the texts but not the law itself.

      I'd rather see a "Jedi" who is honest, upstanding and helps the weak, rather than a greedy, corrupt and deceitful Christian (or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever the Subgenius people call themselves...).

      Then we agree :)

    49. Re:Wrong Claim by KutuluWare · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ


      Incorrect. I am a recovering Catholic, so I have some major issues with their beleifs from the perspective of living in the real world, but this is not one of them. They beleive that the priest *petitions Jesus* to turn the host into his body, like he did at the Last Supper, so that the congregation can gain the same benefits as the Apostles.

      In general, Catholics do not ever profess to beleive that people have their own internal "super powers" -- not the pope, or priests, or even saints. Their beleive is that these people have a much closer connection with God. God then performs performs such miraculous works as the consecration at mass, the pope's infallible statements, etc., using the person as his agent.

      While I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, the implication is that God could easily just do these things without human intercession, but that having a person act as his agnet to do them provides a more comfortable and easily understood experience that simply having full written Papal bulls appear from thin air.
    50. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up star wars dorks. nobody cares

    51. Re:Wrong Claim by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Well, the Lutherans, among others, believe in a literal transformation.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    52. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Catholics see the body and bread as a physical vessel of the spiritual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

      Why has this heresy been allowed to stay at +2?

      Catholics know that the bread and wine are physically transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ.

      The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in section 1376:
      Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.
      Anyone who has mod points and doesn't mod down Rahga's post will burn in eternal hellfire. A lot. And not in a nice way.
    53. Re:Wrong Claim by 3nd32 · · Score: 1

      Note that the Josephus passage I quoted was not the one suspected to be an interpolation, but the quote referring to James, the brother of Jesus. This quote, as far as I know, has not had its authenticity questioned. According to the article you linked to, it is confirmed by Origen. While these texts are not proof for the existence of Jesus, they most definitely are evidence. Regardless of whether or not Jesus existed, there is substantially more evidence than the GP was suggesting.

    54. Re:Wrong Claim by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1
      --
      ± 29 dB
    55. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are talking about this statement on Wikepedia: "However, the text merely mentions that Christians existed, which is not generally in doubt, and that they had founding in someone called "Christ" executed by Pilate, a statement that could easily have come merely from a conversation with a Christian, rather than a statement of fact."

      Come on now. Of course the author of the historical text didn't observe everything "first-hand". That is plain silly to conclude. But it's also silly to conclude that the author of what wikipedia (you used the source) claims to be the "the most reliable scholar of his time" would be gullable to believe a false statement.

      But in the end, it doesn't matter. Christianity is a matter if faith, and faith alone. So what if we can prove Jesus Christ existed? Must then we prove he actually performed miracles? Must then we prove that he actually rose from the dead? Must then we prove that he was actually dead? Must then we prove he actually ascended to heaven? Must then we prove that mary was indeed a virgin and gave birth to this same Jesus Christ? Even if we do all that, must then we prove everything in the old-testatement that God did?

      So in the end, it comes down to faith. However, there is quite a bit of wordly evidence, both historical and now-observable, that evidences the existance of Christ.

    56. Re:Wrong Claim by bornyesterday · · Score: 1

      The point is that there is no real comparison between living as a Christian and as a Jedi. Living as a Christian entails reachable goals (depending on who you ask). No one is ever going to make a lightsaber, especially anytime soon, to give credence to the lifestyle. No one is going to be able to identify midichlorians (sp?). Etc.

    57. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ during mass.


      Close, they actually believe the true substance of the wine and host are "transubstantiated" into the blood and body of Christ during the Mass. The physical form stays the same so that if you put it under a microscope you would not see blood cells and muscle cells. Using the word "literally" is a bit strong. It is more like some kind of metaphysical type coercion is performed. Wars, real wars, not flame wars, have been fought over this so I wouldn't mind if we ignore the distinction.

    58. Re:Wrong Claim by Nevyn · · Score: 1
      Finally, I think the criticism of "Jedi" as a religion is that ultimately it is based on a movie.

      But that was made from a script written on paper, like, you know ... the bible. Or to quote someone else:

      I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    59. Re:Wrong Claim by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 1

      " There is substantially more evidence for the existence of Jesus than you appear to believe

      And there is even more evidence for the existence of David Koresh. What's your point?

      --
      "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
    60. Re:Wrong Claim by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Living as a 'Christian' is just as ambiguous as living as a 'Jedi.' I should think both are equally attainable in that one can simply state that one is an adherent of such-and-such a belief system and that's good enough for most people.

      Living as a Jedi is probably even easier than living as a Christian, since there is no form of written text upon which to base any sort of dogma. Your suggestion that one must be able to create a lightsaber in order to be considered a "true" Jedi seems somewhat fundamentalist to me, and I don't think the 'mainstream' adherents to the Jedi faith would consider it necessary (then again, that is speculation on my part, but it seems likely).

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    61. Re:Wrong Claim by villageidiot357 · · Score: 1

      I don't think he was complaining about christians being "only human" and failing to live up to such standards. I think the point was that many don't even make the effort to try.

    62. Re:Wrong Claim by 3nd32 · · Score: 1

      That the AC is incorrect in his belief that there is no corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus.

    63. Re:Wrong Claim by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 1

      Living as a Christian entails reachable goals (depending on who you ask). No one is ever going to make a lightsaber, especially anytime soon, to give credence to the lifestyle.

      You're obviously new to the religion game. If the lightsaber thing is unworkable then it obviously isn't meant to be taken literally - it's a metaphor for something spiritual.

      HTH

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    64. Re:Wrong Claim by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      And since when is "openly criticizing leaders of your religion" a tenet of Christianity?

      Perhaps a better way to phrase that is to observe Christian leaders critically. Because the words that come out of their mouth compared to the behaviors they exhibit and condone do not seem to match up all the time.

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    65. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a Catholic, and I would just like to state that I am not Christ, and I am not quite "like" Christ. I am trying to be like Christ. All of those things stated are my goals.

      I am a human being, and with that comes shortcomings that I can recognize and work on. I strive to be like Jesus. I wish I could act the way he did, not necessarily do the things he did.

      Flame on people...Flame on. :S

    66. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, out of all these "other writings," you cite two that have been thoroughly discredited?

      Tacitus wasn't writing about Jesus but the crazy Christians that were trying to subvert Rome in ~64CE. He mentions their back-story but doesn't discuss his source which, having been written over 100 years after the Jesus character was supposed to have died and considering no other Roman sources have come to light, are the stories and writings that were incorporated into the New Testament.

      And Josephus...the only thing the apologists are fighting over these days is whether the tone of the passage matches the rest of Jospehus' writings. They've all but decided to ignore the fact that Josephus is Jewish but becomes Christian for that one passage. Guess the divine inspiration was only temporary.

    67. Re:Wrong Claim by revscat · · Score: 1

      And as a Unitarian I say to you godspeed. I rue Billy Graham's retirement as a voice of true compassion and reason, and I hope that the Christians of your temperament grow in strength, numbers, wealth, and influence. Good luck.

    68. Re:Wrong Claim by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm just kind of randomly posting here, but Lutherans most certainly DO NOT believe in a literal transformation. Lutherans believe that it's still just wine and wafers, and that it merely symbolizes the body and blood of Christ, as well as Jesus' declaration to his disciples at the Last Supper.

    69. Re:Wrong Claim by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      You are correct that it's not seen as simply a symbolic, metaphorical or "only spiritual" thing.

      Being Catholic, I do have a few minor quibbles, though -- for example, the wafer is understood to become the flesh and blood of Christ immediately at consecration, not later at consumption.

      Given this, it is understood that (under normal circumstances) the physical properties of the bread are conserved in the process. The use of bread and wine is also a requirement -- the glutin-free wafers are probably barely bread, but they still count.

      Part of the miracle, if you like, is the discrepancy between the physical reality of the Eucharist and the physical accidents of the bread.

      So, that is why Catholics bother with glutin-free wafers. You may or may not find that to be a satisfying answer (it probably seems crazier than the position you were trying to challenge), but there it is.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    70. Re:Wrong Claim by Sneakabout · · Score: 0

      Well done, a very concise summary of christian values. That is indeed what we're meant to be doing. The fact that people claim to be christian while doing the opposite may damage the public reputation of the religion, but it can't alter the truth. I assume that you yourself try to follow those statements then?

      --
      Sneakabout is a mysterious figure, having done too much mathematics.
    71. Re:Wrong Claim by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Lutherans most certainly DO NOT believe in a literal transformation

      From Wikipedia:

      "Lutherans subscribe to the doctrine of the Eucharistic Real Presence, believing that the bread and wine truly are the body and blood of Jesus Christ."

      and

      "Pious Silence - the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Christ in a way that is beyond human comprehension; the specific mechanisms and details of this are not possible to understand nor to explain; this view is held by the Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches."

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    72. Re:Wrong Claim by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "Actually, you are wrong. Jesus himself commanded in Mathew 5:48"

      You quoting this is problematic for thos who do not understand the Bible and Christian theology. What He is stating, if it is to be taken exactly as it is translated, is completely impossible for humanity, especially so in the context of the divine as described in the Bible by Christ himself.

      So, then you have to ask yourself a series of questions. Is this translated properly? Is it taken out of context? Is there some nuance missing? If yes, no, and no are the answers then what is He referring to? Maybe the imputation of divine righteousness or maybe another of the 39 irrevocable absolutes that are mentioned as the inheritance of those who believe in Christ. The answer is a lesson for the reader.

      As for what is "required" this is a matter of some complexity. First, there is the PREREQUISITE of salvation before this declaration takes on any meaning. This means that for the person listening to this discussion and taking it as a teaching lesson they ALREADY have salvation. Therefore, salvation is not at stake when talking about these things, only how a Christian should compose themselves. The person will be a Christian by the standards set forth in the Bible regardless of how they act, provided that they believe in Christ. All other things are irrelevant with respect to that person attaining salvation and their status as a Christian, regardless of the way other humans may view them.

      Now, you may be thinking things like if person X does action Y they can never go to heaven, but the Bible is explicit about how salvation occurs and it does not involve the action of mankind other than faith and even that faith is imputed by God to mankind. This seperates the actions of man from the salvation of God completely and throws many of the ideas of what mankind thinks should matter when determining salvation right out the window.

      As for the addition lessons provided by God in the Bible that do not have to do with the subject of the Gospel/hamartiology/salvation, they are for those believers who want to worship God. Worship, in the Bible, is simple. It is learning about Bible doctrine, which in turn is knowledge of the character and person of God. Through this process, a Christian is said to be able to achieve the "Mind of Christ" where he will have enough understanding and internalization of the character of God and Bible doctrine that they can think, act, react, and derive moivation the same way that Christ does. All Christians are commanded to achieve this, though those that do not will not lose their salvation or their status as Christians. Again the status of Christian is independent of actions other than faith in Christ.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    73. Re:Wrong Claim by GKChesterton · · Score: 1

      For what it is worth, we Catholics do not believe it is a power of the priest that does this. It is Jesus doing it through the actions of the priest. Similarly, when a priest pronounces absolution after a person confesses his sins, its not the priest forgiving our sins, it is Jesus. This is done because we humans are physical beings as well as spiritual, and its good to have those sensory cues, like the priest pronouncing the words of consecration, and the words of absolution. It is so much more comforting to actually hear those words of forgiveness than to just assume them. This is also why we Catholics have the "smells and bells" in our liturgy. Our physical senses are to be used to experience the sacred.

    74. Re:Wrong Claim by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      "Star Wars" doesn't pretend to be anything other than a piece of fluff entertainment.

      I think that makes a small bit of difference.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    75. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a metaphor for something spiritual

      Yes, it's a metaphor for a giant religious wang that must be smacked around so as to become strong in the force.

    76. Re:Wrong Claim by emidln · · Score: 1

      Thanks for saying it for me, from a guy recovering from paying attention in 8 years of Theology class.

    77. Re:Wrong Claim by Rahga · · Score: 1

      Indeed... I intentionally didn't go that deep into the thing, but if it was only spiritual, there'd be no need to even consume the host. The preist could just bless the congregation and be done with it (ignoring "do this in memory of me" for the sake of argument)....

      I don't care too much fretting over glutin and physical accident arguments. Reason being that sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch are merely impulses fed to our brain by the body, and those senses are already quite limited to begin with. Why rely on them to tell me what's going on with a consecrated host?

    78. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many of them are Christians solely to save their own asses from eternal punishment and to get a cushy place in paradise?

      Sounds like a good enough reason to me!

    79. Re:Wrong Claim by dbucowboy · · Score: 1

      Actually... It's ok to be angry. The Bible just says don't sin in your anger.

      And second of all, doing all of those things would make us (Chrisitans) perfect and without a need for redemption because we would be without sin.

      You're right about one thing though, there are not near enough Christians living out those principles. I try to everyday, but I admit it is hard to do.

      --
      This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
    80. Re:Wrong Claim by 3nd32 · · Score: 1

      The Josephus passage to which you are referring is not the one I quoted. The one I quoted is generally accepted as authentic, instead of a partial or complete interpolation. Keeping in mind that I am not a scholar, or an expert on this time period, here are some other writings. Tranquillas: "Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city." Jewish Talmud: "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged." Lucian: "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account."

      These are a few of the nonchristian sources I've found, and I cannot speak to their authenticity, as I have not studied them.

    81. Re:Wrong Claim by cyberformer · · Score: 1


      You're missing the second, even greater miracle: That even though the bread and wine have been turned into the body and blood of Christ, they still have all the physical effects of bread and wine. So arsenic and cyanide that had been miraculously transubstantiated into flesh would still poison in the same way as regular, non-transubstantiated arsenic and cyanide.

      Also, the dogma doesn't say that transubstantiation happens at the moment of consumption. It happens during a ritual a few minutes earlier. This is important, as it means that the priest has to consume any leftovers himself. (Allowing the body of Christ to rot in a garbage dump or sewer is considered very sinful.) I used to have a priest who was always drunk by Sunday lunchtime, yet claimed (truthfully, according to Catholic doctrine) that he hadn't consumed a drop of alcohol.

    82. Re:Wrong Claim by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      Yeah.

      Still, you may want to be careful of glossing over things quite as much as you did -- as that AC pointed out (rather ungraciously), the treatment in your original post appeared less than orthodox.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    83. Re:Wrong Claim by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      That was the point I was hoping the PP would recognize.

      That said, criticism must be done with care. St. Paul admonishes us to criticize people in private and not make a public spectacle out it or ourselves, and only if the issue is not addressed to elevate it to a broader and broader forum as needed.

      Then of course, how you criticize is equally important. To wit, getting on TV and tearing up a picture of the Pope is just being a childish ass. However, writing a detailed argument, backed up with facts and logic that are not wilfully untruthful, of your disagreements with him or his policies or the Church is honorable, even if you're wrong.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    84. Re:Wrong Claim by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      > Another key question is, how many of them are
      > Christians solely to save their own asses from
      > eternal punishment and to get a cushy place in
      > paradise?

      And there's something wrong with this motivation because...? It makes no observable difference in their action, which is what really matters.

      Of course, at the end, real Christians know that entering heaven is a free *GIFT* and nobody is guaranteed a place no matter what we do. We do it in hope to increase the chance of receiving the gift - but we all know at the end, it is not ours to decide.

    85. Re:Wrong Claim by SonOfMan · · Score: 1

      If you read the scriptures, it never says that thomas indeed did stick his hand threw Jesus, although it's quite possible one is left with the feeling that he did indeed stick his hand threw Jesus.

    86. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What He is stating, if it is to be taken exactly as it is translated, is completely impossible for humanity, especially so in the context of the divine as described in the Bible by Christ himself.

      Impossible according to whom? Are you saying that one quote can't be interpreted a certain way because of the way other quotes are interpreted? Sounds like things are getting messy.

    87. Re:Wrong Claim by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Ok fine.
      Than as a Christian, prove you are _like_ Christ.

      - Treat all people no matter what their sickness or sexual conduct as God's children.
      - Suspend your criticism of other's sins unless you are without
      - Put other's well-being before your own
      - Live a life of spirituality, not wealth
      - Openly critize the leaders of your religion and texts
      - Refrain from any anger at any time except in the case when someone is profiting from your religion
      - Be willing to sacrifice yourself for what you believe in

      Lots of people claim to be Christians. How many really are?


      Quite true. Many, many people take it as a name, to check off on the polls, and to feel good about themselves. In fact, many people around the world think that the US is a Christian nation, and thus what our movies and TV shows depict must be "christian".

      I, in fact, do try to live according to the way Jesus lived, and I think my friends and coworkers would affirm that. Not that I'm perfect, but I do strive to follow Christ's example.

      And I am quite saddened when I am lumped together with this other false image of "christianity".

    88. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can respect almost anyone who is at least consistant and knowledgeable of their own beliefs.

      Holy tautology, batman! How would you expect someone not to be knowledgable of their own beliefs? They are their beliefs because they believe them.
    89. Re:Wrong Claim by SonOfMan · · Score: 1

      "27": Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

      "28": And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

      "29": Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

      as you can see, it never says thomas stuck his hand threw Jesus

    90. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you! Now shut the fuck up.

    91. Re:Wrong Claim by burndive · · Score: 1

      Replace "criticism" with condemnation and you're right on.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    92. Re:Wrong Claim by dcam · · Score: 1

      If they do, they have regressed since 1517. Luther triggered the reformation on issues like this one. Certainly in England transubstantiation (literal changing of bread and wine to body and blood) was a hot topic, largley because this treatment of the bread and wine was considered idolatry. People in England were burnt at the stake over this one.

      As far as I am aware only the Roman Catholic church believes in transubstantiation. Possibly some of the more Anglo-Catholic sections of the Anglican/Church of England/Episcopalian churches might follow this trend.

      --
      meh
    93. Re:Wrong Claim by DaCool42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      - Treat all people no matter what their sickness or sexual conduct as God's children.
      - Suspend your criticism of other's sins unless you are without
      - Put other's well-being before your own

      Absolutely. Not easily done though.

      - Live a life of spirituality, not wealth

      This is kind of vague. I assume you are referencing teachings such as "money is the root of all evil", etc. I know many Christians who have given up money and careers to serve others instead.

      - Openly critize the leaders of your religion and texts

      Huh? What should they be criticized for? Or do you mean examine to see if they are telling the truth? Or are you saying there are a lot of corrupt leaders? Not really sure what you are getting at here.

      - Refrain from any anger at any time except in the case when someone is profiting from your religion

      I assume you are referring to Jesus driving money changers out of the temple. The money changes had moved into an area of the temple that was to be used for worship. If I recall were also involved in business practices contrary to Jewish law. These money changers were fellow Jews who knew the law and should have known better, but instead they chose to turn God's house into a "den of robbers". They were not only profiting, but openly dishonering God in the temple and preventing others from worship.

      - Be willing to sacrifice yourself for what you believe in

      How about one better. Be willing to sacrifice yourself for other people even if they don't believe in what you do.

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
    94. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      """Lots of people claim to be Christians. How many really are? """

      Excellent argument... a clincher...

      I have also wondered this...

      If a real Jedi presented themselves to the planet...

      I reckon more would recognise the Jedi than if Jesus Christ popped down and did the same...

      Some people maintain he'd be entertained at guantanamo...

      for being a little too 'radical' ;)

    95. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      """Lots of people claim to be Christians. How many really are? """
      Excellent argument... a clincher...

      I have also wondered this...
      If a real Jedi presented themselves to the planet...
      I reckon more would recognise the Jedi than if Jesus Christ popped down and did the same...
      You have to wonder just how big the gap is between what he did and his followers do now...

      And lukes followers...
      Although Lukes cant yet choke people or are not well versed in the use of the light sabre...
      Some of Jesus's followers dont always understand things like compassion and other oft sighted meaningless, trivial and intrinsically (capitolistically) worthless things, such as benevolence or, heaven forbid, composure in economic and emotional matters.

    96. Re:Wrong Claim by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be Christian to be like that. That sounds to me like amazing common sense.

      But, I don't understand how you shouldn't criticize others, but it's ok to criticize the leaders?

    97. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Lots of people claim to be Christians. How many really are?"

      Umm, actually, two. One's wearing a silly white coat with the sleeves belted to the belly, the other one is in jail in Ohio.

      Cheers,

      God

    98. Re:Wrong Claim by excaliber19 · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm glad God isn't my dad. Sure would suck having my dad sacrifice me for somebody else.

      "Son, our neighbor just stole from blind old women and set fire to all of the town. I'm going to shoot you to make up for it."

      Also, I love how Christianity (as you say) has a nice little backdoor in it. "We can't be 100% like Christ, so it is ok to cheat, steal, lie, etc etc sometimes. When you cast blame, it isn't really my fault, because you can't expect me to be 100% like Christ"

      Pfft.

    99. Re:Wrong Claim by dvk · · Score: 1

      > St. Paul admonishes us to criticize people in private and not make a public spectacle out it or ourselves, and only if the issue is not addressed to elevate it to a broader and broader forum as needed.

      Uhm... just to be clear about this - it wasn't exactly St. Paul's or Christians' invention to avoid criticism in public. It was an existing rule in Judaism (there's a pretty involved set of laws called Lashon Hara that deals with saying bad things to/about others).

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    100. Re:Wrong Claim by dvk · · Score: 1

      > Living as a Jedi is probably even easier than living as a Christian, since there is no form of written text upon which to base any sort of dogma.

      Wrong on both counts:

      1) "living as a Christian" entails only ONE thing. Believing that JC was G-d's son who died to take everyone else's sin and redeem all humans. I'm probably butchering the fine points but that's the only *required* idea.

      - There is written Jedi "Dogma". It was simply lost after Vader and the Emperor exterminated the Jedi, except for some archival materials Luke could find (Hi! I'm DVK, and I'm a SW geek... All together now: HI DVK!!!)

      Or, if you're talking outside of Star Wars Universe, "Jedi Dogma" is a set of Lucas-approved SW material, mostly movies/books/comics.

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    101. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a threat to me!

    102. Re:Wrong Claim by dakirw · · Score: 1

      Are you absolutely sure that the Wikipedia entry is correct? It's certainly possibly that the entry may not be entirely accurate.

    103. Re:Wrong Claim by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.

      Yep, and I never got rid of the smell ever since !

      Thomas-

    104. Re:Wrong Claim by MPolo · · Score: 1

      The terminology and belief varies slightly from religion to religion. Summarized from Wikipedia (and here) we have the following scale.

      • Roman Catholic: Transubstantiation (substance changes, accidents remain)
      • Orthodox: True change of bread and wine into body and blood, but no attempt to explain the mechanism
      • Anglican: "Real presence", which ranges in interpretation from transubstantiation to consubstantiation (both the bread and wine and the body and blood are present)
      • Lutheran: Christ is really present "in, with and under" the bread and wine at the moment of receiving communion (no Eucharistic adoration)
      • Calvinist: Spiritual presence (Christ is present spiritually in the bread and wine.)
      • Baptist: Symbolic of Christ or simply a memorial
      • Quaker: Suspension (Bread and wine remind of Christ)
      • Methodist: "After a heavenly and spiritual manner"
    105. Re:Wrong Claim by Singletoned · · Score: 1
      Treat all people no matter what their sickness or sexual conduct as God's children.

      That could get really difficult:

      "Hey, I know you're anally raping me, but you're God's child too and I forgive you."

    106. Re:Wrong Claim by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      No. Living as a "Christian" varies drastically depending upon which sect you adhere to. BTW, some sects don't believe he was the son of God. There are also some sects that pretty much think you can believe whatever you want to so long as you think Jesus was cool.

      Living as a Jedi depends pretty much on what you individually believe living as a Jedi is. Naturally, this is also true for Christianity. There would be many who disagree with this sentiment, but it's the only non-exclusive criteria possible given the marked differences in beliefs inherent in the spectrum of religious devotion.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    107. Re:Wrong Claim by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Of course that's possible. However, I have yet to find other online sources on the subject matter besides seriously flakey-looking ones.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    108. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone claims that those claiming to be Jedi aren't really Jedi because they can't literally build a lightsaber.

      Someone responds by pointing out that Christians can't literally move mountains with faith either.

      So you point out that this must be metaphorical, not literal.

      Wow, well done on noticing that! Now, contiunue that train of though. Focus. Concentrate. If I can call myself a Christian when I can't move mountains, can I call myself a Jedi when I can't build lightsabers? Think. Think. Come on, it's worth the effort. What point was being made?

    109. Re:Wrong Claim by dcam · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I really appreciate that.

      I was aware (loosely) of the others, and had read the Wikipedia articles on this. The luteran position on this one is new to me. Sorry I don't personally know any Lutherans.

      Lutheran: Christ is really present "in, with and under" the bread and wine at the moment of receiving communion (no Eucharistic adoration)

      This is really interesting. I spoke to someone else who knows more on this than I (forgive me for not trusting Wikipedia completely), and she confirmed that was Luther's position. So Luther never really diverged significantly from the Roman Catholic position. So I am clearly wrong in stating the the Lutheran church has departed from Luther's position. I assumed that there was greater uniformity in the different reformation churches.

      What was further interesting about this is that before Luther there were a number of English reformers who disagreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Wycliffe being one of these. The Anglican, Baptist, Quaker, Methodists were descended largely from the English church, so we can see some line of decent in the theology.

      This is clearly an interesting area and worthy of further research. I think I'll hunt down some histories on it.

      --
      meh
    110. Re:Wrong Claim by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's a really high bar to reach. But even if someone was slowly crucifying you, the example is that we should "forgive them for they know not what they do".

    111. Re:Wrong Claim by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      Impossible according to whom? Are you saying that one quote can't be interpreted a certain way because of the way other quotes are interpreted? Sounds like things are getting messy.

      "for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

      The interpretation isn't messy at all. The Bible point blank states that everyone is imperfect, all have sinned.

      "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."Mathew 5:44-48

      Here is the proper context where we are told to be perfect. There is again nothing messy between this verse and Romans 3:23. The 2 passages give the simple idea that we are to strive to be perfect like god, even though we will come up short.

    112. Re:Wrong Claim by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I never said or implied it was. We Christians derive much of our belief and practices from Judaism. As we Christians see it, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Of course, I appreciate that Jewish people won't see it this way, but nonetheless we owe our heritage to Judaism, and it was good to see the last Pope acknowledge that we Christians haven't treated the Jews too well at times, especially in the Middle Ages.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    113. Re:Wrong Claim by Busy · · Score: 1

      Being like Christ is supposed to be a goal for christians. You're not automatically made like him when you join the club. It's more or less an unobtainable goal to strive for during one's lifetime.

      I'm not a fan of organized religion at all, but I just thought you missed the mark with this one.

      --
      Think of someone with average intelligence. Now think 1/2 the world is dumber than that guy.
    114. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two apropos quotations:

      "Going to church no more makes you a Christian than going out to the garage makes you a car."

      "It is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It is that it has been found difficult and left untried."

    115. Re:Wrong Claim by Rahga · · Score: 1

      Dude. Seriously.... I was only arguing that it's not the bread or wine that is special, nor even the preist, but the presence of Jesus Christ. I never once said that the bread and wine are not transformed in the process, because I never even got close to describing the sacrament.

      I certainly never expected anyone to even read it that way... I live in Texas, and hear quite regularly from protestants that communion is a symbolic act, or at the very least, something far short of how Catholics regard it. I don't get 10 seconds into explaining why they can't take communion in the Catholic church before they change subject and ask if I've accepted Jesus as my personal savior.

    116. Re:Wrong Claim by brpr · · Score: 1

      "Star Wars" doesn't pretend to be anything other than a piece of fluff entertainment. I think that makes a small bit of difference.

      Yes, it makes Starwars more honest.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
    117. Re:Wrong Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In all probability, Jesus was just a smart, compassionate man. 2,000 years of an overzealous, corrupt, misinformed lot being in charge of "the new testament" is most definitely at fault. Which is more likely: a flawless human being (aka God's son) was sent to Earth; or during the Dark Ages, even more recently, a corrupt, power-grabbing religious oreder changed the "scared" text to make it seem like it hapenned?

      The written word is very easily manipulated, even Christian philosophers recognize this. Either side would argue that it's the meaning behind what is being said (see Nietzsche v Scheler). The literal translations are not only unnecessary, but damaging in every regard.

    118. Re:Wrong Claim by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but then again Jedi = similar to a Jedi = always exhibits all traits of a Jedi isn't true neither.

      Maybe, because he's an Earthling, he is flawed. just because he fails doesn't prove he's not a Jedi.

      Most Jedi's aren't Luke skywalkers. But because you're not Luke Skywalker doesn't mean your not a Jedi.

      Now, do you see the non-argument of your post? Everything you or other Xians have said (or used as excuses to explain why one can't prove anything in your religion) can be used in the EXACT SAME manner for this Jedi-belief. Please *disprove* the Jedi-belief, or even demonstrate why your belief is correct, why that of the Force isn't.

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    119. Re:Wrong Claim by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Yes, it makes Starwars more honest.

      Cute, Marie. Real cute.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    120. Re:Wrong Claim by Digz · · Score: 1
      --
      SYS 64738
    121. Re:Wrong Claim by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Probably a better question: How many of them fall back on their faith after an admission of guilt as a way to avoid punishment in this world?

      Too often now do I see people accused of any number of wrongdoings ranging from corporate malfeasance to murder take the stage and proclaim their sorrows and sudden realization that Jesus is the one true son of God and now that they have accepted him into their hearts we should all be a little more forgiving.

      Some critics call this type of christianity "convenient christianity", I just call it bullshit. My response to a criminal proclaiming his acceptance of Christ is genralyy along the lines of, "Yes, but has Christ accepted you?" A "true" Christian will carry Christ's teachings in his or her heart, not pull him off the shelf and staple him to a sleeve after committing an evil act. Christ should never be used as a "get out of jail free" card or as some sort of after the fact leverage for forgiveness. There's a special place in hell for those who use faith this callously.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    122. Re:Wrong Claim by vertinox · · Score: 1

      To wit, getting on TV and tearing up a picture of the Pope is just being a childish ass.

      No, it's being very iconoclaustic. If I were a Protestant in the middle ages I'd be burning pictures of popes left and right and stomping on Catholic holy images all the time. That and quartering Catholic traitors to the Crown or resistors to the Northern Germany Nobles... But that is beside the point.

      The point is that if you hold an image holy then by default you might be making an idol out of it, and if you tore it up in protest of your leaders then by all means do so.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    123. Re:Wrong Claim by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      But the outrage is not that the image was considered holy. It's just a photograph. The outrage is because it was a mindless and content-free attack on the Holy Father. She did not nail 95 theses to the cathedral door or otherwise state in any way her problems with the Church and/or the Pope. She merely made a statement which was equivalent to "The Pope sucks." or maybe similarly immature "Na-nanny boo boo!"

      Again, this is childish. A real response and valid criticism would be expressed in written or spoken words, perhaps even a song. Otherwise, people would do it all the time. You'd have Howard Dean up there tearing up pictures of President Bush (it's less ad hominem (and less silly) then his usual comments), or Karl Rove tearing up pictures of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, which would be no less inflammatory than his recent comments.

      That's the problem with so many modern "protesters". All they can do is complain, and often they don't even do that but rather just call people names. If you are going to protest something, make a point, back it up with facts, offer a reasoned argument. Otherwise you might as well be sticking out your tongue and going "Neener neener neener!", and deserve to be treated like the spoiled child you are acting like.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  46. A US Sith lord by jzarling · · Score: 0, Troll

    Isnt VP Cheney a Sith?

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
  47. Why Not? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    Most of the religious nutcases we have in Congress today are far loonier than this guy.

    Some of these morons allegedly actually CROWNED the Reverend Sun Myung Moon in an official ceremony in an official US government building!

    Can this Jedi loon beat that?

    Aleister Crowley had the right idea: "The Christians to the lions!"

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    1. Re:Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      allegedly actually

      Good one.

    2. Re:Why Not? by Billy+the+Impaler · · Score: 0

      Need I remind you that the crowner of Moon was a Democrat, Danny K. Davis, D-IL, and not one of those crazy "religious nutcase" Republicans?

    3. Re:Why Not? by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      Not to put too fine a point on it, but any Christian knowingly involved in Moon's coronation as Returning Messiah would be guilty of apostacy.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    4. Re:Why Not? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Not an English major, eh?

      "Allegedly" is used because I wasn't there and I rely on the news reports of the event.

      "Actually" is used to point out that the event is (or should have been) unusual.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    5. Re:Why Not? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Where did I refer to political party affiliation in my post?

      That said, there are likely far more loony-tune religious Republicans than there are loony-tune religious Democrats. Certainly the loony-tune religious Republicans make far more public statements that identify them as such.

      But I don't distinguish. Morons are morons.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    6. Re:Why Not? by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      Not to put too fine a point on it, but any Christian knowingly involved in Moon's coronation as Returning Messiah would be guilty of apostacy.

      What if Moon is is the Returning Messiah?

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
    7. Re:Why Not? by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      Is that a serious question?

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
  48. This will call for a filibuster. by lcsjk · · Score: 1

    I hear the Republicans are gearing up to filibuster before letting e Jedi have a seat!

    1. Re:This will call for a filibuster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard the first Jedi will be from VT.

  49. Not a REAL Jedi...is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait...England has Jedi's running their country? How can this guy be a Jedi and get through a whole speach without the wooden delivery and a quick "May the force be with you" at the end? I don't buy it.

  50. ok so someone had to say it.. by Sauron79 · · Score: 1

    NOOOOOOO!

  51. May the Force be with nobody by pickapeppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We'll have a Jedi Senator years before we'll have an atheist one.

    1. Re:May the Force be with nobody by centauri · · Score: 1

      I wish I hadn't made a funny reply up above. This was just the comment I was looking to mod up (or make myself).

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    2. Re:May the Force be with nobody by yasbug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      hmm...i wonder if anyone on the parliment is a sith lord...

    3. Re:May the Force be with nobody by Gondola · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean *publicly* atheist. There are lots of intelligent people out there in Washington. I mean, who would turn down a job where you can vote in your own salary increases, and be above the laws of the plebs?

      They lie about everything else, why not lie about their religion, too?

    4. Re:May the Force be with nobody by e.+boaz · · Score: 1

      We'll have a Jedi Senator years before we'll have an atheist one.

      Just watch out if he becomes Chancellor, err wait, Prime Minister, err, President, we could be in a world of trouble.

    5. Re:May the Force be with nobody by EnglishTim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please don't confuse 'intelligent' with 'atheist'. There are many intelligent theists just as there are many stupid atheists.

      I'm an atheist.

  52. I'll bet you ten bucks by Too+many+errors,+bai · · Score: 1

    that this guy is actually an undercover Erisian, especially since he's gloating about the "protection under law"...seems like a mockery. :)

  53. Did anyone read the whole speech? by GuyZero · · Score: 1

    Ok, I didn't read it either, but I skimmed it.

    The Jedi thing was nothing compared to the rest of the speech - are all Parlimentary speeches in England that long? Holy shit. He walked through his whole constitutency house by house and described what everyone did. What kind of speech is that?

    1. Re:Did anyone read the whole speech? by Daedala · · Score: 1

      "are all Parlimentary speeches in England that long? Holy shit. He walked through his whole constitutency house by house and described what everyone did. What kind of speech is that?"

      Substantive?

      --
      What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
    2. Re:Did anyone read the whole speech? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I skimmed it too. The last paragraph was relevant, but the rest was junk.

      MPs speaking in the house of commons are allowed 10 minutes to talk on pretty much whatever they like; it's traditional for an MP making his first speech to say a little about the debate at hand and then fill the rest of the time talking about his constituency. Most others don't fill their 10 minutes, although it looks like Ian Paisley went pretty close to his limit just afterwards. And got heckled by another MP suggesting he would go to hell...

  54. That wasn't a Christian by brownpau · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fish-out-of-thin-air guy wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew.

    1. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but he diverged enough from jewish orthodoxy in his ministry that you could say he had in actuality founded a new religion without a name, without even really knowing it. The jewish authorities rejected and opposed him for exactly that reason. The apostles took care of formalizing the split from the jewish religion, that's all.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:That wasn't a Christian by KDR_11k · · Score: 0

      Fish-out-of-thin-air guy

      That's Fish-Out-Of-Thin-Air Man (TM) to you!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:That wasn't a Christian by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of what Jesus Christ claimed is compatable with Jewish orthodoxy. Most of what he said was said earlier by Hillel. Jesus Christ was ousted by by the Jews for claiming to be God, which is the only major divergence from Jewish orthodoxy. And that's a pretty serious divergence.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Sir+Pallas · · Score: 1

      Not until the Council of Jamnia in 90AD were they excommunicated. In 64AD Nero was killing Gentile Christians for practicing the Jewish religion and the Jewish Christians in Rome were turning them in in droves. There were many multiple sects of Judaism at the time; it's just that after the destruction of the Temple, the group we now call the Rabbis took the reins and excommunicated everyone else.

    5. Re:That wasn't a Christian by forevermore · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sorry, Christianity as we know it comes from (S)Paul, not Jesus. Jesus' teachings spread many directions and took on many different forms, most of which are now completely gone. Ask any Muslim -- Jesus was a prophet like Moses; they blame Paul for screwing up his message.

      As for Jedi, there's one important distinction between Lucas and Jesus: Lucas came up with Jedi-ism(?) for entertainment, Jesus really did believe what he said was real (whether it is or not is obviously up for debate).

      (oh, I'm neither Christian nor Muslim -- or Jedi, for that matter)

      --
      Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
    6. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought that Jesus was targeted for disturbing the Roman Empire's financial system.

      At least that's what Zumbi do Mato says.

      tmegapscm

    7. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, may be he was born a Jew, but are you saying Christ wasn't a Christian?

    8. Re:That wasn't a Christian by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      No, Jesus was an exemplary Jew. However, he was an apocalyptic rabbi. He preached about the end of times and how it would happen soon, possibly right after his own generation. Presumably because he believed in it.

      Judaism was rather divided on the subject, and had heated debates. This could be construed as being against Jesus. The Pharisees (oft considered his enemies) were rather innovative with religious interpretation, while simulatenously adhering strictly to the letter of their interpretations.

      Jesus, OTOH, was more open to the spirit of the laws, and more of a traditionalist, going by his trackrecord.

    9. Re:That wasn't a Christian by jpetts · · Score: 1

      He was treated as a heretic by the Jewish authorities.

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    10. Re:That wasn't a Christian by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      Where was it that Jesus claimed to be God?

      Was it Spike Jones that sang the song "I'm my own Grandpa"?

    11. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe...I will henceforce refer to Jesus Christ as "The F.O.O.T.A Guy..."

    12. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that was exactly the point. And I do not know that much about these subjects, but I believe he also died a Jew.

      tmegapscm

    13. Re:That wasn't a Christian by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      > Jesus Christ was ousted by by the Jews for claiming to be God, which is the only major divergence from Jewish orthodoxy. And that's a pretty serious divergence.

      Only if he wasn't.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    14. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never claimed to be God. He never even claimed to be more than the son of man.

    15. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews for Jesus are Christians, as they believe in Christ.

    16. Re:That wasn't a Christian by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Sorry, Christianity as we know it comes from (S)Paul, not Jesus. Jesus' teachings spread many directions and took on many different forms, most of which are now completely gone.

      The things that have gone are gone because they weren't Christianity. Take a look at the New Testament and you'll see that the first 4 books, the gospels, are all about the life and death of resurrection of Jesus. Nothing about Paul. He doesn't appear until Acts 7, in the form of Saul. Once he becomes Paul, he teaches things that spring directly from the gospel, as preached by Jesus.

      Ask any Muslim -- Jesus was a prophet like Moses; they blame Paul for screwing up his message.

      Muslims aren't Christians and what they claim about Jesus directly contradicts what is taught in the gospels and the rest of Christan Scripture.

    17. Re:That wasn't a Christian by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Where was it that Jesus claimed to be God?

      A lot of places. Mark 2:1-12 is a good example where it is clearly stated that only God can forgive sins and Jesus then forgives sin. He accepts Thomas' declaration that he is God in John 20:28-29.

    18. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's no Jew; that's a space station.

    19. Re:That wasn't a Christian by agraupe · · Score: 1

      Umm... in regards to that last thought, I would say you are agreeing with the previous post. I do think that it was not intended as such, as I'm guessing you were intending to mean that Muslims are wrong or inaccurate regarding Jesus (if you're not, accept my apologies), to which I say: if there are two different accounts of a 2000 year old event, who's to say with certainty, which, if any, is true?

    20. Re:That wasn't a Christian by DaCool42 · · Score: 1

      Jesus was a prophet like Moses

      Except Moses never claimed to be God.

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
    21. Re:That wasn't a Christian by brownpau · · Score: 1

      Whoops, you were wrong.
      ("I AM" = YHWH, the Tetragrammaton, God's name.)

    22. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Himring · · Score: 1

      The Romans saw it as Judaism. At the most, they saw it as a sect, but still Judaism....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    23. Re:That wasn't a Christian by dvk · · Score: 1

      > No, Jesus was an exemplary Jew.

      Except for violating the whole MAIN commandement (the one about there's only one Big guy Upstairs) by claiming to be divinity himself.

      BTW, that *is* a main commandment, not only in the order-of-list sense, but in a spiritual as well as legalistic one - if in some situation more than one commandment clashes, there's a strict hierarchy of what take precedence. This one is at the top.

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    24. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the biggest foe to Christianity is MISINTERPRETATION... (that and those nuts on street corners with "your going to hell" signs) ... maybe you shouldn't have stopped reading at John 20:29 and read John 20:31 "... Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing..."
      people start and stop reading/believing parts of the Bible way too often, thats what leads to discrepancies

    25. Re:That wasn't a Christian by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Umm... in regards to that last thought, I would say you are agreeing with the previous post.

      The previous post claimed that Christianity had gone in many different directions and that Paul's message was at odds with Jesus'. The claim was backed up by Muslims, who aren't Christians, disagreeing with Paul. If Muslims aren't Christians they can hardly be taken as evidence for differing views of the compatibility of Paul with Jesus witihin Christian doctrine.

      'm guessing you were intending to mean that Muslims are wrong or inaccurate regarding Jesus (if you're not, accept my apologies)

      Ah, a genial discussion of religion on /. - a rare thing indeed. Much appreciated.

      to which I say: if there are two different accounts of a 2000 year old event, who's to say with certainty, which, if any, is true?

      If it was a trial in a court of law, how would you make a verdict? Listen to witnesses, weigh up the evidence, etc. Looking at the teaching of Paul and Jesus, as presented in the Bible, they are fully compatible. Indeed, Paul says that he preaches 'Christ crucified' and that Christians should no claim to follow any particular teacher except Christ.

      Lets take the example of Jesus' deity, when it comes to comparing what Christians say and what Muslims say. The gospel record Jesus claiming to be able to do things that only God can do, such as forgive sin (Mark 2:1-12) and accepts Thomas' declaration that he is God (John 20:28-29). The testimony of the gospels is by eyewitnesses, or compiled from the accounts of eyewitnesses, for the purpose of presenting a certain, orderly account of what really happened (Luke 1:1-4). The authors and their witnesses suffered and/or died for their testimony, yet held to it even as they died, knowing if it was true or not. Muslims claim he was merely a prophet, having no witnesses to back up their claims.

      As for the crucifixion and resurrection, Muslims claim that someone else died on the cross, yet the authorities were very familiar with who Jesus was and would have noticed if they had the wrong guy. As Christianity spread, they never claimed that Jesus hadn't been crucified. They couldn't even claim he had been crucified, but not resurrected because they couldn't produce his body, even though they would have been in possession of it if he was still dead, because they had put a guard on the tomb in which he was buried.

    26. Re:That wasn't a Christian by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      the biggest foe to Christianity is MISINTERPRETATION... (that and those nuts on street corners with "your going to hell" signs) ... maybe you shouldn't have stopped reading at John 20:29 and read John 20:31 "... Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing..."
      people start and stop reading/believing parts of the Bible way too often, thats what leads to discrepancies

      Why do you assume I didn't read it? Evidence for Jesus claiming to be God was asked for and it is clearly given in the verses I referenced. There was no need to also quote verse 31, though it does give his identity within the Trinity as the Son, distinct from the Father and the Spirit.

      What discrepancy do you feel there was in what I said?

    27. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      You can't blame Christianity on Jesus!
      Just read his blog!

    28. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They couldn't even claim he had been crucified, but not resurrected because they couldn't produce his body, even though they would have been in possession of it if he was still dead, because they had put a guard on the tomb in which he was buried

      actually, how would this have worked? there wasn't refrigeration in those days, so after "x" days the body ought not to have been recognisable if he had not resurrected? in which case if they "lost" the body (through resurrection or otherwise) surely they could have just dug up some random highly-decomposed stiff and paraded it around?

      it seems more like they were so certain he was dead they couldn't be bothered

    29. Re:That wasn't a Christian by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      actually, how would this have worked? there wasn't refrigeration in those days, so after "x" days the body ought not to have been recognisable if he had not resurrected? in which case if they "lost" the body (through resurrection or otherwise) surely they could have just dug up some random highly-decomposed stiff and paraded it around?

      They used various substances to preserve bodies when buried, so it would have lasted for a while. Not sure how long it would be recognisable for, but long enough for them to open up the tomb and say "See, here's a body that looks pretty much like Jesus, now do you believe he didn't rise?"

      it seems more like they were so certain he was dead they couldn't be bothered

      It would seem strange that they couldn't be bothered to produce a body from a tomb they had easy access to, yet could be bothered to hunt down, kill and generally persecute every Christian they could get their hands on. Unless there was no body.

    30. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MISINTERPRETATION

    31. Re:That wasn't a Christian by forevermore · · Score: 1
      Except Moses never claimed to be God.

      Neither did Jesus. "Son of Man" != "Son of God"

      --
      Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
    32. Re:That wasn't a Christian by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Point the first: The commandment typically reads "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", implying that Judaism recognizes other gods (and they'd be fools not to, with paganism rampant), more specifically as being inferior to the one God.

      Point the second: Historical references are confused, mainly because they were often written long after the fact, but most likely Jesus did not claim to be divinity. He had it bestowed upon him some 30-100 years later, in the various gospels (some of which portray old-testament God as completely different than new-testament God, for example)

  55. But... by davmoo · · Score: 1

    We've already got the two required Sith Lords for President and Vice-President...

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:But... by sadler121 · · Score: 1

      no no no, Bush is too stupid to be a Dark lord of the Sith.

      However, Cheney could be a dark lord, as well as Karl Rove, who of course would be the master. Darth Rove and Darth Cheney, ya that sounds a lot better!

  56. STARWARS - Fact NOT Fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    STARWARS - Fact NOT Fiction (Episodes 4 to 6 inclusively)


    George Lucas quite naturally believes that he wrote "Starwars", when, in reality, he was told telepathically what to write in the original first three Episodes (4-6), by the very "Force" to which the films refer, and was "forced" to make only episodes 4-6, first, as a very important step in the preparation of mankind for the long-awaited TRUTH, about the real reasons for human life on Earth ("what on earth am I doing here?"), the meaning of life and its purpose, contained in "The Way home or face The Fire", from which episodes 1-3 should have been made, as I did my best, frequently, to tell him....continued...

  57. This will be a day long remembered ... by QuatermassX · · Score: 1

    So the Jedi can hold elective office? Why didn't they simply form a delagation in the Senate and kick Palps bottom at the ballot box rather than beating on a poor, helpless old man. Shame on those nasty fanatics!

    So on which side does Alastair Campbell fall? Hmmm ... they don't do the God thing, but maybe they're schooled in the ways of the Force ;-)

  58. A Spy! by shahruz · · Score: 1

    I believe that he is an undercover spy from the silly party.

  59. The real religions in the US congress by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1


    Let's look at the real makeup of the current US Congress:

    92% Christian
    8% Jewish

    What seems to be missing? Oh yeah, every other religion along with the 15% of Americans who don't identify with any religion (which drawfs any non-Christian group).

    Americans have elected an openly gay congressman, but are still not ready for a congressman who is not Christian or Jewish.

    -B

  60. Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've seen miracles performed in the name of Jesus that are far more impressive than water into wine.

    For example the healing of severe burns, where the skin had turned black and begun to flake off, the affected hand was made as good as new as we watched.

    I know it wasn't a trick because it was my hand that was burnt in an industrial accident and it was healed because the woman who is now my wife (who was there) prayed for healing in the name of Jesus. Had she not had the courage to pray and ignore the heckling of by standards I would haver had permanent and disfiguring damage.

    1. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      Complete and utter.

    2. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you are just mentally crippled.

    3. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative
      I don't believe you. I think Monty Python sums up such a claim quite nicely:

      "She turned me into a newt!" heads turn "I got better."

      If you can actually prove that your hand was miracuously healed, then I'm pretty sure James Randi has a million bucks waiting for you.

      But it raises a pretty big question. If Jesus did heal your wounded hand, why doesn't he heal other believers' hands? I'll wager that most burn wards in the Americas and Western Europe are populated largely by Christians, so what makes you so damn special, or is there some sort of miracle lottery?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree with your call of bullshit. What /.er would ever have a woman come up to them to pray for them much less marry them.

    5. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it raises a pretty big question. If Jesus did heal your wounded hand, why doesn't he heal other believers' hands?

      Why only believers? You'd think that if you actually were all powerful you wouldnt need the ego prop of everyone praising you and if you were also a decent sort of guy then you'd help out indiscrimnately.

      Then again, I guess you'd have to move in mysterious ways because it's what all the gods are doing. That should answer your question. Jesus doesn't cure the hands of most believers because to do so would be insufficiently mysterious.

    6. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know it was Jesus? Maybe it was the Devil who healed you -- he wanted you to think that Jesus exists and heals people, it's all part of His plan of deception.

      tmegapscm

    7. Re:Jesus Heals by tigre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a Christian that believes in miraculous healing. I am reluctant to attribute all of the healing I see or hear about to miracles, but I have seen and heard enough to believe that it does happen. Instantaneous disappearance of symptoms, doctor-verified physiological changes, these things occur to people I know personally. These people have no discernible reason to lie. In some cases, if they lied about being healed, they'd be dead (unless of course they lied about being sick/injured in the first place, which I will admit is possible, but unlikely). Sure, some could be attributed to misdiagnoses, but it strains credibility (assuming you didn't start with the assumption that such healings were impossible) that all of them were just mistakes. I admit that I have not witnessed any instantaneous visible changes, and retain some skepticism of reports I have heard of such things.

      Too many people, I believe, discount all of these things out of hand, purely from a philiosphical perspective. But theory is always subject to observation. Observation is, of course, flawed especially when psychological factors are involved, but I believe that observation strongly suggests that there is something to this healing thing. Accepting this as an empirical fact will lead to a host of philosophical questions, but this is the same thing that happens in the physical sciences all the time.

      Some will attribute these things to the "mysterious power of the mind" or some other naturalistic, but unexplained phenomenon, and with them I would have an entirely different sort of conversation, far more than I could ever hope to encapsulate in a post. Some will discount these things because there have been so many hoaxes over the ages. But the hoaxes are perpetrated by people who have something to gain from the hoax, whereas the majority of the people I see and talk to, and even pray for, are ordinary people who have nothing to gain but getting better.

      Regarding your question about not everyone being healed, a few points:

      1. I don't ultimately know why, but not knowing the answer does not mean that there is no answer.
      2. I have not been clearly miraculously healed myself, though I have repeatedly prayed for and had others pray for a number of physical problems. There have been a few occasions where a minor malady has lessened or disappeared due to prayer, but not in such a dramatic fashion that I would go telling a skeptic that I had been healed. There have been more occasions where I've prayed for others and they've reported more dramatic results, but I can only really tell my story. So, I wonder myself why others seem to get more healing than I do.
      3. What I have heard suggested: There are a few factors that are said to limit the work of God. Most of them could be summed up in the category of "faith".

        Why God is limited by faith is an interesting question, and another one that I don't have a definitive answer for. Let it suffice to say that I feel it is more easily understood when viewed as a relational question more than as a philosophical one.

        Faith gets a bad rap because it is easily abused, but the same could be said for a multitude of ideas and institutions in a free society. I don't advocate blind faith, but I think blind skepticism is just as problematic.

        The faith of which I speak is also not entirely with regards to the specific healing, but it is generally around belief that God is good and wants to do good things for us. This very faith allows one to trust that God will work good on their behalf, even if it's not the specific thing that they're asking for. Sometimes God won't do something we ask because it's not what we need (cue the Rolling Stones). Or sometimes God will do it later, after we have changed in such a way as to be ready.

        Apart from the issue of faith, the other main factor that comes into play is the existence of other forces (both human and spiritual). God

    8. Re:Jesus Heals by wolfemi1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't ultimately know why, but not knowing the answer does not mean that there is no answer...

      I have not been clearly miraculously healed myself...

      Look, I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I'm really getting tired of the logic here: I don't understand it, so I will attribute it to God.

      If you don't know how something happened, why is a common course of action to give credit to a god for something good happening, when it would be far easier and simpler to just admit you don't know.

      I mean, really.... you don't hear many cancer victims blaming Satan for their illness, so why the other way around?

    9. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm certainly not trying to trample on anybody's particular beliefs, but if one is going to announce a miracle did occur, then I'm afraid whether they intend it or not, they are inviting people to question them.

      There are further problems with claims such as you state can happen. The biggest that comes to mind is that you are very careful to use sufficiently ambiguous language so that any demand for emperical testing of a miracle can be headed off. Whatever the cause of an alleged miracle, there is going to be a physical manifestation, and that manifestation ought to be measurable, but you put so much wiggle room in, and it almost seems the reason is to stave off that sort of analysis.

      The second has to do with the notion of faith itself. Christians aren't the only people who claim miracles. Many adherents of other faiths also claim that their deities (or other spirits and the like) can also produce supernatural feats. Is it your view that God gives non-Christians a helping hand to, or are the only legitimate miracles those that occur to Christians?

      It isn't so much that some people discount claims, but rather that in analyzing any claim, the measure ought to be how extraordinary from every day physical interactions the claim is. If you have an extraordinary claim, then you ought to be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence. No claim, not even one made by scientists, ought to be immune from this. Now, in some cases, an extraordinary claim does have extraordinary evidence, in which case skepticism must be put aside, even if only on the basis of current evidence (with the realization that further evidence may change the situation substantially).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using supernatural explanations isn't exactly new. It's very old. The problem has always been (and this has accelerated in the last half millennium) that such explanations can suffer rather nasty fates when some more mundane explanation is brought to bear. Science isn't the enemy of religion, but it sure is the enemy of superstition, and from what I've seen, miracles tend to be as much (if not more) in the superstitious vein than the religious.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Jesus Heals by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I believe in miracle healing.

      I got strep throat. This could have been deadly, and often was, but the doctor performed a miracle and gave me small round things to eat. After eating them, I got better!

      Clearly divine intervention.

      Just because it can be explained does not mean it is not a miracle. The discovery of penicillin saved millions of lives, yet people write it off to science. True faithful belive that God gives us the power to help ourselves. THOSE are the real miracles, not some guy prancing around replicating fish.

      The achivements of humanity are far more significant than the achivements of any God.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    12. Re:Jesus Heals by gronofer · · Score: 1

      Whatever causes healing, it's not Jesus. In this, I have complete faith.

    13. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well, if you wish to take the word "miracle" and water it down to "what is found through research or accident" then who can argue with you? Freely redefining words may work for rhetoric, but it sure isn't any good for actual discussion.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Jesus Heals by Moschaef · · Score: 0

      If you don't know how something happened, why is a common course of action to give credit to a god for something good happening, when it would be far easier and simpler to just admit you don't know.

      Sure, you probably think its better that if you don't know how something happened, you just explain it by saying there was a big bang and the universe just existed, or that something which is mathematically impossible, like proteins randomly forming and mutating into humans, must have occured, because yeah, that's so much more logical... Why can't scientists just admit when they don't know, or admit their's is a theory just as likely or unlikely as ours.

      But someday, we will all find out who's right. Good for me bad for you if I'm right. Bad for us both if you are!

    15. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
      Sure, you probably think its better that if you don't know how something happened, you just explain it by saying there was a big bang and the universe just existed, or that something which is mathematically impossible, like proteins randomly forming and mutating into humans, must have occured, because yeah, that's so much more logical... Why can't scientists just admit when they don't know, or admit their's is a theory just as likely or unlikely as ours.

      Interesting argument from incredulity. Now please be so kind as to tell me where exactly you get the notion that protein formation is some mathematically impossible phenomona? What methodology did you use? How precisely did you calculate this?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
      Oh, and before you answer with some Creationist claptrap you downloaded from liars and nuts like ICR and AiG, here's the the scoop on their brand of poop:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob. html

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
      How do you know it was Jesus? Maybe it was the Devil who healed you -- he wanted you to think that Jesus exists and heals people, it's all part of His plan of deception.

      Before we'd even begin discussing what agent was responsible for this healing, I'd have to make sure that the alleged burn and healing took place. That would be pretty fantastical all on its own, without invoking any particular deity. Your post also has the fatal flaw of including only two gods. What about the hundreds of other deities out there? Why couldn't Shiva have done it?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Jesus Heals by photon317 · · Score: 1
      Some will attribute these things to the "mysterious power of the mind" or some other naturalistic, but unexplained phenomenon, and with them I would have an entirely different sort of conversation, far more than I could ever hope to encapsulate in a post.



      In the *very rare* cases that unexpected healing of some disease/trauma has verifiably occured, where a real doctor in a real hospital was both a witness to and a diagnoser of the original malady and the subsequent cure, the best possible scientific explanation is in fact Psychosomatic healing.

      Psychosomatic effects, both positive and negative, have been well-studied and well-documented in medical literature, even if all of the mechanisms are not known.

      Psychosomatic effects (both positive and negative) are not simple "mysterious powers of the mind" or other unexplained natural phenomena. They verifiably do happen.

      And since psychosomatic effects would seem to naturally depend largely on a person's state of mind, will, and faith/hope in a good outcome, it would be very natural for a devout Christian who is praying for healing from Christ (and/or has others praying for them, and/or has a spiritual healer-person present who claims to heal with the power of God) to have a higher than average chance of experience positive psychosomatic effects due to the strength of their beliefs.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    19. Re:Jesus Heals by photon317 · · Score: 1


      I should add that an excellent blind scientific test would be this: From a large sampling of patients with various diseases who are known to be non-religious, christian healers should attempt to cure half of them without their knowledge, and then track the results. They could do this by praying for these people remotely, or praying or other ritualistic acts when the person is sleeping. I suppose you'd have to have consent from the hospital involved for such a study.

      I would be willing to bet that it bears out that a non-believer who is unaware of being sprititually healed fares no better than a non-believer who is actually not being spiritually healed. And if that proves to be the case, then the logical conclusion is that since one actually has to be aware of the healing for it to have any effect, then the effect is psychosomatic.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    20. Re:Jesus Heals by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      But it raises a pretty big question. If Jesus did heal your wounded hand, why doesn't he heal other believers' hands? I'll wager that most burn wards in the Americas and Western Europe are populated largely by Christians, so what makes you so damn special, or is there some sort of miracle lottery?

      Why should Jesus heal everyone's hands? No-one is deserving of it. We have no right to expect Jesus to heal people. That it ever happens is a mercy from God and a part of his plans, not an act earned by the person who benefits from it. The Bible says that the world will only be made perfect when Jesus returns and that the imperfection of this current world, the suffering people experience is actually a sign of God's mercy because if he were to come back now, all those who do not believe in him would be condemned. By holding off his return, he gives time for more people to come to faith.

    21. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, you worship an arbitrary, capricious god who randomly selects people to do good things for, even though those people aren't deserving. Oh, and he's showing mercy by giving us chance to believe in him, before he condemns us. Thanks, but I'll take my chances. I don't have much respect for religions that teach about an infinite being who behaves more like a psychotic five year old than an ultimate father figure.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: why is God limited by faith?

      A: because God chooses to be limited by faith.

      We could ask many similar questions, such as why does God often work through people, instead of intervening directly?

      We have to be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that we are more special than others, or that God owes us favours because we are 'nice people'.

      Beggars, Kings, even murderers (Saul/Paul) have all been used by God... but they all died and have to face their maker.

      Be careful in the race that you don't start well, but end badly (eg Solomon).

    23. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There have been a few occasions where a minor malady has lessened or disappeared due to prayer"

      I think you're mis-using causality here. I could easily say that the reason those malady's lessened for you was that I bought a new IPod. That doesn't make it true anymore than you can directly link your prayer to your "healing." Now, if you got a note from God afterwards saying "In gratitude for your fantastic prayers I have healed you," then I could be wrong. I'm guessing you didn't.

    24. Re:Jesus Heals by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      So, in other words, you worship an arbitrary, capricious god who randomly selects people to do good things for, even though those people aren't deserving.

      I mentioned a merciful God with a plan for salvation. How can all suffering be removed from the world without removing all evil? And how can all evil be removed from the world without judging and rightly condemning those who do evil?

      Oh, and he's showing mercy by giving us chance to believe in him, before he condemns us.

      Yes. If God is truly God, then he is by definition worthy of worship and it is the worst thing imaginable to not worship him. That's something everyone is guilty of, along with a great many other things, so we are worthy of punishment. Being infinitely just, God must therefore punish. But being infinitely loving, he offers a way out by repenting and believing in Jesus.

      Thanks, but I'll take my chances. I don't have much respect for religions that teach about an infinite being who behaves more like a psychotic five year old than an ultimate father figure.

      What psychotic five-year old would endure the hatred of billions for millennial and freely offer them forgiveness, giving up his own dearly beloved son to take the punishment those who hate him deserve?

      And surely whether it is true or not is more important than how much you respect it? Evidence over emotion.

    25. Re:Jesus Heals by Drantin · · Score: 1

      By their nature they are rather unlikely to occur in a controlled state...

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    26. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
      I mentioned a merciful God with a plan for salvation. How can all suffering be removed from the world without removing all evil? And how can all evil be removed from the world without judging and rightly condemning those who do evil?

      Why should an infinite being capable of any action want to destroy even the most evil of evildoers? Surely God can heal and forgive even the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot. I thought God could do anything he wanted, so why is his sense of justice so much like that of a very finite, veangeful people. Makes you almost think that he was invented by human beings to resemble their own foibles and querks.

      Yes. If God is truly God, then he is by definition worthy of worship and it is the worst thing imaginable to not worship him. That's something everyone is guilty of, along with a great many other things, so we are worthy of punishment. Being infinitely just, God must therefore punish. But being infinitely loving, he offers a way out by repenting and believing in Jesus.

      Why should an infinite being be offended if I don't worship him? Why should that be the worst possible crime? And even if it is, why is it a crime at all?

      What psychotic five-year old would endure the hatred of billions for millennial and freely offer them forgiveness, giving up his own dearly beloved son to take the punishment those who hate him deserve?

      Hey, it's your religion, not mine. I can't imagine why an infinite being would find the actions of a few billion people on a planet orbiting an unremarkable star so offensive. Has he got some sort of obsessive complusive disorder?

      And surely whether it is true or not is more important than how much you respect it? Evidence over emotion.

      Well, if someone had actual evidence, I might consider it. Even then, I'd still have a problem worshipping such a being, because I don't think it's a rational activity for something that's omnipotent and omniprescient to condemn any poor sod.

      Infinite punishments for finite crimes has to be about the most immoral thing I can imagine. But if it turns your crank, all the power to you.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:Jesus Heals by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 1

      I mean, really.... you don't hear many cancer victims blaming Satan for their illness

      Thats because you have to be dead to be considered a victim of cancer.

      :)

      --
      I welcome our new 99% overlords.
    28. Re:Jesus Heals by goss · · Score: 1

      Please believe I'm not trying to be insulting at all - but I just have to say that it always stuns me when I find someone believing in things like miracle cures, in this day and age, without any evidence (and on a tech/science orientated website, no less). I rarely bother to comment on it though, as it's just so wide spread.

      As you point out yourself, there are many possible reasons why what looks like a "miracle" to some could occur. A lot of them we don't really understand yet. Why do people need invoke a higher being to explain it all away? Does it provide some level of comfort? It's the only reason I can think of.

      IMO, it's a sad indictment of where we stand with scientific thought and progress of the human race. However, you are probably in the majority worldwide, I'll give you that.

    29. Re:Jesus Heals by Luminary+Crush · · Score: 1

      I hate when someone beats me to the punch, but thanks for saying what I was thinking :)

    30. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists admit they don't know all the time. That's why they're called "theories", and not "laws". We try and formulate a theory that adeqautely explains a phenomenon, and then *test* that theory to see if it holds true.

      Unlike your kind, we put little stock in faith, and instead focus on analysis. So far, it's worked fairly well: the sun doesn't go around the earth, the earth isn't flat, and we're relatively sure that these dinousaur bones we keep finding pre-date Adam and Eve.

      Be glad that we do analyze the world around us... blind, fact-ignoring faith is the antithesis of analysis, and without science, you probably wouldn't have electricity, not to mention the computer you used to post your comment on. Of course, you can go luddite on us if you like... I'll even find some looms for you to smash.

    31. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine why an infinite being would find the actions of a few billion people on a planet orbiting an unremarkable star so offensive.

      Maybe because an "infinite being" as you call him is still a being, and the terrible things humans do to each other should be offensive to ANY BEING (infinite or not) with any sort of sense of justice.

      Infinite punishments for finite crimes has to be about the most immoral thing I can imagine.

      Can you give an example of an infinite crime? Let's say that you choose murder. It's a common sin to most, if not all, religions. Sure, the ACT of committing murder is finite, but the pain caused by it can last until the end of time, as consequences of the murder play out over the centuries. You may say that the difference is negligible after a certain amount of time, but can you honestly say that it's just as good as if the murder had never occured?

      Furthermore, if infinite punishments do indeed exist, then that must mean that there is a part of us that exists forever, since someone has to be receiving punishment for it to be a punishment at all. This infinite period of existence makes it possible for a single finite act to alter the course of eternities even if it hurts only one person, because it does so for an infinite amount of time.

    32. Re:Jesus Heals by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Uh... that's a common conception of what God is... a great force of the unknown... Makes sense, no?

      Also, many people believe there is a reason for everything. So, without a ready reason, God works.

    33. Re:Jesus Heals by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      I admire your fight, writing so much in reply to posts like this... But it's pretty much senseless, or maybe not since it probably gives those who read it more arguments to fight the senseless banther we are all used to hear about...

      This has reminded me of this joke :)

      My theory is - let's keep advancing science, let's get out of Earth in order for our species to be safe from some random cataclysm happening at this planet, and one day, if a god exists, maybe we'll know about him... Or maybe not. For all we know, we could be sentient beings in the newest game that god's playing :) Oh btw, if this guy is right, maybe some of us here will be able to witness this with some luck ;)

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    34. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quote: but I'm really getting tired of the logic here: I don't understand it, so I will attribute it to God.

      Ahh the question you have to deal with is what is God? I am not religious by any means but i think i do have a good understanding of what God is...

      God is that which is unexplainable. God trancendes Human logic and hence we can't explain it! This is why we attribute all we can't explain to God... that is how God came into our Human existence in the first place.

      With this we can relate all religions to one God. Islam, Christianity, Jedism (quite obviously) worship the same God. But then you can say that God is the fundamental beliefs of Budaism, the Chi in Chinese culture, the multiple God's of hinduism............. even the FORCE in the Jedi religion

      We kill and segregate ourselves for Religion yet we are all blind to the fact we all worship the same God... that being our ignorance!

    35. Re:Jesus Heals by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I don't need consent to think about you. Why should I need consent to pray about you?

      Or, in better words from someone's sig: "Okay, fine, you pray for me. I'll think for both of us."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    36. Re:Jesus Heals by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      This reminds me of a quote from Heidegger (he could drink you under the table): "May God, if there is one, save my soul, if I have one." I love that: cover all bases.

      You're now a friend for bringing out so much discussion. ;-)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    37. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      When someone has to write two paragraphs of word salad just to attempt to counter a point, I say the conversation is dead. To put it bluntly, your god resembles far too much the nature of humans. He does not behave in a divine fashion. If you wish to worship such an entity, be my guest. As long as he isn't allegedly telling you to come take me away because I don't share in your particular spiritual vein, it's no bother to me.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    38. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
      -Isaac Asimov

    39. Re:Jesus Heals by Mant · · Score: 1

      or admit their's is a theory just as likely or unlikely as ours.

      Maybe becuase theirs is a theory, a proper hypothesis backed up by observations. Yours is a an unprovable conjecture.

      Maybe becuause theirs is arrived at by the scientific process, which means it can change as new evidence comes along, not based on the myths of a desert nomads thousands of years ago.

    40. Re:Jesus Heals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 Inciteful? This does not show much incite.
      1. You cannot empirically test a miricle. It is not a thing of wording, but one of facts.
      2. Be forwarned: demonic powers can also produce miracles. This is too commonly overlooked.
      3. These claims are HARD to analyze. All the same, it does, in some cases, come down to taking less faith to believe some miracles than believing some proposed natural explanations.
      I'm not citing any examples simply because I am too lazy to write a few tens of pages to explain each one.

    41. Re:Jesus Heals by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      I mean, really.... you don't hear many cancer victims blaming Satan for their illness, so why the other way around?

      In Soviet Russia, Satan blames cancer victims for their illness.

  61. Use the force, Duke! by IPFreely · · Score: 1

    ... Oh, wait. House of *Commons*.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  62. Damn you by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    and Ice-9 too...

    Bokonon was a lazy bastard. Its time for the hook!

    (This message brought to you by the friends of bokonon)

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  63. Inevitable by 1ivewire · · Score: 1

    So when Lord/Master Jamie Reed is challenged by a fellow MP, what's he gonna do? "Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the [failed objective], or given you clairvoyance enough to [failed objective]" I thought the Jedi were above petty squabling with governmental bodies. Is it because Jamie's not on the council?

  64. A little context by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, this one isn't quite as simple or as amusing as the summary makes out, I'm afraid.

    One of the live issues here in the UK at the moment is the "Incitement to Religious Hatred" bill that Blair is currently pushing through Parliament. This is broadly similar to the existing laws on "Incitement to Racial Hatred". The difference is that, under current laws, only Jews and Sikhs are protected, according to some interpretations. Christianity is protected separately, under some rarely (read "not in my lifetime") enforced blasphemy laws. Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group, so you can argue that they're not protected. This, the Blairites say, means that people can hurl racial abuse at Muslims with impunity. This is obviously bollocks, of course, since this would count as racial hatred anyway, so all the situation really needs is for existing laws to be enforced...

    Now, the reason why this is being pushed through is that the Labour party has taken a lot of flak over Iraq from the UK's Islamic community, which is normally a staunch supporter of Labour. Indeed, a deeply unpleasant specimen by the name of George Galloway (he of "Sir I Salute Your Indefatigability" fame) managed to beat a sitting Labour MP in a normally safe seat at the last general election, standing on an extremist anti-war, anti-establishment platform (which is a little ironic considering his own lifestyle). Therefore, Labour introduces this bill in an effort to get the UK Islamic community behind them again.

    Now, this leads to two problems. First of all, a lot of people, particularly commedians, notice that this has serious implications for freedom of speech. One can no longer ridicule a religion or its texts and be sure of being on safe legal ground. Now, Blair's response to this was to say that the letter of the law would not be enforced. This is obviously a pretty pathetic argument and kind of missing the whole point of "the law" (that it lets people know whether they are behaving legally or not). It also leaves the door open to all kinds of future abuses.

    The other problem is that if Blair honestly doesn't intend to see the law enforced, then he's creating a lot of false expectations among the UK Islamic community and other particularly devout religious groups. A lot of these people are expecting that, come the enactment of this, it will be illegal to say anything critical of their religion or to call any aspect of it into question. If this doesn't happen, there could be a lot of disappointment, some of it violent.

    So all in all, this story is a little more serious than it first seems.

    1. Re:A little context by VHerring · · Score: 2, Informative
      Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group

      That's because the word "Muslim" just means a follower of the religion of Islam. Look it up.

    2. Re:A little context by Reverend528 · · Score: 3, Funny
      This, the Blairites say, means that people can hurl racial abuse at Muslims with impunity. This is obviously bollocks, of course, since this would count as racial hatred anyway

      What about white muslims? I can still make fun of Cat Stevens, right?

    3. Re:A little context by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      What about white muslims? I can still make fun of Cat Stevens, right?

      Of course you can. But what you shouldn't be able to do is make statements that incite violence towards him because of his religion. Of course you can't do that anyway, because there are other laws that cover incitement to violence, so those who are stopping to think about this are wondering what the point of any new legislation is.

    4. Re:A little context by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You know, I always here about how well/poorly the labour party is doing in UK, but I never hear about any other parties. Since you seem to be from UK (or at least very knowledgable of it) perhaps you could shed some light on the matter. What ARE the major parties in UK and what do they stand for? In the US we have two major parties, Democrat and Republican which stand for, respectively: Big Government paying for social programs and Big Government paying for the same social programs and tax cuts (as long as they increase the total size and complexity of the tax code).

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:A little context by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, no problem.

      Biggest party in the UK at the moment is Labour. Until the 1990s, Labour was basically a socialist party. They believed in strong trade unions, nationalised industries, tax-and-spend economics and, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, nuclear disarmament. Labour was responsible for a serious crisis in the UK economy in the late 70s, with strike action bringing the UK to a virtual stand-still. On the basis of this, they were swept from Office and spent the better part of 2 decades in the political wilderness. In the 1990s, they got new leaders, first John Smith (who died after a couple of years) and then Tony Blair, who swept the old hard-left away and replaced them with a centrist, maybe centre-right "broad church" coalition. This won resounding election victories in 1997 and 2001 and a narrower, but still decisive, victory in 2005. Labour's majority in the Commons from 1997 until the 2005 election was so massive that other parties were effectively shut out of the picture altogether, with the real opposition to the government essentially being provided by dissidents within the party. This will probably change now that their majority is reduced.

      The Conservatives (often called the Tories) are the other big party in the UK political system. They're effectively the "small government" party, although this part of the message tends to get lost. Unlike US conservatives, the UK conservative party doesn't have any real religious base; they're essentially more economic than social conservatives these days. The Conservatives are basically credited with/blamed for (depending on who you ask) reversing the UK's post-Imperial economic decline/destoying the UK's working class. Margaret Thatcher, their leader throughout the 80s, basically shattered the power of the trade unions, most notably the National Union of Miners, which had previously been vastly powerful. While this was a good thing for the country economically in broad terms, and laid the foundations for the UK's current prosperity relative to the rest of Europe, it had some pretty grim social effects, particularly on the working class in the North of the country. Opinion is still *sharply* divided over whether Thatcher was a good thing or not, largely along social lines. The wheels fell off the Conservative machine in the 90s, with a series of embarrassing economic and foreign policy blunders and a damaging split in the party over their line on the European Union. This led to a shattering defeat in 1997. It's taken the Conservatives a long time to get back on their feet from this; they went through two useless leaders (William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith), then found a relatively good one in Michael Howard. Sadly, he then went and quit after losing what was effectively an unwinnable election and the current leadership contest is proving pretty damaging to the party. The party still has a strong base of support in England (where it is more popular than Labour, whose strongholds tend to be in Scotland and Wales), but the Parliamentary party haven't been able to energise this for over a decade. They'll probably manage to do better in the next elections (probably 2009), if they can pull themselves together a bit. Their fortunes are being helped in the long run by a growing frustration with the higher taxes that have crept in under Labour. Broadly speaking, the Conservatives today are low-tax and Euro-sceptic.

      The third party in the UK are the Liberal Democrats. Prior to the First World War, the Liberals were (along with the Tories) one of the two main parties. However, a series of miscalculations saw them losing this space to the newer, more aggressive Labour party. Historically, the Liberal Democrats have been "Liberal" in the classic sense of the word; low tax, small government, relaxed social policies. However, following Labour's swing to the right, the Lib Dems have essentially out-flanked them on the left. They picked up some seats on the basis of anti-war sentiment in the previous election, as they were the only major party to oppose

    6. Re:A little context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group

      Why would they? Unlike with (orthodox) Jews, anybody can become a Muslim. Doesn't Britain have a law against discrimination on grounds of one's beliefs, in addition to one against discrimination on grounds of one's race?

    7. Re:A little context by Tsugumi · · Score: 1
      Indeed, a deeply unpleasant specimen by the name of George Galloway (he of "Sir I Salute Your Indefatigability" fame) managed to beat a sitting Labour MP in a normally safe seat

      Indeed, that particular idiot is my new MP, in one of the most opportunistic and cynical moves I've ever seen. He turned up in Tower Hamlets, stoking up as much racial tension as possible to further what seem to be pretty self-serving aims. He has absolutely no connection to the East End, other than picking the London seat with the highest proportion of impoverished muslims as he could. Oona King, whilst being pro-war, was actually a pretty decent constituency MP. A fact people are starting to realise with a suntanned bufoon more interested in book deals and tv appearences than actually doing what we're paying him for.

    8. Re:A little context by nanoakron · · Score: 1

      An excellent bit of background reading for our US comrades. Should be +5, but sadly got no mod points.

      -Nano.

    9. Re:A little context by seminumerical · · Score: 1

      "bad weather is God's way of telling us we should burn more Catholics." (Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder)

      --
      In wartime... truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. (Churchill)
    10. Re:A little context by dvk · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group

      Uhm... may be because Muslims are *NOT* a racial group by any stretch of definition of one, that is if you know anything at all about Islam and ethnicities on Earth?

      Muslim pupulation ranges from purely Aryan Iranians (for those not aware, the real Aryans, as far as ethnicity goes, live in Iran, despite nazi's rantings); to Arabs (who are racially closest to - *drumroll please* - you guessed it, Jews, being of semitic origin); to Mongoloids (Tatars in Russia) to Pushtuns/Uzbeks and their ethnic relatives in "-stan" area; to blacks (never mind modern American blaks - think Moors); to Philipinos; to Indonesians, to Chinese (some parts of China are Muslim). These days you can even add lots of pure caucasians, due to Muslimization of Europe.

      To sum it up, there's almost no major or even mid-size race you can come up with that's nor represented in Islam, and thus the only "race" that Muslims can be recognized as would be Homo Sapience.

      BTW, as a card-carrying /. geeks, you all should be ashamed of yourselves. Difference between race and religion is as fundamental as can be for someone with half a brain - one is a domain of genes, one of memes. It's excusable for brainless politicians (are there any other kind) to mix them up, but not for anyone with a clue.

      NOTE: I'm not saying that there aren't people who hate all Muslims 'cause of their religion. I just have a beef with a part your statement I quoted above.

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    11. Re:A little context by realityfighter · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was

      "Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics."

      and the line was said by Blackadder's crazy puritan aunt, who was played by, let's see here...Miriam Margoyles.

      --
      A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
    12. Re:A little context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah because of course impoverished British muslims have no right to choose someone as their representative? Only white Enoch Powell loving Eastenders are allowed to do that? You're just yet another person who hates democracy when things don't go all their own way. Welcome to the 21st century, time to turn your Pearly King outfit in and accept that plenty of 'darkies' might have views that disagree with yours.

    13. Re:A little context by JohnPM · · Score: 1

      Not bad reading for an Australian who's been living in London for 2 years either.. :)

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
    14. Re:A little context by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded "Score:4, Funny" ? I am not sure of the authors intent but to my mind (s)he is correctly pointing out the parents use of stereotypes. I would have modded it as Insightfull.

    15. Re:A little context by seminumerical · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. We don't get much in the way of Blackadder reruns on this side of the pond and I remember it wrong. I saw the incorrect quote on a British news website however.

      --
      In wartime... truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. (Churchill)
    16. Re:A little context by Tsugumi · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, no either I didn't explain myself very well, or you decided not to let what I wrote get in the way of an anonymous flame. Galloway was for his entire career a Glasgow MP, not from the east end. So why didn't he stand in the constituency he has represented for 20 years for his Respect Party? Instead he chose to stand somewhere he has no links with because the demography suited his demagoguery better. What all the poorer people of tower hamlets need most, whether they are white, black, muslim or Jedi are things like cheap decent affordable housing. Instead Galloway capitalised on the fact that Ms King supported the war, which is only generally relevant, and no more so in Tower Hamlets than in Glasgow, and on more provocative and seedy grounds that she was a black Jew. His tactics on playing to the differences of the muslim population was intentionally divisive, and led to more support on the one hand for the BNP, and on the other hand a campaign by more extreme sections of the muslim population that led an intimidating campaign to convince people not to vote at all because it was by its nature un-islamic to do so.

      But hey, since you know even less about the area as Mr Galloway, you can carry on with your ridiculous troll if you want...

    17. Re:A little context by shadow0_0 · · Score: 1

      There is a similar case in Victoria, Australia. You can find more details here or here.

  65. HATECRIME!!!!! by crimethinker · · Score: 1
    Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
    Furthermore, as the first Jedi Member of this place, I look forward to the protection under the law that will be provided to me by the Bill.

    Mr. Han Solo (Corellia) (Reb):
    Listen, Mr. Reed, hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.

    Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
    Would the Sargeant-at-Arms please arrest the hon. Mr. Solo for inciting violence against me and my religion? Please note that his subtle reference to a weapon (his "blaster") and "hokey religion" are intended to intimidate me into not practising my religious beliefs, on threat of violence.

    The problem with laws like this is that they trade freedom for security, or more properly, the illusion of security. There's some quote from one of the Founding Fathers about the wisdom of trading freedom for security, I'm sure if I google, I can find it somewhere ...

    -paul

    --
    Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
    1. Re:HATECRIME!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Those that would trade liberty for security, end up with neither." (sic) I believe this the quote the parent was looking for.

  66. Already have a Supreme Court equivalent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By Jedi, I take it he means some loser dork who still lives with his mommy.

    That would be Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who might be losing mommy's house for her.

  67. Political reform by NRAdude · · Score: 0
    Question: if everyone just lived life without declaring their affiliation, would they be known?

    By his actions, is he Jedi or just a poser? On same thought, what if people actually joined a political group with intention of turning the founding doctrine upside down? It can be said about Democrats and Republicans, that none have held the qualities that were self evident of their political party founding.

    Not to be a bum, yet this is how most religions are started. Research a man (of God), known as Guru Nanak; He acknowledged the bankruptcy in Muslims and Hindus about 500 years ago, and founded Sikh religion because they did not adhere to their law. Guru Nanak has quite a great documentation here. I'm a follower of Yeshuah, yet I need acknowledge that no matter how people bear witness of themselves by saying they are "Jedi", or "Christian", or "Muslim", or "Hindu", or "Seikh", it isn't words alone but your actions adherence to the word. If my logic is correct, knowing wicked people strive to claim a good name only to hide behind and bring ill will to it, someone claiming to be "Jedi" could just be a guise for a "Sith". Same for Satanic hiding behind Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

    Yet, returning to political affiliation, when will a Democrats act as a democrat and a Republican as a republican? I believe the first president, General George Washington, answered that question with the following words and I quote:
    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

    Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind [which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,] the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

    It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments, occasionally, riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."


    There you have it. It is self evident, by the existence of "Jedi" is Britain Parliament they are obviously implying there are Sith overlords among them, or the Sith truly is not the one to strike back but is the First Strike by claiming to be Jedi.
    --
    without prejudice
  68. How soon? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Oooh a long time yet. Americans have an underdeveloped irony center and so take themselves particularly seriously. Don't worry, we'll send you some more comedians to sort you out.

    --
    Deleted
  69. Waddayathink.... by howardcohen · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you're doing waving your hand around like that?

    I'm a Congressman. Mind tricks don't work on me. Only money.

    1. Re:Waddayathink.... by praedictus · · Score: 1

      Martianred writes "In a speech to the House of Representatives, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, announced that he is a Sith: "as the first Sith Emperor of this place, I look forward to the Global Domination under the law that will be dictated by me due to your lack of Will"

      --
      Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
    2. Re:Waddayathink.... by julesh · · Score: 1

      Informative?

      What?? You really think the poster is a congressman?

  70. seperation? by BobVila · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to the seperation of Senate and Jedi?

  71. No, but God isn't paying my taxes either by bobalu · · Score: 1

    No, vote for someone who believes in the Easter Bunny or Xenu if you want.

    But it would be nice if you didn't have to be born-again and ostentatiously show up at various churches in order to consider running for a political post. You don't have to believe Jesus is literally God and coming back to live a moral life.

    Consider the possibility that some of those non-believers might have a clue about managing things too.

    Last I checked God wasn't paying my property taxes. For a public servant knowledge of proper accounting principles and fiscal conservatism is worth more than fake righteousness anytime.

    --
    The revolution will NOT be televised.
  72. One word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Retard.

    And - "need girlfriend"

  73. One More Reason by jac1962 · · Score: 1

    . . . I'm thankful my ancestors had the good sense to get a on a leaky boat and cross the Atlantic.

    --
    "I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
    1. Re:One More Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George & Dick or this Jedi guy. Hard choise...

    2. Re:One More Reason by jac1962 · · Score: 1

      How about an even easier choice:

      George or Spotted Dick?

      --
      "I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
  74. A couple of points: by marklark · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly certain that Jesus never claimed to do miracles -- the witnesses to his actions did. In fact quite often he reportedly told those that he helped to _not_ tell anyone else about it.

    None of those witnesses ever claimed that he produced fish out of thin air.

    By the way, the persecution you were looking for via negative mods hasn't happened yet. :^)

    1. Re:A couple of points: by BlueCodeWarrior · · Score: 1

      None of those witnesses ever claimed that he produced fish out of thin air.

      He's referring to that one time that Jesus fed 3000 (or whatever) people with 3 loaves of bread and 5 fish (or whatever the numbers were).

    2. Re:A couple of points: by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Who could doubt your analysis with such brilliant recollection of the events surrounding the story of the Feeding of the 5000.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:A couple of points: by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      'm fairly certain that Jesus never claimed to do miracles

      He got on and did them. In Mark 2:1-12, he claims to be able to perform the miracles of healing sin and curing a paralytic. In fact he claimed on many occasions to be able to cure people and then did it. He also predicted that he would die and rise again on the third day, which would be considered a miracle.

      the witnesses to his actions did. In fact quite often he reportedly told those that he helped to _not_ tell anyone else about it.

      He did that because he didn't want people to follow him for his power, but rather for his teaching. Take a look at Mark 1-8. It's full of Jesus teaching about who he is. When he performs miracles, it is always to make a teaching point about his identity. This stops after Mark 8 because he's switched to teaching about what he's come to do because Peter finally understands who he is.

      None of those witnesses ever claimed that he produced fish out of thin air.

      The gospel writers claim that he did.

  75. He is a Jedi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like his father before him!

  76. To The Dogs by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 0, Troll
    I see the speech was given by

    Jamie Reed (Lab)

    That Jamie is a lab is no more surprizing, I suppose, than the fact that he or she is a Jedi knight. Maybe less, since labs actually exist. Better than being a socialist, I guess.

    One question: Yellow, black, or chocolate?

    1. Re:To The Dogs by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

      Note to self: (1) Don't make jokes on /., or (2) make better jokes.

  77. Seriously: by Armadni+General · · Score: 4, Informative

    More people need to RTFA. No, I'm not new here, but still. Usually, people manage to get it somewhere on topic. This discussion is just completely out there.

    This member of Parliament isn't really proclaiming himself as a Jedi or anything of the sort. He's trying to make the consequences of potential legislation easier to understand.

    Basically, they're working on a bill which would make stirring up hated against members of a religion, illegal. But the bill is total crap, so much so to the point where it would make any and all religions virtually immune to criticism.

    Those of us who live in America, and are into the topic of religion, namely online discussion on forums and the like (so that's why this is on Slashdot!), often enjoy a high amount of freedom in questioning the legitimacy of Jesus, or the Muslim world's seemingly-manic obsession with demonizing Christianity, or anything else which might brand you as a heretic in that religion's home-base.

    If this bill were passed, any who enjoy that right and excercise it in public would potentially be committing an illegal act.

    Of course, in the Western world the Internet is still largely a frontier for government monitoring and regulation. It's too dynamic. In public, however, there's little doubt that any statement or action which might even remotely irritate a member of a certain religion (double points if it's a minority) would be regarded as hate-inciting and therefore illegal.

    The bottom line is, there goes another freedom! Unless this bill is stopped.

    1. Re:Seriously: by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Basically, they're working on a bill which would make stirring up hated against members of a religion, illegal. But the bill is total crap, so much so to the point where it would make any and all religions virtually immune to criticism.

      Actually there's a lot of opposition to the bill from evangelical Christians because of concerns that it could make preaching the gospel illegal. Anything which claims any exclusivity is potentially illegal because anything which causes someone to feel hated, even if unintended, could result in a prosecutable offence. There's a similar law in Australia where a Christian minister was imprisoned for preaching that belief in Jesus is the only way to heaven and therefore everyone, Muslims included, need to repent and trust in him. He also said that Muslims were not the enemy and should be very much loved by Christians. Despite this, some Muslims claimed that they felt hated because of his words and had him charged. He was found guilty and imprisoned.

    2. Re:Seriously: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Those of us who live in America, and are into the topic of religion, namely online discussion on forums and the like (so that's why this is on Slashdot!), often enjoy a high amount of freedom in questioning the legitimacy of Jesus, or the Muslim world's seemingly-manic obsession with demonizing Christianity, or anything else which might brand you as a heretic in that religion's home-base.
      For being someone who claims to be into the topic of religion, you don't seem to know much about the subject. Islam is very tolerant of christians and jews, since they see them as followers of the same god, and they are spared of taxes and such that are applied to people belonging to other religions. Some muslims don't like some western countries (and some would say with reason), they don't hate christianity.
      There are plenty of radicals in islam, and plenty in christianity as well, but people in the western world ignore the christian radicals and the media tends to show only the islamic radicals. I mean, what gets better ratings, a moderate muslim or a beligerent one?
      For the record, I don't belong to any of these religions.
    3. Re:Seriously: by Armadni+General · · Score: 1

      Actually, I should have worded that differently to get my point across correctly. I've spent years explaining to people what you actually just told me; you are correct.

      What I should have said is "questioning the legitimacy of Jesus, or proposing that the Muslim world has a seemingly-manic obsession with demonizing Christianity.

      Or something to that effect. But you understand what I mean, right? Good.

    4. Re:Seriously: by Armadni+General · · Score: 1

      I phrased that wrong, should have said something more like "proposing that the Muslim world has a seeming-manic...[etc.]" I agree with you completely on the topic of extremists and common Muslims. The extremists often have higher positions, and therefore louder voices, although they are not at all representative of the Muslim world. In fact I've spent years explaining that to those who think the solution is "nuke Mecca."

    5. Re:Seriously: by Armadni+General · · Score: 1

      Wow, slashdot, wtf? Tell me "Connection terminated," then post the shit twice?

  78. *wiff* over the head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think that this is somewhat missing the point...

    The guy anounced this because of a new law in england that makes it illegal to incite religious hatred...

    i.e. mocking Star Wars fanboys who declare themselves Jedi, can get you jailed now...

  79. Everyone who believes in telekinesis... by Minstrel+Boy · · Score: 1
    Please raise my hand!

    KeS

  80. There's a bright side by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    There are always 2. No more, no less.
    So, is Darth Bushifus the master, or the apprentice?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:There's a bright side by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      He's Darth Maul- an expendable placeholder for the true apprentice. The real Master is Cheney and apprentice is Rove.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:There's a bright side by Moredhel · · Score: 1

      Neither. ("Not another...") Shrubbery is, as already said, a useless, mindless Jar Jar, flapping around in the foreground distracting us with his strange miss use of the language, while Cheney and Rumsfeld (stroking his fluffy white cat and wanting Mr Bond dead) are the true Sith lords.

      Not that My Little Tony and the Care Blairs are much better.

  81. US Sith? by Valiss · · Score: 1

    How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?"

    Why would a Sith-controlled organization allow a Jedi to join?

    --

    -Valiss
    1. Re:US Sith? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Always two there are: a master, and an apprentice.

  82. I have a bad feeling about this... by B11 · · Score: 1

    Sorry I couldn't resist.

    --
    insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
    1. Re:I have a bad feeling about this... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1
      C3PO said it best:

      We're doomed.

  83. To quote from ROTJ by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1
    "He's no Jedi"

    Seriously, I get the whole "Jedi as a religion to prove a point" thing in England, but if he REALLY was a Jedi wouldn't he need some form of yoda-esque training? Shouldn't he be considered a "believer in the force" or something? Just because you are Jewish does not make you a Rabbi, just because you are Christian does not make you a priest, and just because you worship Lucas does not make you a Jedi.

  84. I see nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't the article I was looking for.

  85. But what of Middle earth?? by IcyNeko · · Score: 3, Funny

    With all these people going Jedi on us, I'm wondering how many people check their roots and realize that it is not the Jedi that they are, but Numenorians??! Why do people give up on teh Valar so easily?

  86. Gungan by lupinstel · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think most of our Congress in Gungan actually.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
  87. This really is ridiculous..... by kuriharu · · Score: 1
    While we're at it, where are the mutant members of Parliament, the vulcans, etc? There's a time and a place for humor, but at taxpayer expense?

    I guess the real joke will be if this clown gets re-elected....

  88. Youngling? isn't that the name of a Panda? by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it to me.

  89. Politics and Dark Side by General_Tso · · Score: 1

    I always laugh when someone attacks the opposite side of the political aisle by calling them "Sith Lords" or "Darth Whatever." It has to be the most ineffective way to demonize an opponent, because Darth Vader is infinitely cooler than any light side Jedi. Admit it! Now! Feel your throat tightening yet?

    1. Re:Politics and Dark Side by Kyrene · · Score: 1

      You have a point. I really do think that Darth Vader should be the next President of the US. :)

      --
      Do not disturb. Already disturbed. http://www.teaaddictedgeek.com
    2. Re:Politics and Dark Side by dhalgren · · Score: 1

      ". . .now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

    3. Re:Politics and Dark Side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One Name: Mara Jade

    4. Re:Politics and Dark Side by General_Tso · · Score: 1

      Ha! Excellent! Rick Moranis is the anti-Vader for sure, and probably closer to what we'd get with MPs and congressmen alike as Jedi and Sith.

  90. Point of logic ... by beach_mon · · Score: 1

    The Honorable Tripmaster has neglected an few important matters in his suggestion of the second part - namely, that only *naughty* (former) Jedi force-choke people, and that the force-choke ability *may* be distance dependant. I move that we nominate a panel to investigate my second postulation. Hrrmph.

  91. Shouldn't that be... by phalse+phace · · Score: 1
    "I find your lack of Faith disturbing!!!"

    Disturbing your lack of faith is

    1. Re:Shouldn't that be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not, because it's a Darth Vader quote (from A New Hope).

    2. Re:Shouldn't that be... by interiot · · Score: 1

      Is your disturbing faith lack of?

  92. religious blindness by javcrapa · · Score: 1

    yuo have a very good point, people are blinded by religions very often, and dno't fid the underlying similarities

  93. This Moron Is My MP! by VVrath · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Don't blame me, though - I didn't vote for him.

    1. Re:This Moron Is My MP! by epa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hope you will next time. We need people like this to stand up against any trend towards religiousity becoming part of government (as distinct from part of state) in the UK. For the many people who consider religion to be no more than fiction or, at best, mythology, those who will mock its place in parliament are to be encouraged and voted for. A

      --
      Time is life: speed saves it. LJK Setright
    2. Re:This Moron Is My MP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "to stand up against any trend towards religiousity becoming part of government"

      I thought even the Arch-bish wanted to deestablishmentise the church. Comes to something when even those who gain undue influence through the parliamentary system don't want to be associated with it any more.

    3. Re:This Moron Is My MP! by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      I wished he was my MP. Not only did he make a point about the ridiculous scope of the religious hatred bill he also talked about how he wants to actually have a sensible debate about nuclear power.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  94. How long? Try never. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...you really think theres a single American politician with the balls to make fun of religion in public?
    Its not like there hasn't been ample opportunity of late either. Answers on a postcard: how come you can do this sort of stuff in a country with an absolute union between state and the state religion (nb. Her Brittanic majesty is both head of state and head of the church of england) but you're in deep shit if you try it in the US with a written constitution ensuring free speech? I'm at a loss as to figure out how this state of affairs has arisen. I am however reasonably sure its not what the founding fathers had in mind.

  95. Gunslingers are better by Laurance · · Score: 1

    I would much rather be a Gunslinger http://www.thedarktower.net/wiki/Main/Gunslinger

  96. How long before.... by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

    How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?

    Dah, never. A sith on the other hand, too many to count...

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
  97. I'm waiting for.... by TopFlite211 · · Score: 1

    Bah Jedi. I'm eagerly awaiting the first Flying Spaghetti Monsterist congressman.

  98. Building a lightsaber that is real. by NRAdude · · Score: 0
    Just build a lightsaber. A real one. That's all. According to sources, there is some debate one what compses "lightsaber";
    On the set, the actors use props composed of handles that have aluminum rods attached to them, and these rods are the length of the lightsaber "blade." The handles are plastic models and the aluminum rods are painted red or green or blue. The actors use these props as though they were lightsabers./blockquote The sources claim they are both real and fake, whereby the truth in the matter is a "lightsaber," with contrast to the action used in combat, is built of aluminum. I believe this radioactive aluminum is remeniscent of Scotty's "transparent aluminum", but I can't say because it is verry exclusive technology not often encountered. In what part of the Historical Documets, there is claim that "lightsabers" are false, but then there is described the physical elements that compose a "lightsaber" and I found them to be quite existent and non-fiction. You be the judge.
    --
    without prejudice
  99. Again... by the0ther · · Score: 1

    Ridiculous. However, I do approve of this kind of "reality-hacking". To me, this is no more ridiculous than worshipping a Bearded Sky Wizard.

  100. Re:We've already had Mormons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

  101. Two light-saber lengths apart. by ehiris · · Score: 1

    The house of commons will have to move the red lines so they are two light-saber lengths away instead of the current two sword lengths.

    1. Re:Two light-saber lengths apart. by kickabear · · Score: 1

      This won't work, because the length of a light-saber is adjustable. Unless, of course, the red lines are adjustable, too.

      --
      This space for rent.
  102. Jedi is another way to say Virgin. by infonography · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lucky for him, there are no active volcanos in the British Isles.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:Jedi is another way to say Virgin. by ryusen · · Score: 1
      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    2. Re:Jedi is another way to say Virgin. by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...

      Is that an offer?

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:Jedi is another way to say Virgin. by ryusen · · Score: 1

      you mean from me or the girl in the picture? if you mean me then there's a few conditions: 1) i have you find you attrative 2) my gf has to find you attractive 3) my gf has to not kill me for making the suggestion. if it's from her... you'd have to find her and ask youself, i have no idea who that is.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
  103. Jedi adds balance to the force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey if House of Lords McNair can identify as a Scientologist, then what's wrong with Jedi?

    -Someone- has to fight Xenu when he escapes from his electronic trap.

  104. It's a hoax by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    You're right, and the Jedi religion has already been shown to be a hoax.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  105. How long before we have a Congressional equivalent by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

    My guess: less than 12 parsecs

    - AJ

  106. We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're doomed

  107. Calm down, by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    your comment is far too forceful...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  108. If your post goes up, is the inverse true? by superultra · · Score: 1

    Since you're at 4-interesting, I guess that your post is a testament to the power of long entrenched atheism?

    1. Re:If your post goes up, is the inverse true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch, it's not over yet :-)

  109. I Do that all the time. Big Whoop by infonography · · Score: 1

    I am still not a Christian

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:I Do that all the time. Big Whoop by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I am still not a Christian

      It might be because you are not a christian...

    2. Re:I Do that all the time. Big Whoop by infonography · · Score: 1

      Bingo!, I follow the Tao. ;)

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  110. Get your dates straight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are going to dispute the factuality of an event, please at least have the intellectual honesty to make sure your own facts are accurate. Most historians, Christian or otherwise, acknowledge that most of the various books of the New Testament were written within the 50 years following Jesus's death. They may not have been collected into one large volume until later, but you are inaccurate in claiming that the chronicling occurred 300 years after the facts.

    1. Re:Get your dates straight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are, of course, referring only to those historians who believe that this "Jesus" character ever lived in the first place.

      There are quite a few who would dispute this assertion.

  111. And that would be by nietsch · · Score: 1

    because they get all the good chicks? I dunno, but less competition is good on that field I thought.
    Besides 50 quid will get you laid if you are willing to stoop. Or did you mean that 'those geeks' raised the price too much by their insatious demand?

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  112. To Be Honest... by Aeron65432 · · Score: 1
    "How long until we have a Congressional equivalent?"

    Let's hope not in our lifetime.

  113. Fear leads to anger.... Anger leads to hate... by abb3w · · Score: 2, Funny
    Am I the only person who doesn't see the Jedi belief system flawed?

    And this from other belief systems differs... how?

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Fear leads to anger.... Anger leads to hate... by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      I was going to suggest you replace the Church of the Subgenius link with a Church of Scientolgy link, but they'd probably have a lawsuit on the way to your door before you could lift your cursor off the Submit button.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    2. Re:Fear leads to anger.... Anger leads to hate... by abb3w · · Score: 1
      I was going to suggest you replace the Church of the Subgenius link with a Church of Scientolgy link

      No. I believe the current "Church" of Scientology not to be a church, but rather an unindicted criminal conspiracy. The courts -- and Scientology's legal team -- disagree. =|

      Some of the membership are doubtless true believers, and no more deluded than any other religion. Clambakes aside, the faith isn't any wackier than the "Jedi". However, speaking as someone raised Catholic, I would say the members of the current church leadership are in serious need of their own version of Martin Luther and 95 Theses nailed to their church doors.

      It also might help if we could persuade our congresscritters that 18 USC 1839 part 3 should be modified to specifically exclude "religious scriptures" from eligibility for legal protection as trade secrets, thus pulling one of their more unwholesome legal fangs.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  114. How Long till the rise of the Sith? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    honestly, i want a fair and balanced government, where my sith values can be upheld in the form of representative gov't

  115. Libertarians can't even get elected in the US by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    I doubt anyone claiming to be Jedi will hold a non-trivial political office anytime soon. In case you haven't noticed, Libertarians can't even get elected in the US. I'm sure sooner or later though, that there will be a mayor who is Jedi. He will be from a town with a population of 30. The Daily Show will then do a piece about him. We can only hope it is Mo Rocca!

    1. Re:Libertarians can't even get elected in the US by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Libertarians don't have that mind-control mojo that the Jedi use. That would be a great asset in a political campain.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  116. Argh its spreading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well after WMD in Irak everything is possible in politics.

  117. Oh and another thing by geeber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.

    Thomas did ask for proof, yes, and he got his proof. But Jesus castigated also him for it. Daring to ask for proof was seen as a much weaker for of faith than belief without seeing.

    Such a philosophy goes a long way towards explaining the current climate in the US.

    1. Re:Oh and another thing by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Jesus didn't berate or castigate Thomas for needing proof, but he did commend those that didn't need proof to believe.

    2. Re:Oh and another thing by geeber · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fair enough. I had miss-remembered things. After googling, I found the actual text is something like "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

    3. Re:Oh and another thing by rocketfairy · · Score: 1

      I wish courts worked like that.

    4. Re:Oh and another thing by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "Daring to ask for proof was seen as a much weaker for of faith than belief without seeing."

      Of course asking for proof is 'lesser' than pure faith if you are trying to manipulate societies by encouraging blind obedience. Which is what most religion is about.

      Eg: Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not really religions; they are surviving remnants of ancient geopolitical systems.

      Their motivation is not the spiritual betterment of their members, but the social control of their members.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:Oh and another thing by DarKry · · Score: 1

      Jesus.... George Bush..... Jesus........... George Bush.................

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      I am sorry thats just hilarious.

    6. Re:Oh and another thing by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I agree that religion is a form of self-governance among society. But, I do not agree that religion is used explicitly as a form of governance. That said however, social control over others is done out of fear of being seen as a betrayer to the very God/s they pray too (do as God would intend or you will be punished...etc).

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:Oh and another thing by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it governance at all. Its a different sort of manipulation. At one time it may have been necessary for the formation of governable states in some parts of the world. But that doesn't make it governance in itself.

      Its more like a form of social moderation.

      My guess is that it will be superceded by online moderation of blog comments.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:Oh and another thing by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Its more like a form of social moderation.

      Exactly. That's what I ment by "self-governance" in regards to society keeping each other in check without the use of a legal institution.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:Oh and another thing by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "society keeping each other in check"

      I don't know if I'd describe it in terms of 'each other' either.

      For one thing, the religious institution tends to take on a life of its own.

      For another its more subtly manipulative than that and directed by 'religious leaders' not peer-to-peer (as it were).

      And it often sets the standard and framework for legal institutions. Well, historically anyway; thats what we inherit from the past.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:Oh and another thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may think its funny, but try asking a conservative Bush lover what happened to that satellite photo evidence of WMDs that Bush touted so much way back in the beginning of this mess, then quietly buried after insisting that other countries couldn't see the photos and that they'd just have to take his word on it.

  118. Speaking of Hokey Religions... by CFTM · · Score: 1

    For those of you interested in a great laugh, and to you mod's out there I realize this is off-topic but I just can't resist, here are the lyrics from the Tool song Eulogy. I have heard it was about L. Ron Hubbard, although I can verify that; read the lyrics and it seems applicable to many many things...

    Eulogy

    He had alot to say.
    He had alot of nothing to say.
    We'll miss him. (2x)
    We're gonna miss him (2x)

    So long.
    We wish you well.
    You told us how you weren't afraid to die.
    Well then, so long.
    Don't cry.
    Or feel too down.
    Not all martyrs see divinity.
    But at least you tried.

    Standing above the crowd,
    He had a voice that was strong and loud.
    We'll miss him. (2x)
    Ranting and pointing his finger
    At everything but his heart.
    We'll miss him. (2x)
    We're gonna miss him (2x)

    No way to recall
    What it was that you had said to me,
    Like I care at all.

    But it was so loud.
    You sure could yell.
    You took a stand on every little thing
    And so loud.

    Standing above the crowd,
    He had a voice so strong and loud and i
    Swallowed his facade cuz I'm so
    Eager to identify with
    Someone above the ground,
    Someone who seemed to feel the same,
    Someone prepared to lead the way, with
    Someone who would die for me.

    Will you?
    Will you now?
    Would you die for me?
    Don't you fuckin' lie.

    Don't you step out of line. (3x)
    Don't you fuckin' lie.

    You've claimed all this time that you would die for me.
    Why then are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy?

    You had alot to say.
    You had alot of nothing to say.

    Come down.
    Get off your fuckin cross.
    We need the fuckin' space to nail the next fool martyr.

    To ascend you must die.
    You must be crucified
    For your sins and your lies. [sic]
    Goodbye...

  119. So Christ didn't believe in himself? by FirstNoel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like he needed therapy.

    --
    "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
  120. What about Scientology? by PixelSlut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    L Ron Hubbard didn't wait thousands of years to start his psycho religion, and now that religion has half the fucktards in Hollywood dumping their money into it. With such a proven track record, why should the Jedi nerds wait thousands of years to start theirs?

    1. Re:What about Scientology? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 4, Funny

      L Ron Hubbard didn't wait thousands of

      What kind of parent names her child 'L'. No wonder he came up with all those whacky ideas later in life.

      Actually, I always thought his name was "Elron"

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    2. Re:What about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think his name was "LaFayette", which explains why he went by "Ron".

      Personally I belong to "Mindhead".

    3. Re:What about Scientology? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think his name was "LaFayette", which explains why he went by "Ron".

      Ah. I see. For a second, I thought his mom gave him a weird name.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    4. Re:What about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually, I always thought his name was "Elron"

      You're missing a 'd'. It should be: ...I always thought his name was "Elrond"

    5. Re:What about Scientology? by duplo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it quite amusing that the man who dismisses all western psychology as uselss was probably a schizophrenic

    6. Re:What about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you are aware, the old testament name for God is El

    7. Re:What about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually his name was Lafayette Ronald Hubbard

      You can find an unofficial biografi here http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/l- ron-hubbard/

    8. Re:What about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our lawyers will be in touch with you shortly, and your ISP.

    9. Re:What about Scientology? by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      You're missing a 'd'. It should be: ...I always thought his name was "Elrond"

      No, you're wrong. It should be I always thought his name was Enron, since scientology is just a way of making quick money from the gullible for it's managers.

    10. Re:What about Scientology? by andersa · · Score: 1

      In A Piece Of Blue Sky by Jon Atack, one of the most authoritative sources on Scientology. He states:

      Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was born in Tilden, Nebraska, on March 13, 1911.

      This quote can be found in Part 2, Chapter 1.

    11. Re:What about Scientology? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      L Ron Hubbard is a pseudonym. His real name was Sauron Hubbard.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:What about Scientology? by Vexar · · Score: 1
      He's the sort who dislikes his first name that much. I knew a guy whose first name was Frank, and his middle name was James, as was his father before him. He goes by Jimmy of late, which suits him, given that he is not a very upstanding guy, and Frank says "honest guy" as a name.

      There's a true spiritual vacuum in this world, and people are worshipping the gods of sci-fi writers, anorexia (Some kind of god), and apparently ancient cults are also on the rise (Baal, for instance). Ask yourself this question: if you were to die tomorrow, where would you go? If anybody knows the Jedi answer to that one, I'd be curious.

    13. Re:What about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was probably pissed because he couldn't get into Lehigh because of his name.

  121. allow me to be the first to say... by endersdouble · · Score: 1

    what the FUCK?

  122. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  123. Also... by fbartho · · Score: 1

    Also, He wasn't Fish-out-of-thin-air guy, he was more of a fish-out-of-fish-and-bread-out-of-bread-that-norma lly-would-have-only-fed-five-not-thousands guy.

    --
    Gravity Sucks
    1. Re:Also... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The first copyright infringement of a physical object!

    2. Re:Also... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Turn around... Turn-- Turn around..."

      "Behold! I have created food!"

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  124. You're funny by Quila · · Score: 1

    How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?

    A non-Judeo-Christian congressman? It took us ninety years to let blacks in there, and over 130 years before the first woman, so it'll take a while longer before we start letting the unwashed heathens run our country.

  125. Re:We've already had Mormons by AuMatar · · Score: 1

    No, thats scientology. Mormons believe that Jesus had something to do with the american indians.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  126. Jedi - Protest not wierdness by epa · · Score: 1

    Here is the background to this story from a UK political perspective

    The UK has a national census every decade. Last time, they asked for people to indicate their religious inclination. Naturally, the census form included boxes to tick for the well-known ports of religiosity, and the option for "other" where you could enter a religion.

    Anyway, someone found out that if more than a certain number of people mentioned the same religion in "other", it would become officially recognised. This led to a campaign amongst those who thought that religion was either just fictional or nothing to do with the government to play with the beaurocrats.

    So, those who thought that "religion" had no place on the census form were encouraged to tick "other" and write Jedi. And, guess what? Jedi passed the threshold, and the government are still trying to find some reason why it should not become a recognised religion in the UK.

    I bet that the next census will not have this question.

    A
    --
    Time is life: speed saves it. LJK Setright
  127. A Jedi he is not by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

    A member of Parliment can't be a jedi, since everyone knows only members of the Imperial Navy speak with an English acent, he is an imposter.

    1. Re:A Jedi he is not by dhalgren · · Score: 1

      I always *knew* Obi-Wan was an Imperial Navy traitor!

      I could never never figure out why nobody twigged on the accent thing...

  128. religious hatred bill by delong · · Score: 1

    British humor folks, you either get it or you don't. The comments were made during deliberations on the religious hatred bill before Parliament.

    He wasn't just being a nerd declaring his Jedi affiliation out of the blue.

  129. On Original Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?"

    When we routine fly monkeys between NYC and London, 45 minutes, ground to ground.

    Freedom of religion is guaranteed here (well, for christians, jews, and a few "others"). Tolerance is not.

  130. Its Hansard.. He could have said anything by crovira · · Score: 1

    including he was pleased to be 'the fact and fiction section of the Wattford public library' and it might have been recorded as 'from Edinborough.'

    Hansard in Canada has the same problem. The staff end up working overnight and errors (like somebody in the next room watching a DVD,) may get confused in, along with the occasional contents of a ham sandwitch and milk that went up someone's nose at a guffaw.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:Its Hansard.. He could have said anything by julesh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but just read this one. They couldn't make this shit up.

  131. How long until a Congressional equivalent? by PMuse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Answer: Never. Or when the U.S. changes over to proportional representation, whichever comes first.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    1. Re:How long until a Congressional equivalent? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      Answer: Never. Or when the U.S. changes over to proportional representation, whichever comes first.

      So presumably there's something more than just proportional representation involved here, unless I've missed something, as this was somebody in the UK Parliament, which, as far as I know, does not use proportional representation.

      Note, of course, that when he said he was "the first Jedi Member of this place", he was speaking of his religion, not his political party, as the cited Hansard section shows him as "Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)", not "Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Jedi)". Are you saying that, without proportional representation, nobody with the courage to state in Congress that they're a Jedi would get elected?

    2. Re:How long until a Congressional equivalent? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  132. Oh, not, not another... by feloneous+cat · · Score: 1

    Padawan wannabe!

    --
    IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
  133. There are more Jedis than born again by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    because the Force is with them.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  134. A Jedi once bit his sister... by zrk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No realli! She was Karving her initials on the Jedi
    with the business end of a double-bladed lightsaber given to
    her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo Sith Lord and
    star of many ILM møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo
    Sith Lord", "Gungans of Passion", "The Mani Mitichlorians of Horst Nordfink"...

    1. Re:A Jedi once bit his sister... by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      The people responsibile for the hiring of the people responsible for the parent post have been SACKED!!!

    2. Re:A Jedi once bit his sister... by markhb · · Score: 1

      You have been sacked.

      --
      Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
    3. Re:A Jedi once bit his sister... by Adrilla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's a double-bladed lightsaber, are both ends "the business end"?

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    4. Re:A Jedi once bit his sister... by techwolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would love to see a Star Wars fan movie as a parody of the Holy Grail. Making that is about as close as you can get to being the ultimate geek. Well, I guess you could throw the number 42 in at every possible opportunity but I digress..

      --
      I don't do this for karma, I do it for cash. It's much better.
    5. Re:A Jedi once bit his sister... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      I... I... wow... holy... I think my head just exploded AND I creamed my pants at the same time.

      "Let's not go to Alderaan, tis a silly place."

      And the singing number, Knights of the Jedi Order.

      I'm not creative enough, help me out fellow geeks!

    6. Re:A Jedi once bit his sister... by magicmartinsmuffinma · · Score: 1

      Anakin: I'm so sorry I killed all those villagers, but when I'm in this idiom.....

    7. Re:A Jedi once bit his sister... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 0, Troll


      Anakin's mom: "I'm not dead yet."

      Anakin: "Shut up...you'll be stone dead in a moment..."

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    8. Re:A Jedi once bit his sister... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      It's not "Anakin's mom," it's Shmi. Please place your geek license in the shredder on the way out. Have a nice day.

  135. Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

    He claimed to be God! He proved this by His resurrection from the dead among other things.

    1. Re:Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by MCraigW · · Score: 1

      I don't think Jesus ever claimed to be God. He did refer to God as his father. Is there some place in the Bible where Jesus calls himself God?

    2. Re:Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by Saganaga · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, Jesus did claim to be God. See this page for a detailed list of places in the Gospels where Jesus made that claim.

      Here are a few examples:

      The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8:57-59)

      "I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)

      And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)

      The question is not whether Jesus claimed to be God, because I think it's demonstrated that he indeed did make such a claim. Rather, the question is whether or not you believe it to be true.

      If you don't think Jesus is God, then why believe anything else he said (in other words, why follow any of his teachings?) But if you do think he might be God, then you should dig deeper and learn more.

    3. Re:Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

      Jesus said in John 10:30
      "I and my Father are one."

      There are also many indirect references to His deity:
      Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. -John 5:18

      Judaism and Christianity are both monotheistic(belief in one God). The Jewish leaders understood that when Jesus said he was the "son of God"(incarnation of God), He was claiming to be God.

      You can find many more references here.

    4. Re:Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      So he never said he was god, but it's interpreted as that? If you've ever read the bible, you'll know that there are multiple gods. God says so himself. After all god's children came down and slept with all the women.

      Only by dismissing jewish/christian spirituality beliefs does the bible not make sense.

      God was his father. God is everybody's father. Everyone is god, for does not god exist in every aspect of his creation? We are the cells of god.

      The problem is that everybody lets the church interpret the bible for them, and only the books that the church chooses to be included in the bible.

      Kings of spin, just like the USA.

    5. Re:Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      How do they know he was dead in the first place?
      Did they have George Clooney come and pronounce him dead at the Cross? Some Roman doctor got a time of death?

      Throughout history there have been many instances of people thought dead, buried in graves even, only to have been determined to be alive, when they started walking again.

    6. Re:Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

      So he never said he was god, but it's interpreted as that?
      He said it in way that His audience would understand. Jesus didn't speak King James english with a British accent. His audience knew exactly what He meant and wanted to kill Him for saying it.

      If you've ever read the bible, you'll know that there are multiple gods. God says so himself.
      The Bible clearly teaches one God, many gods. Zeus is a god, Allah is a god, and some claim John F. Kennedy was god. There are many beings inside this universe, outside this universe and in the minds of men of varying degrees of power, but there has always been and always will be only one God.

      After all god's children came down and slept with all the women.
      You interpret it that way even though thats not what the passage says.

      God was his father. God is everybody's father.
      Jesus said to the Pharisee's "You are of your father the devil." John 8:44

      Everyone is god, for does not god exist in every aspect of his creation? We are the cells of god.
      Being made by God does not make you a god or equal to God. You existence has a beginning and an end.

      The problem is that everybody lets the church interpret the bible for them,
      Sounds like you went to a church that didn't really teach the Bible or at least teach it properly.

      and only the books that the church chooses to be included in the bible.
      Again the problem is not the Bible but the poor methodologies used in studying and interpreting it.

    7. Re:Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

      How do they know he was dead in the first place?

      Jesus was not crucified by some rag tag mob.
      He was scourged(39 lashes across the back) and then crucified and then had His side pierced with a sword by Roman soldiers who were professional executioners.

      Did they have George Clooney come and pronounce him dead at the Cross? Some Roman doctor got a time of death?

      The Bible states in Mark 15:44-45
      44 Pilate marveled that He was already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had been dead for some time. 45 So when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.

      This centurion would have made sure before telling the govenor he was dead.
      If he was alive, the centurion would have paid for his mistake with his life.

    8. Re:Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      And I would surmise that there were so called "doctors" in the 19th century who let living people get buried alive. Looking for links tho... I'll be back!

    9. Re:Jesus didn't claim to be a Christian by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      And if we can use snopes to disprove theories, we can use it for the reverse. I present unto you:

      www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.htm

      So I say, if doctors can be fooled, your centurion surely is no better expert.

  136. Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please show me where it says in the bible that God caused life to appear out of nowhere. Please show me where the bible references TIME at all after those first seven days, when God was creating humans, plants, and animals. There is no indication whatsoever that God snapped his fingers and life suddenly appeared. By believing in this man-invented concept of creationism, you are claiming to understand how your god did these things and how long it took him.

    Your catagorical disbelief of evolution (as opposed to specific objections, like irregularities in the evidence) is not supported by the world around us, and it is not supported by the very book you claim to follow. It is illogical, irrational, extremely arrogant, and is modded flamebait for very good reason.

    As for the "it's just a theory" horseshit, well, if you haven't figured out how worthless that statement is by now, you really are beyond all reason. Things like eletricity and gravity and relativity and nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are all theories, and have all field very real, practical results. Evolution, too, has shown itself to be real as best it can, but no one can prove it to be absolutely, unquestionably true any more than they could prove that an electrons are real by picking one up and showing it to me.

    But you go ahead and keep believing that electrons aren't real because you can't observe them directly. Just try not to get hit by a bolt of lightning...

    1. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      While I don't have a bible handy, I believe that it does indeed have God creating everything in six days, and resting on the seventh.

      It seems to me, if the writer didn't mean standard 24 hour days, then he should have been honest, and told us just how long it really too.

      It also seems to me that if God could create everything that exists, he could do it in six 24 hour days as easily as he could do it in a millennium.

    2. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by jayloden · · Score: 1
      Please show me where the bible references TIME at all after those first seven days, when God was creating humans, plants, and animals. There is no indication whatsoever that God snapped his fingers and life suddenly appeared.

      First, I never said that I believe God snapped his fingers and made things appear, I said that creationism does NOT prevent you from believing in microevolution - that's all I said. Try not to read into everything so much next time.

      Second, if you go by the bible, which is what you asked for, you'd see this, in Genesis chapter 1:

      20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

      as you may have noticed, man and beasts were all created within a timeline of days, according to the Bible. It's up to the individual whether you interpret those as millions of years or actual 24hr days, or whatever. Personally, I don't care, as it doesn't make a difference to me how or when God created the Earth, just that my personal belief is that he DID create it. I just thought you might like to know since you asked, and after all, you did say please.

      As per your electron commentary, well, that's just "shockingly" stupid and has nothing to do with what I was discussing.

    3. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      Okay, so everything I'm replying to today, seems to be posted as a reply to a different message.

      Oh, by lightning, you mean the wrath of God...

    4. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by Vengie · · Score: 1
      ....we're talking about the /old/ testament here. First of all, the hebrew differs a bit from the KJ......but, that being said
      And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
      There wasn't even "night and day" as we know it until day four. So either the bible is telling lies with respect to the "first four days" or there should be some interpretation here....
      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    5. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      He created heaven and earth in 6 days. He created man, woman, plants and animals at an unspecified time after the 7th.

    6. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There wasn't even "night and day" as we know it until day four. So either the bible is telling lies with respect to the "first four days" or there should be some interpretation here....

      The non-existence of "night and day" (as in dark period and light period) does not preclude the existence of days as in collection of 24 hours -- or close to that. Just go close enough to one of the poles and see it for yourself.

      Of course, since the universe was initially empty, you have to try to imagine how God was counting time... But he probably decided on the duration of a day and then defined the orbit of the Earth based on that pre-defined length of time.

      Of course, it IS all lies.

    7. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      It's up to the individual whether you interpret those as millions of years or actual 24hr days, or whatever.

      ...or whether you assume "and it was so" means "and so macroevolution, a consequence of the architecture of the universe as created by God, coughed up those creatures".

      I.e., you're going to have to work a lot harder to come even close to convincing me that objecting to creationism is somehow being "negative towards Christians and Christian ideas".

      Now, given that the evidence seems to suggest that whales haven't been around as long as, say, lizards, taking the Bible as being literally true would appear to contradict observation (i.e., it wasn't "sea creatures first, then land creatures") - but you're going to have to work pretty hard to convince me that Biblical literalism is "a Christian idea" rather than an idea some Christians have, or that criticizing or dismissing Biblical literalism is "negative towards Christians" rather than "negative towards Biblical literalists".

      Speaking of which, I thought it was a bit amusing that somebody in this subthread had a Larry Wall quote in his signature line. Wall's an evangelical Christian and "[considers] the theory of evolution to be by and large proven", as per an interview with him, although I guess there are some folks who would consider his belief that the theory of evolution is by and large proven to render him not a Christian.

      As per your electron commentary, well, that's just "shockingly" stupid and has nothing to do with what I was discussing.

      Which part of his comment was "'shockingly' stupid"? He was responding to your statement that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" by noting that many ideas are, in a sense, "a theory", but that doesn't mean that they're merely One Man's Opinion, there's evidence to back them up.

    8. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      How could someone, 2000+ years ago, even CONCEIVE of a concept like 1 BILLION YEARS AGO. Many claim, although I'm not one of them since I don't actually believe anything in the bible, that Genesis is a metaphorical account of seven days. That mankind could not comprehend, at the time, how the good Lord spit out the Universe.

      And it's a story. Unlike Moses, who walked up the mountain and came down with 10 commandments etched upon stone tablets, who wrote the story of Genesis and Adam and Eve in the garden? I've certainly never heard of Jeremiah climbing the mountain and speaking with God about his early work. They're fairy tales, told to children by parents who didn't have a fucking clue.

    9. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how do you know that God didnt do it the way scientists think? Just because some priest said so or that its not in a book that is full of errors?

    10. Re:Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by Rev.+DeFiLEZ · · Score: 1

      This of course is for foreverdisillusioned,

      Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

      Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

      Now with that out of the way,

      The Theory Of Evolution can also be stated as The Law of Natural Selection

  137. Correction by wickedsteve · · Score: 1

    All Catholics are Christians. They believe in the Christ. Not all Christians are Catholics. There are many varieties of Christians.

    1. Re:Correction by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

      Catholics do not believe in the same Jesus that Christians do just like Muslims do not believe in the same Jesus.

      According to Roman Catholic teaching, the Eucharist is the central component of the Mass and the source and summit of Christianity. It is believed that when a priest consecrates the Communion bread, the wafer is no longer bread, but the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Rome teaches that Jesus is literally and bodily present wherever a consecrated Host is found. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of Catholic churches claim that Jesus is present in their eucharistic tabernacle or monstrance.

      What did Jesus mean when He warned of "other christs" and that many would claim that Christ was in the "inner rooms" in the last days (Matthew 24: 23-27)?

      The Roman Catholic Jesus is a piece of bread not the Biblical Jesus that Christians believe in.

    2. Re:Correction by crotherm · · Score: 1

      wow you are misinformed.... After doing 12 years in Catholic school, I can tell you that the Catholic Jesus Christ is the same as other Christians. And yes..... Catholics are Christians.

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    3. Re:Correction by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

      The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

      Perpetual Adoration
      A term broadly used to designate the practically uninterrupted adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

      THE PERMANENCE AND ADORABLENESS OF THE EUCHARIST
      ...the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. iv) by a special canon emphasized the fact, that after the Consecration Christ is truly present and, consequently, does not make His Presence dependent upon the act of eating or drinking. On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

      Translation: Worshiping a piece of bread that is believed to be Jesus Christ.
      I can assure you that for 2000 years Christians have not worshiped bread as God.
      You sound like a "bad" Catholic who doesn't know what Catholicism teaches nor worships the bread god.

    4. Re:Correction by crotherm · · Score: 1

      You won't see this Catholic worshiping a piece of bread anytime soon. But that doesn't mean I'll take the Eucharist and throw it on the ground. Just because I don't agree with, or follow all the rules, doesn't make be any less a Catholic. Its like saying that unless I follow all the traffic laws I am not a Citizen of my country.

      And lastly, I really don't care what your interpretaion of a Christian is, I know I am one as I am a member of a Chruch that dates back 2000 years.

      So let me ask you, what makes a Christian a Christian.

      And for completeness sake, here is Dictionary.com's definition:

      Christian
      adj.

      1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
      2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
      3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
      4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
      5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

      n.

      1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
      2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

      Hmmm, looks like Catholics follow all those to me....

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    5. Re:Correction by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      All Catholics are Christians. They believe in the Christ.

      Not all who claim to be Catholic actually believe in Catholic doctrine. And Catholic doctrine is, in a great many significant parts, incompatible with what the Bible teaches, rendering it fundamentally unChristian. The Catholic Mass denies the humanity of Christ by claiming that his body and blood are present as the bread and wine, when the bible clearly teaches that Christ is in heaven. It denies the sufficiency of his atoning death on the cross by sacrificing him at each Mass. It denies the doctrine of justification by faith which is preached throughout the Bible, by claiming that you have to do good works to be saved. And it denies the uniqueness of Christ and contradicts his claim to be the only way to the Father by saying that devout members of other faiths will get into heaven.

    6. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so what if Catholics think the Eucharist is Jesus?

      You bible thumpers think the Bible is God. You worship a book.

      Ain't no better.

    7. Re:Correction by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "And Catholic doctrine is, in a great many significant parts, incompatible with what the Bible teaches, rendering it fundamentally unChristian"

      And this VERSION of the Bible that you refer to happens to be in what language?

      Aramaic - which has no punctuation?

      Or English - meaning it's been revised and edited so many times as to be meaningless in content.

      Do you know how many Gospels there were BEFORE the Bible was produced - BY the Roman Church by the way?

      You people are stupid beyond all comprehension. Fortunately we Transhumans are going to see you get "Ruptured" (not "Raptured) in due time.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    8. Re:Correction by Digz · · Score: 1

      Wow. So many errors in such a short space. To wit (very quickly):

      1) Catholic doctrine is NOT incompatible with what the Bible teaches. Why do you think those monks spent so many of their lives copying the Bible if it were to be "hidden away" as so many Protestants claim? Do some research.

      2) The Protestants deny the words of Christ when He says "this IS My body.. this IS My blood" and "whosoever does not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood has no life in him" (and for the non-scholastic, the Greek word used for "eat" is changed to one that specifically means "to masticate with ones' teeth" when contention is raised).

      3) Christ is NOT re-sacrificed at each Mass. Christ was sacrificed ONCE. The Mass is a re-presentation of that SAME sacrifice. For if you read Revelations, you will see the "Lamb of God, slain from the foundations of the world". Christ's sacrifice is outside of time and eternal, and is always present before the Father. Read Scripture.

      4) No, we do not deny the justification of Faith. What we affirm, however, is what Scripture affirms - that faith without works is dead and that we were created in Christ to do works. The only time "faith alone" is mentioned in the Bible is when it is condemned in James.

      5) No, the singularity of Christ as redemptor is continually affirmed by the Church. We do acknowledge, as does St. Paul, that those who are without the benefit of the Gospel will be judged by their conscience; however, this is an EXTRAORDINARY means, and if anyone IS saved without the benefit of evangelization it is ONLY through the Blood of Christ.

      You should really read more before you condemn. I was once a Protestant as well. Check out www.catholic.com if you'd like to see what Catholics really believe, and keep your Boettner, White and Hyssop in the bookshelf.

      --
      SYS 64738
  138. Tony... by Salica · · Score: 1

    I'm your father !

  139. Re:We've already had Mormons by Ubeor · · Score: 1

    As a Mormon, I can assure you that you are wrong.

  140. Money Grab by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Money didn't save the Jews from the Germans, or the Russians, or the Spanish, or the French... Or any of the other peoples who turned on the Jews in order to steal their money. The real "Force" is going with the tao of the universe to survive the downturns. There the Jews have claim to some power: staying power.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Money Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe its because they really are God's chosen people, for a certain purpose at least. And that purpose has not been fulfilled yet. That would be an equally valid reason for thier existence despite the efforts of Egypt, Babylonians, Assyrians, Roman's, Gauls, Russians, Brits, and everything else that has tried to erradicate them over the past 5,000 years.

    2. Re:Money Grab by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Theirs is not the only people which has survived with a +/-5000 year history intact. There is something to say for the survivability of a people defined by a book, or a folk cycle commanded to be repeated verbatim, flawlessly. Zoroastrians already have 2900 years, too. The invisible hand that selects from the meme pool is the rest of the reproductive environment.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Money Grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice, anti-semitic remark from someone who is a supposedly "enlightened" liberal.

    4. Re:Money Grab by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What's antisemitic about pointing out past genocide against Jews to steal their property? Or that Jews have "staying power", after thousands of years of continuous history of surviving persecution, but no special power beyond that - like practically every other ethnicity? What kind of paranazinoia have you got?

      BTW, you might suppose I'm a "liberal", but that's a meaningless label. These "Post Anonymously" forms should require an IQ quiz to submit.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  141. unattributed quote: by phyruxus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross." ...2 points for the attribution.

    PS: I'd like to know what percent of American christians believe that Jesus was literally a man-god, as opposed to a godly man. Yes, I'm sure there are those out there who would bet their life that an omnipotent sky dweller is responsible for everything, but I doubt it's really a large percentage. Pulled-out-of-my-ass statistic: maybe 25% of american christians (and that's a highball).

    Keep in mind that the ones who are the most extreme correspond highly with those who are most vocal.

    And before the slashdot conserva-posse comes to lynch me, I do not hate christianity, only lunacy. Frankly, I think the saddest part of christianity today is that there is so much of value which is totally ignored for the benefit of those who wield the devotion of the masses.

    "You can flame me now. My heart is full of love." ~somebody else's sig

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
  142. I think this is more MP humo(u)r by wsanders · · Score: 1

    And that's the special kind of humor, with a "u", that we Yanks can only see on Prime Minister's Questions on CSPAN. It really makes the US Congress look like a bunch of pitiful sausagemakers.

    All I can say in response to this joke is "waggh waggh harrumph harrumph haw haw haw" or whatever it is all the MPs say in response to a particularly funny or pointed remark.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  143. I call shenanigans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saying your a Jedi is like saying that KWIJIBO is a real word....[BUZZZZZZ!] Thanks for playing, but there is no Jedi religion. It exists only in the mind of George Lucas and is anything but a complete concept even. I think, if I were to choose a conceptual basis for a religion, that I'd rather choose Tolkein's less rigorous and more spiritual views presented in The Lord of the Rings (books, not, IMHO, PJ's mediocre attempt at adapting them).

  144. One upon a time...a future came by meburke · · Score: 1

    Once upon a time, there was a group of warriors appointed by the King to administer justice in the domain and protect the citizenry from outside agression. For hundreds of years these lords of the realm took their hereditary responsibilities seriously, and, working with a body of representatives of the common citizenry, managed to maintain the kingdom in relative peace.

    Then one day the citizenry and the monarch reduced their status from hereditary protectors of the realm to common citizens, and rescinded the hereditary responsibilities.

    Now, in the 21st century, common elected officials are self-promoting themselves to knighted protectors of society...

    IMO, a "knight" is respected because he holds himself to a higher standard than is expected of non-knights. Knighthood is an acknowledgement of the person's willingness to hold to these high standards. No self-respecting knight would run for the office of knighthood (though he might kill for the hereditary title).

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  145. So was Jesus. by lionheart1327 · · Score: 1

    So was Jesus.

    1. Re:So was Jesus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      *whoosh*

  146. Funny story by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I once heard a story about a pastor who asked the members of his board of elders to drink poison to prove they have faith.
    The pastor and all the elders died except one.
    When asked why he didn't drink with the others he said "It is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Luke 4:12".

    The problem is not a lack of "super powers" but a lack of understanding of the Bible.
    When Christians don't understand what the Bible teaches they are bound to do stupid things "in the name of God".

    Jesus said:
    "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.' " -Matthew 7:21-23

    1. Re:Funny story by identity0 · · Score: 1

      I like that quote, "It is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Luke 4:12".

      It seems to imply that, just like I am temped by cute girls, God is tempted to kill idiots.

      I can just picture him up in heaven, stroking his beard, going, "Hmmm, I shouldn't... but I want to..."

  147. Obligatory by Sartak · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Jedi overlords.

  148. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  149. How Can someone be a Jedi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confused,

    Can't you ONLY become a jedi if you have those metachlorine cr*p in your body? That means you can't just become a jedi, you are born a jedi...

    Or perhaps they are true jedi's and never saw Episodes 1-3
    =)

  150. Hogwash by orenbum · · Score: 1

    There is a very clear and significant difference between claiming to be a Jedi and claiming to be a christian. Christianity was founded on the basis of a "true" document and it has withstood more than 2000 years of scrutiny. Jedi-ism(?) has only been around for about 30 years and is based on what is clearly a work of fiction. Jedi-ism is analogous to scientology.

    1. Re:Hogwash by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 1

      Christianity was founded on the basis of a "true" document

      Shows how much you know about the bible!

  151. If scientoligy by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

    If scientology is a religion then Jedi is also .
    Both are Made up , its just that the Jedi Faith is a lot cheaper(as in price , not actual value )
    So in this vein , i announce the formation of replicantism , As i believe that Philip K Dick was a far better Sci-fi writer than lucas and hubbard combined.
    That said , Lucas is far far better than Hubbard and Hubbard was a quack.

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  152. So does this mean that G Lucas is like Moses :D by UberHoser · · Score: 0

    Ok, the Force according to George. Thou shall make a great movie. Thou shall follow up with another great movie. Thou shall then follow up with 3 sucky movies, followed by a great movie. And so on :D

    --
    Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
  153. mitochlorian count? by GojiraDeMonstah · · Score: 1

    He says he's a Jedi - big deal, what's his mitochlorian count?

    --
    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
  154. Was Jesus a sith lord? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He learned to cheat death... only a sith could know how to cheat death....

    hehee

    YES IM JOKING

    YES I JUST UPSET YOU BIBLE THUMPING RELGIONS

    YES I LOVE A GIRL NAMED LANA AND SHE DOESNT LOVE ME BACK

    did i mention I like this girl named Lana?

    TOODLES

  155. The Force Hates Jedi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who in their right mind would want to follow the Force? Concider these facts.

    The force seeks balance. Not good or evil, balance.

    The force chose Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader to achieve balance.

    He did this by first hunting down and killing the Jedi, then killing the Sith Lord.

    The only reasonable conclusion is that the Force wants to be left alone and is willing to engineer the deaths of anyone who messes with it, even if it means destroying civilization in the process.

    Tim Weaver, Delton MI

  156. as far as fake religions go. . . by jafac · · Score: 1

    compared to Scientology, this one is much more palatable. As long as the Dark Side gets equal representation, of course. . .

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  157. So are you a sith yourself? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I would suspect that a large proportion of Sith lords are already present in the current administration.

    "Only a Sith deals in absolutes".

    You can hardly claim that either the administration or any other governing body is full of Sith or Jedi. They are just people like you or I, trying to take what they think is the best course of action - that goes for Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and so forth and so on. To claim any one is a sith basically reduces your argument to noise.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So are you a sith yourself? by dhalgren · · Score: 1

      "Only a Sith deals in absolutes--oh wait."

  158. Slashdot is a bit slow on the uptake by BigBadBus · · Score: 1
    This was reported in the UK media a few days ago!

    Keep up at the back, there....

  159. Long long time ago... by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1
    Well, you may want to consider that the Christians have a head-start of two millenia.

    Really? I always got the impression that the Jedi existed a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... *shrug* Then again, a "long, long time" could be just any period. For a child, it can be a matter of minutes.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Long long time ago... by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want to get technical, the Christians have had two millenia in this planetary system, whereas the so-called 'Jedi faith' has only had since 1977. Now, its propagation in other planetary systems is purely speculative. If you'd care to speculate, then be my guest.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  160. Christian vs christian by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    ^_^ If I knew you IRL as a good friend, I'd probably be smiling and saying, "Sure you are... you just don't know it." However, given not all people are cool with confrontational theology as my friends are, I'll just point out that one can be christian (embodying the ideals of Christ) without being Christian (believing in the actual and metaphysical existence of Jesus Christ). Personally, I try for both.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  161. Damn Babelfish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't babel.altavista.com have an English to English translator?

    1. Re:Damn Babelfish... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It does, it just isn't presented in the web interface... If you use a tool like psybnc which supports translation via babelfish, you can manually specify english to english and it will turn good english into very broken english..

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  162. Thats the thing... by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The prophecy was that he would bring balance to the force, not destroy the sith. Balance would be the Jedi and Sith having equal power, but since that would just be non stop war, having only 2 of each (discounting EU) left, Obi-Wan and Yoda, and Vader and the Emporer, achieves a pretty good balance.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Thats the thing... by islandrain · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I was talking about. That "ying yang" thing will keep us in constant war with each other, but would actual chaos be if either good or evil ruled all?

      --
      Peace out, homies.
    2. Re:Thats the thing... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

      I was always under the impression that Anakin/Vader achieved a balance in the force by destroying both the Sith and the Jedi, thereby ending the struggle between the two groups who used the Force to shape the galaxy in their image. When he became a Sith he destroyed the Jedi, but at the end he redeemed himself back to the light side by killing the Sith Lord. I don't recall Luke ever becomming an official Jedi Knight. I know he is force adept, but he never went through the training or educating that 'real' Jedis went through. I could be wrong though, I don't heavily follow the Star Wars plot line.

    3. Re:Thats the thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you've seen episodes 4-6, where Vador, the emporer ObiWan and Yoda all die. Luke is the only one left, and if he's smart, he'll leave the Force the heck alone from then on.

      Tim Weaver, Delton

    4. Re:Thats the thing... by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I don't recall Luke ever becomming an official Jedi Knight.

      Don't you remember what Yoda said? "You must confront Vader. Then, only then, a Jedi will you be."

      And since Luke did, he was.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    5. Re:Thats the thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but since that would just be non stop war

      in exchange for non-stop oppression by the emperor? it's not like yoda and obi-wan were being a very *effective* counterbalance against the sith hiding out in run-down holes, were they?

  163. Interns... by JCY2K · · Score: 1

    It'll be a big problem when he shows his lightsaber to an intern. Jedi-stock?

  164. Makes Sense... by JohnPerkins · · Score: 1

    Italy has any number of porn stars in their parliament. We had Sonny Bono.

    Quote from the Bill The Cat For President campaign comes to mind..."This time, why not the worst?"

  165. a quibble by timothy · · Score: 1

    "Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group, so you can argue that they're not protected. "

    What do you mean "technically"? Islam is a religion, *not* a racial category.

    And that's setting aside whatever you think of the merits of thinking of people as belonging to races in the first place :) (I have only started the book "The Race Myth" [http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=65-05 25948252-2%5D -- but I'm far enough into it to recommend it as a powerful, important book)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  166. Re:We've already had Mormons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually, all Christian....make that most all monotheistic religions believe God to be an extra-terrestrial.

    If God created the world, he must not be native to it, thus he is by definition an extra-terrestrial intelligence. To say he isn't is to say he is terrestrial, negating the argument that he created the world.

  167. Power of the force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The power of a legislative body is nothing compared to the power of the force

  168. Here's another one: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (by the way, that wasn't a question)

    Oh, man, I don't know where to start...

    Let's see... Show proof that a god exists. And please don't use any circular logic, like "it says so in the Bible" or "you can see it in His creation". Also please don't say that "it must exist because science can't explain _x_" -- just because we haven't found an explanation for something yet doesn't mean we have to attribute it to a supernatural being (the creation of which isn't explained either, it's just a way of saying that it's beyond us)

    If you claim that something exists, I guess it's on you the burden to prove it. Suppose one claims that "there is a band (somewhere in the world) that plays Ramones songs translated to Esperanto". That is possible, isn't it? But the world is such a big place, you could go searching for that band forever and never find it, but still that doesn't mean they don't exist. But give me some evidence, and that makes it so much easier to back up your claim. In other words, it's usually easier to prove that something exists than that it doesn't exist (if it does indeed exist, of course).

    Let's try another one: Show proof that god is not a Pink Elephant.
    (we could think of millions of variations on that)

    Sure, we may not be able to prove that no gods exist -- we may also be able to prove they don't exist, although it depends on your definition of god; gods are usually defined in ways that prevent proof against it for practical reasons; any religion that did otherwise would have / has been discredited already.

    But if we are not able to prove either way, what possible logical conclusion can we reach? Sure, a Pink Elephant God would be improbable, so we assume it doesn't exist. Sure, many simultaneous gods, with multiple arms and/or half-human, half-animal, or who are the "spirits" of natural phenomena (rain, wind, etc) would be improbable. You could go simplifying it continuously, at least until the point of a god who is not personified, who doesn't work miracles and who otherwise doesn't interfere with events in our universe, etc etc etc -- say, who simply created the universe (big bang?), and that's it. Still, if you don't think this is that improbable, and very much possible, what reason would we have to believe that such a being exists?

    I consider myself an atheist (and not an agnostic). However, I don't think it is IMPOSSIBLE that a god / gods exist. I just don't have any single reason to believe so, and therefore assume they don't. As I don't have a reason to believe there is a Pink Elephant god. I'm a very open-minded guy, and am willing to believe in god / gods / spirits / souls / so-called "paranormal" phenomena, IF I'm given some kind of proof (which, by the way, would make the "paranormal" phenomena "normal"), which I've never heard of.

    tmegapscm

    1. Re:Here's another one: by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Let's see... Show proof that a god exists. And please don't use any circular logic, like "it says so in the Bible" or "you can see it in His creation". . . .If you claim that something exists, I guess it's on you the burden to prove it.

      Why? I claim that no proof can be made for either position. The statement that only proven things should be thought to exist is itself either unproven, or based upon unproven assumptions.

      If I am correct, and no proof for either atheism or theism can be made, then whichever alternative is chosen must in fact be an arbitrary decision. Or, as it is frequently referred to in religious circles, faith.

      The lack of a proof against the existence of any god is not compelling reason to believe in any god, but neither is the lack of a proof for the existence of any god compelling reason to disbelieve in any god. Unless independent, and arbitrary (as all pure assumptions, or first axioms, are) assumptions are made, the only logically viable position on the question of religion is pure agnosticism.

      Of course, that could be taken to its logical extreme. Because assumptions cannot be proven, we must throw them ALL out! Which leaves you with solipsism.

      Or, the assumption that unfounded assumptions are bad could be thrown out instead, which leaves you with a much more usable life and philosophy (of course, the idea that a life and/or philosophy should be usable is an assumption in itself). Then, you are free to make assumptions as you like, but you should always be aware that the results of those assumptions are, in a very fundamental way, faith.

      Sure, a Pink Elephant God would be improbable,

      And there's another assumption. Where do we get the idea that a Pink Elephant God is unlikely? Moreover, you seem to implicitly claim that no god at all is quite likely, by not even investigating the likelihood of that option. Yes, one could say that the likelihood of no god is 1 - (likelihood of the union of all god possibilities)... but is that really a feasible evaluation? Are you really going to evaluate the likelihood of all possible gods? It seems much more reasonable to evaluate all the likelihoods in question individually, including that of no god at all. Not that I think this is a particularly good way of going about things in any case...

      I do not presume here to give a mechanism for choosing which possibility is correct, I am merely trying to show that if you really throw out the assumptions, that atheism is on an equal footing with a great many religions. I am glad you do not think that the existence of any god is disprovable, but I question your requirement that any religion must offer proof, when you don't require it of your own beliefs.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:Here's another one: by Decaff · · Score: 1

      If I am correct, and no proof for either atheism or theism can be made, then whichever alternative is chosen must in fact be an arbitrary decision.

      This is only the case if both alternatives are equally simple. They aren't. In this situation most people apply Occam's Razor - choose the simplest option. The simplest option is probably atheism.

    3. Re:Here's another one: by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Ok, then prove Occam's Razor. The decision to apply Occam's Razor is, once again, purely arbitrary. Where does Occam's Razor come from? I would be willing to bet a lot of money that on some level, it comes from (guess what?) an unprovable assumption. In which case it is, as I said, arbitrary.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    4. Re:Here's another one: by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Ok, then prove Occam's Razor. The decision to apply Occam's Razor is, once again, purely arbitrary. Where does Occam's Razor come from? I would be willing to bet a lot of money that on some level, it comes from (guess what?) an unprovable assumption. In which case it is, as I said, arbitrary.

      It is not something that can be proved. It is a philosophical tool. It has been shown to be useful because it usually works. In descriptions of the universe, it is almost always the case that the simplest explanation seems to be correct. A good example is relativity - there are many different formulations of the equations, but the simplest ones give the best results.

      So, the decision to use it is not arbitrary at all - it has proved its worth.

    5. Re:Here's another one: by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      So, you're basing it on the statement "because something has worked in a number of known cases, it should be applied to others". A decent statement, and one that I can generally agree with, but can you prove that? Additionally, I really don't think that using Occam's Razor constitutes any sort of proof. Which is most certainly acceptable. However, it supports my claim that atheists do not have any more proof for their position than theists do for theirs. Which leads me to my puzzlement that atheists should ask for proof from theists, when, as I said, they do not require it of themselves.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    6. Re:Here's another one: by Decaff · · Score: 1

      So, you're basing it on the statement "because something has worked in a number of known cases, it should be applied to others". A decent statement, and one that I can generally agree with, but can you prove that?

      No, I can't. But doesn't it seem reasonable?

      Which leads me to my puzzlement that atheists should ask for proof from theists, when, as I said, they do not require it of themselves.

      I don't understand why you are puzzled. If the principle of 'choose the simplest' explanation works for almost all situations in life, philosophy, science, etc., then if someone decides not to choose the simplest explanation in one case, it is reasonable to ask why they are not using this principle in this particular case.

      Occam's razor is not just a principle for debate - it is something that sane people automatically use all the time without even thinking about it. (When I get in my car, I assume that it runs on petrol and there is not an invisible pink elephant pushing it. To ask 'prove there isn't an pink elephant there' is rather silly, isn't it?)

    7. Re:Here's another one: by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Alright. So does Occam's Razor constitute proof, pure, logical proof, of atheism? If not, then why should theism require proof when atheism doesn't?

      I certainly admit that people have reasons why they are atheists. This does not puzzle me. What does puzzle me is that they demand proof, and not simply arguments for, theism. After all, I do not see atheists presenting proof, but only arguments for, atheism. And yes, I am well aware that not all atheists do this. But some do, as we have recently seen.

      I do not think that assumptions are unreasonable. If I did, I would be a solipsist. But I do think that someone in an unprovable position should not ask someone who claims to also be in an unprovable (but incompatible) position for proof of that position.

      I most certainly use Occam's razor, and I don't take issue with people using it to decide in favor of atheism. In the case of the car analogy: if someone were to claim that there were a pink elephant, I suppose I might demand evidence of this statement. However, I don't think that I would ask for a proof. Yes, asking "prove there isn't an elephant" is silly. My point is, so is asking "prove there is an elephant".

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    8. Re:Here's another one: by Decaff · · Score: 1

      What does puzzle me is that they demand proof, and not simply arguments for, theism.

      I'm beginning to see what you mean. I was assuming the discussion was about which of atheism or theism one should choose if there is no evidence, not about proof. Because, of course, you can't really prove anything.

      Perhaps it is better to say that the argument is about having to 'justify' or 'back up' a choice, not prove it is correct.

      Given two choices, we tend to choose the simplest. This does not prove anything, it is simply a useful way to think and live.

      My point is, so is asking "prove there is an elephant".

      Can I put this in a better way? What I mean is that, given the choice between the explanations 'my car runs on petrol', and 'my car runs on petrol and pink elephant pushing', if you chose the second explanation, you should definitely expect people to be surprised by it and for people to ask you lots of questions about why you chose it. You would not be entitled to say 'why aren't you asking all these questions to those who did not mention pink elephants'!

      I would suggest that when atheists say 'prove it', what they really mean is that theists are the ones who have to justify their choice, not atheists, because theism is more complicated - it is the 'pink elephant' choice.

      I don't mean any disrespect if you have beliefs; I am just trying to explain a point of view.

    9. Re:Here's another one: by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. However, that is not the impression that I typically get. Perhaps I am just misinterpreting, but atheists (at least the particularly vocal ones) typically seem (to my perception) to claim the logical higher ground, and I do not think this is justified.

      Also, I do think that the question of theism/atheism is significantly less clear cut than the petrol/pink elephant situation. It is a good analogy, but the determination of which is simpler is, no pun intended, not that simple. On the surface, I suppose it is "universe runs on universeness" vs. "universe runs on universeness + God"? Presented that way, it would seem quite obvious, but there are certainly other ways to state the matter. For example, one possibility for theism is "universeness runs on God, universe runs on universeness". (nobody seems to have trouble adding more layers, so long as each layer is simpler than the one before, to wit, atoms, then nucleus, then protons/neutrons, then quarks, then ?strings?) Or, breaking down "universeness" into physical laws and such, one might argue that it seems a lot more complicated than just God running it. (Not that I would take that position, actually, I think simpler physical laws tend to point to God, rather than the other way.) And of course, that is not comprehensive, nor does it include various rebuttals to those arguments, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

      Just in case you're curious, yes, I am a Christian, and also a scientist. (I just finished my undergrad junior year of physics, and I'm working at Fermilab for the summer.) Additionally, one of my beliefs which results from my more basic Christian beliefs is that what I am called by God to do is to oppose, by means of decent arguments, atheism, specifically in academic and scientific communities.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    10. Re:Here's another one: by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Just in case you're curious, yes, I am a Christian, and also a scientist. (I just finished my undergrad junior year of physics, and I'm working at Fermilab for the summer.)


      Very interesting - I wish you luck.

      Additionally, one of my beliefs which results from my more basic Christian beliefs is that what I am called by God to do is to oppose, by means of decent arguments, atheism, specifically in academic and scientific communities.

      Well, I love debate. I can begin to accept some sort of deity as proposed by Spinoza, but nothing more.

      By the way, I am not saying that Occam's razor is always right! Personally, I find the idea of string-theory strings and branes to be far from simple (although they may turn out to be simple when we have the right point of view).

  169. Yes, Jedi Minister? by bpfinn · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one imagining a dark side Sir Humphrey trying to assist him?

  170. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  171. I searched the entire thread first.... by Jestrzcap · · Score: 1

    I've got a bad feeling about this...

    --
    "I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
  172. Jackass slashdotters by northcat · · Score: 1

    For the ones who claim that this is no different than other religions: Jedi is officially and acknowledgedly fiction - George Lucas (or whoever created it) claims that it is fiction - NOT TRUE. Other religions themselves don't claim that they're false - Jesus Christ, Profet Mohammed or Buddha didn't say that what they said was false. Get a clue dumbasses, the retards who are following Jedi religion are following something which was created solely for the purpose of entertainment. People who follow religions are (according to just my opinion of course) dumb or misled; people who follow Jedi religion are dipshit dumbass retards. And no, star wars wasn't *that* good.

  173. Admiral Blix by rylin · · Score: 1
  174. As far as religions go, Jedi are good. by GeekDork · · Score: 1

    As I see it, the Jedi don't look too bad compared to any religion. The light side strives for balance which makes it some kind of hyperactive Buddhism while the dark side goes forth and slayeth its enemies and pushes its issues, very much like Christianity or Islam. Now, if you go and actually compare the numers (or even percentage) of violent nutcases in any religion, you'll notice that the Jedi in the real world don't go on crusades on a pure whim, don't cause massive overpopulation in 3rd world countries and don't provide a blanket cover for suicide bombings or killing Palestinians, Pakistani or Kurds (that right?).

    So I'll welcome our new Jedi representatives, even though I guess it'll take some time until we get one of those in Germany.

    --

    Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

    1. Re:As far as religions go, Jedi are good. by jafac · · Score: 1

      The light side strives for balance which makes it some kind of hyperactive Buddhism while the dark side goes forth and slayeth its enemies and pushes its issues,

      What makes you think the Jedi were out looking for balance? Their idea of balance was to continuously wipe out the Sith every chance they got. Anakin Skywalker WAS the great one fortold by the prophecy to restore balance to the force. . . by restoring the dark side. Eventually, the dark side got too arrogant, and swung the balance the other way, leaving only Luke and Leia the ONLY preists (rough equivalent term). Luke had his own issues with the dark side, so maybe that left the force in-balance afterall. From the standpoint of the prophecy, the story definately isn't over with Episode 6. However, from the standpoint of my patience, it was over about 15 minutes into Episode I. ;)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  175. Bah by DECKARD6 · · Score: 1

    Some people will find any excuse to get the Star Wars logo on the front page.

  176. The question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... not "How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?", but "How long before Congressmen are required to recite the Nicene Creed?". It's not like we're making much progress away from State Religion here.

  177. Muslimism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real English is fairly flexible in allowing the creation of new and useful words and letting the spelling change over time.

    Webster was the worst thing that ever happened to the American language.

    1. Re:Muslimism by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Darn right. Muslimism is a perfectly cromulent word. And even if it wasn't, we should all be able to tamevulant our own hijamadoos, because it doesn't affect communicatismness at all.

  178. Didn't help you much, did it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's clear that losing your religion didn't make you a better person though, did it? If you're living your life based on your experiences, then it appears all you've ever known is rudeness and obnoxious ignorance.

    1. Re:Didn't help you much, did it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh nos, rudeness on teh interweb! whats to dues?

  179. Also... by jangobongo · · Score: 1

    The list of celebrity Scientologists also includes Nicole Kidman, Priscilla Presley, Lisa Marie Presley, John Travolta and his wife Kelly Preston, Mimi Rogers, Karen Black, Kirstie Alley, Anne Archer, and Juliette Lewis.

    --

    Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
  180. Sorry, it has to be said... by RabidMoose · · Score: 1

    Looks like now the Hon has a Solo member who's Jedi... *ducks*

  181. Is an obscur typo really worth a Slashdot article? by MisterBad · · Score: 1

    That is all.

    --
    Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
  182. Jedis in politics... by stylee · · Score: 1

    can only be a bad thing. Have we learned nothing from the Star Wars movies? Those who have not studied science fiction films are doomed to live them.

    --
    I swear PowerPoint is going to be the downfall of higher education in western society.
  183. His sad devotion... by Frangible · · Score: 1

    His sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped him conjure up the WMD in Iraq, or given him clairvoyance enough to find Osama Bin Laden.

  184. Incorrect by Rufus88 · · Score: 1
    "Literally" is probably the wrong word. They say that it is a substantial transformation[...]

    Um, no. The term is "transubstantiation", meaning a change of substance. As I was taught, the assertion is quite literal.

    1. Re:Incorrect by Sir+Pallas · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There is a change of substance, but not always of form; which is why the word literal is inappropriate and the idea of a substantial transformation is juxtaposed with a formal transformation. The most straight forward (literal) idea of "transformation" includes both the substance and the form of an object, at least if you follow Aristotle, which the post-Aquianean church did; hence the langauge, and the transubstantial distinction.

    2. Re:Incorrect by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

      You're contradicting yourself. First of all, if it's a change of substance (i.e. chemical/molecular makeup) then the word literal is appropriate. As to changing form, I've never seen it change form. It's a beige circular wafer before and after, and the blood is still a red thin liquid, which somehow manages to trick my taste buds into thinking its wine.

    3. Re:Incorrect by Sir+Pallas · · Score: 1

      That's not what substance means in Aristotlean terminology.

    4. Re:Incorrect by macshit · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good thing too, it'd be pretty damn gross if you were chowing down on your wafer and it suddenly turned into a warm rubbery little disc of human flesh.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
  185. crook or a madman? by VikingDBA · · Score: 1

    "what honestly makes you think Jesus wasn't either a crook or a madman?"

    Because every one of the twelve put their lives on the line for what they had witnessed. Of them only John was not directly put to death for this belief but banished to an island. Now, they might have been able to fool others into dying for Jesus in the hopes of getting rich or powerful. This happened then and still happens today, but when it finally came down to the lions or the cross for them personally, they would have bailed.

    Some thing incredible happened between the Gospels and Acts. The disciples were stupid. Jesus told parables that they still were not understanding after three years with him. They were greedy. They argued over who would be the greatest in the kingdom. When it hit the fan they were afraid. They hid. They didn't even have guts enough to go check on the body. The women did that. Even after being told, they were skeptical. Thomas had to touch the wounds before he changed his mind.

    Then something happened and they were out there preaching. They were unafraid of the Roman authorities and their own religious leaders. They were mostly uneducated but converted thousands in an age when you had to spread the message face to face. They saw something and it changed them. Not just a few of them either, but all of them. If it had been a sham that they were all in on, someone would have cracked at some point. This is the strongest evidence, in my opinion, for the resurrection. It's not what people say, but what they do that speaks to whether or not they really believe.

  186. Congressional Jedi? by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Don't worry. Chancellor Bush will instigate a great Jedi Purge if they start to get out of hand.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  187. yes but they believe Jesus talks to them ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    and how is that any better?

  188. Master Reed.... by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

    You go into this without the councils backing or support.

  189. Easy with Jedi powers by Leffe · · Score: 1

    You will reject this bill.

  190. Muscles contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    They don't expand

    1. Re:Muscles contract by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      Ok, here's a little test. Move any muscle you want. Now notice that one the other side of that muscle, there is a corresponding muscle. When one contracts, the other expands. ... What a dumbass...

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
  191. Beliefs by Redwin · · Score: 1

    I once read a Non Sequitur sketch which to my mind sums up the main problems with religion. People can believe what they want, but the problems arise when they try to force others to adhere to the same beliefs. By that token, if you absolutly believe in the force and consider yourself a Jedi Knight then right on! I'm sure you have your reasons, even if it seems daft to me, however thats your decision (hopefully).

    --
    Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
  192. Clues to our Secret Purpose by Antisquark · · Score: 1

    Speaking as a jew, I'd say it has something to do with the production or consumption of food. Just look at all our holidays, weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs, and indeed, any jewish event.

    My guess is, come Judgement Day (the one without the Governator), we cook the world's last meal..

    ..then we eat it.

    1. Re:Clues to our Secret Purpose by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Some of the few descriptions of heaven in the Jewish canon describe a feast. The closer one was to god and god's law in life, the closer to god one eats - and the better the food. So eat, eat - a little nosh'll do ya good, already.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  193. Disciples were accused "heretic", Jesus the devil. by NRAdude · · Score: 0
    I've read the KJVAV 1611 Holy Bible and found no such authority but self-evident truth. The temple grew old and were ministering the law to have no effect. Yeshuah wasn't treated as a heretic by heretics, but served as a devil to devils; taught nothing but truth in existant scripture. Consider when Yeshuah was accused by them that are of Abraham and not of God:

    Matthew 23:8,9
    "(8)But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.(9)And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
    John 8:40-47
    "(40)But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.(41)Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.(42)Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.(43)Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.(44)Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.(45)And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.(46)Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?(47)He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."


    You can't preach New Testament when you have Pentateuch, Psalms, and Proverbs, and surely with such fragrant verse as Psalm 127 and the two great commandments there is nothing more to need unless to found a presence to competition. To my comprehension, most "Christians" think Jesus is the Lord; half true, and depends on the context. The scripture quoted in John 8 above should serve also to reprove that anyone of God is not equal to God but as though accepting God; Jesus bear witness to sinful acts of Abraham that were not dually of God in that respects. Jesus was chosen King, and many rumors dedicate that he is first to England in that respect. It was always thought recent that accepting someone devoted to the Lord is the same as accepting the Lord. By this context, Paul preached that Jesus is the Lord, God in flesh form, where the distinction is near idolatry. Consider when an Angel appeared, everyone would fall on their face and worship the Angel as though is God and not respectfully of God. This is a good basis for the Principle and Agent treatise, yet where many people can't seem to isolate the standing of both is where people are spread apart by presumptions and invest in denominations. Some teach "Trinity", others preach "Baptism", others preach "Fish, Bread, and Wine"; I just want the truth, not the agents that bring the truth, not the water thrown at me by the agents of truth, not the cooked carcasses or crushed grapes of the agents of truth.
    --
    without prejudice
  194. Jews for Jesus are muslim. by NRAdude · · Score: 0

    Consider the word muslim originaly defined as someone that is firm in their faith. Then there is the Islam oriented "Muslim" (not muslim) that is differently defined in scope to Islam.

    Jesus didn't preach anything New Testament. Jesus competed with the Synagogue of Satan; preaching circumcision as opposed to men chewing off the foreskin of a genital. Most peopel forget they are reading doctrine that has survived transcription and its meaning is being destroyed and perverted by changing the defenitions of the words.

    Matthew 5:18;
    "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

    Congratulations, New Testament is only a summary judgment of abandoning the new doctrine everyone calls "Old Testament"

    --
    without prejudice
  195. Missing a disturbance in the Force... by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    A working lightsabre, he has not. Better a "padawan wannabe" we should call him.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  196. What the... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess this guy _wasn't_ going around talking about being a Jedi BEFORE he was appointed. (Or whatever the hell) :P

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  197. I've only met one true Christian by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 1
    He was an "incredibly" nice guy. A kindly older black gentleman who would go out of his way to help people. One time I was in his car going down 101 and there was a Mexican family on the side of the road with their car broken down. He stopped. We walked back to their car and saw that their axle had fallen off the rear transaxle. They didn't speak english and what little spanish he had, invited them into his car, drove behind the tow truck to a nearby shop. Paid for the repair and said "Jesus loves you" and we went on our way. I was just amazed. He does that kind of thing all the time and doesn't tell anyone.

    He never judged anyone. Didn't preach to people. Read his bible quietly and would sprinkle a few "Praise Jesus" non-sequiturs in such a way that would almost make me want to believe.

    Most Christians I meet are judgemental, impossible to talk to about any topic: current affairs, politics, pop culture. Holier-than-thou, conservative, vindictive to non-believers.

    1. Re:I've only met one true Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why didn't you believe? Just curious.

    2. Re:I've only met one true Christian by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Most Christians I meet are judgemental, impossible to talk to about any topic: current affairs, politics, pop culture. Holier-than-thou, conservative, vindictive to non-believers.

      Most that I meet are the exact opposite...but I suppose it's because I'm still in high school. And not American.

  198. A jedi by 56ksucks · · Score: 1
    "Jamie Reed MP, announced that he is a Jedi"

    And I'm the first Klingon King to rule Antartica.

    --

    ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  199. I'm wondering why Lucas hasn't stomped this guy. by jcr · · Score: 1

    If he doesn't protect the trademark, in a couple of years anybody who wants to can start selling "Jedi Joe" dolls...

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  200. Silly question by GunFodder · · Score: 1

    Force Choke is a DARK power, and I'm not going down that path!

  201. Studying the Jedi. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Well, since I've not seen anybody yet do it, let's look at what it takes, shall we. . ?


    To be a Jedi. . .

    1. Follow a path of Serving Others rather than Serving Self.
    2. Use force only for defense.
    3. Do not allow strong emotions to rule your thoughts and actions.
    4. Believe that one's Focus Determines One's Reality.
    5. Do not allow attachments into your life.
    6. Learn how to manipulate the 'Force'.
    7. Learn martial arts with respect to the sword.


    There's probably other elements, but that's all I could think of off the top from the films.

    My thoughts on those points by number. . .

    1. Agree wholeheartedly with the principal. Hard to do in this reality where eating kills and everybody has baggage they're working through.

    2. Fits with the first point.

    3. Hmm. Sounds like a good idea, but I'm not entirely clear on this. I think love and compassion, and emotion in general are really, really important to explore and understand within yourself. Shutting them off does not allow self knowledge, but rather puts up walls which cause problems.

    4. Absolutely. "Your Focus determines your Reality". This is an incredibly powerful function of this reality. This is difficult to understate. This is the easiest route to so-called 'magic' I've ever seen. Anybody can make anything happen, but watch out for anticipation. That and wishful thinking will derail you every time.

    5. Yes, but it's a very easy thing to screw up. A blanket law of not being allowed to love makes it easy to follow, but is probably crippling in the long run. In the end, learning how to love without attachment is one of THE big goals in this reality.

    6. Energy works rather differently here than it does in the Star Wars universe, but the general idea is there.

    7. Why not? How can one expect to master the ephemeral if one cannot master the physical?

    Those are just my thoughts. --Plus this last one; I don't think Jedi can be considered a religion in the classic sense, (besides the fact that it's made up), in that religions typically involve (petty) god worship at some point, (that and not asking too many questions). Whereas 'Jedi' seems to be more like the study of spirituality without such limitations; self-exploration and the exploration of reality through the interaction of consciousness and spirit with the universe. Not the same as no fish on Fridays and believing in Roman social engineering/population herding propaganda (the Bible).


    -FL

    1. Re:Studying the Jedi. . . by boots@work · · Score: 3, Funny

      5. Do not allow attachments into your life.

      That can be fairly easily done with a Postfix header check (see other story) or MimeDefang.

    2. Re:Studying the Jedi. . . by CyberTech · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I don't have mod points for you, that caught me out of the blue and had me cracking up, after reading his semi-serious post and trying to read yours in the same light.

      --
      -- CyberTech
  202. heheh... stoner joke. by zenneth · · Score: 1

    Did you guys realise that if Prince Charles got really fat, his big ears would give his head the appearance of a Tie-Fighter. Darth Chuck.

    --
    The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
  203. crackheads by GoddessOfDeath · · Score: 1
    Don't blame the mods...they're on crack...they really can't help themselves.


    I like that this was modded up as "informative".

  204. It's a Jedi Mind Trick! by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    Although the previous MP for Copeland was the Hon. Member for Copeland, the current MP for Copeland is not a member of the privy council.

    "This is not the Copeland person you seek..."

  205. That'll be the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The day we have a "jedi" in congress will be the day that Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker. Congress at present has enough weak minded "Republicans" to bring any useful reform too a halt. But replacing them with nutty Democrats would only make things worse faster. Europe and Canada have already fallen into the abyss. American will follow along, just slowly. What does this have to do with George Lucas's special effects laden and mindless movies? Zilch, except that you can watch CSPAN for the cost of basic cable and get just as depressed with the script, plot, and characterization as you would if you shelled out $8 and a couple more hours of your life to watch the latest Star-Bores dud.

    The mouthbreathers over in the UK who managed to put such a total wierdo in office ought to have their suffrage revoked, be transported to a penal colony in Antartica, or just shot. Western countries will all be banana republics within two decades because these sorts of retards were allowed to vote.

  206. A Jedi MP? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Big whoop.

    The US has a Sith president!

  207. Proof denies faith, and without faith... by fbg111 · · Score: 1

    "I refuse to prove that I am real," say the Jedi's, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

    "But," says random /. hack, "the midichlorians are a dead giveaway aren't they? They could not have evolved by chance, but rather only as some cheap, ill-considered plot device. They prove that you are real, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you aren't. Q.E.D."

    "Oh dear," say the Jedi, "We hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanish in a puff of logic.

    "Oh, that was easy," says /. hack, and for an encore goes on to prove that lemon is lime and gets himself fatally poisoned with his next homemade Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  208. Jedi is mostly Taoism by nullportal · · Score: 1

    The Jedi religion is mostly Taoist thought in new wrapping.

    --
    The difference between /. and the real world is that only one of these makes you work hard for the sta
    1. Re:Jedi is mostly Taoism by Queuetue · · Score: 1

      You're aware they beleive they can use the power of thier mind to throw large objects, channel their being through a tuned plasma sword during battle, and are imbued by invisible creatures named mitichlorians, right?

  209. You know nothing about Asia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm Chinese and let me tell you, basically my entire extended family believes in Chi force, especially the older ones. The belief is even stronger in rural areas, and hundreds of millions of my countrymen practice Tai-Chi on a regular basis. While Tai-Chi is not strictly about manipulating your chi force, it would certainly seem to suggest that many in asia still believe in chi.

    Please don't be so quick to foist your ignorance on others and make blanket statements about societies you have probably never visited.

    1. Re:You know nothing about Asia. by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      You're right. Other than being a military child and living on the DMZ in Korea for 5 years I have never been to Asia.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
  210. Yes, except... (long) by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    > If you took them yourself, you'd know it was not some mystical "force" creating
    > the power of those styles. Even in asia, fery few people believe in chi these days.

    I totally agree with you based on my experience with Goju Karate, Jujitsu, Shorinji Kempo, Chi Kung, Baguazhang, and Kung Fu. No question, chi is just a convenient way of thinking about your body and isn't actually real---that was my experience.

    Except then I accidentally measured the damn stuff.

    Surprised the heck out of me when I did it---I was TOTALLY expecting a different result. So I repeated the experiment. And again. And again. And...well, I explained the result to friends kinda like this:

    I was sitting in a research talk about databases, and having trouble paying attention because I'd just presented and it was right after lunch. The speakers were passing around wireless heat sensors, so I started playing with one when it came around to me. The standard demo was to hold it in one hand and then cup your other hand over it - the sensor would pick up the heat change, and the assosciated data stream being shown on the screen at the front of the room would spike up to a new level accordingly.

    After doing that a couple of times, I was bored again. I decided it would be fun try pretend to channel chi into it; nothing would happen, of course, but the idea was worth a few seconds of chuckling---flinging chi at a doctorate-level research project! Amusing notion, but with only one problem:

    I was wrong.

    I did a half-hearted two seconds of a standard little meditation/visualization meant to build up chi, and pictured it flowing through my arms down into the sensor, fully expecting the continuously-updated data display to be wholly unchanged. You can imagine I was a mite surprised, then, when the sensor output spiked at the exact moment I was doing this.

    My immediate thought was that it was pure coincidence - the sensor's readings probably spike randomly every now and then no matter what's going on. If I waited a little while, I figured, I'd see a similar spike without me doing anything, and that would be that.

    So I waited.

    Nothing.

    Okay, first two hypotheses---that nothing would happen and that it was a coincidence---were false. But it was probably a fluke---I doubted it'd happen again.

    So I did the little two-second meditaty thing again...and the sensor spiked again, exactly at the instant I was visualizing the chi hitting it. So much for hypothesis #3.

    At this point, I figured it was pretty clear that I was indeed causing the spikes in the sensor readings, but how? I guessed that maybe I'd been inadvertently tensing my hands a little, moving them closer to the sensor cupped inside. So, of course, I test that, doing the channel-thing again, but this time keeping _very_ careful watch on my hands to see that they're completely motionless.

    Spike!

    I ran that test a second time, holding my hands motionless through the both tests and the maybe-it's-coincidence-after-all? waiting period in between; spikes (only) at the instant of channelling, just as before. Hypothesis #4 bites the dust.

    Well, alright, I thought, if I'm doing something to influence the sensor, is it just yes/no, or is it actually measuring something? If I'm theoretically channelling _more_ chi, will I get a bigger spike in the readings?

    Hypothesis #5.

    This time I do the building-chi visualization for a little longer, maybe 3-4 seconds, and visualize a more powerful stream of chi flowing through my hands into the sensor.

    And the sensor spikes like I've never seen before, not when I was doing the previous tests, not when I or anyone else was cupping and uncupping our hands around it, never---this spike is significantly larger than any other change I'd seen the sensors detec

  211. Yeah well by C0d1ngM0nk3y · · Score: 0

    The Americans got there first, long before us British created the Jedi religion to anoy the cenus beuro they were experimenting with ESP, atral projection and 'force choaking' goats.

    Oh.... and trying to walk thorugh walls.

    Classic.

    More here: http://c0dingm0nk3y.blogspot.com/2004/11/revenge-o f-jedi-goat.html

  212. Did anyone else notice how his speech ended? by Netsnipe · · Score: 1
    On the top of the next page:

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his allotted time.
    Looks like he needs to learn to be as terse as Yoda.

    --
    -- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
  213. bizarre? by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

    Why would this particular religion be bizarre while others are not? They're all mythologies with fairytales and fables anyway.

  214. Missed the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect that this post will never actually be seen but never mind.
    Has anyone checked what they were debating at the time? This was the Racial and Religious Hatred bill (presumably the prevention/prohibition thereof) which has been causing a small storm in domestic politics for some time now. Remember the one? The one Rowan Atkinson et al claimed would criminalise the production of future works similar to Monty Python's The Life of Brian.

    This is an interesting debate; yes inciting hatred of any kind is probably a bad thing for society, but this sounds (to me) like one of those nasty slippery-slope style pieces of legislation that has a palatable thin-end of the wedge, but massive abuse potential.

    A future government so minded could enforce utterly arbitrary censorship with the aid of this and similar legislature to cover just about anything they wanted.

    As has recently been displayed in the US administration: argue against something like this and you are clearly some kind of anarcho-terrorist. Argue for it and we exchange our right to express ourselves for the right not to be offended when someone does.

    Oh dear.

    "Is this legal?" "I shall make it legal!"

    Kernal K

  215. Correction to a correction. by osd1000 · · Score: 1

    All MPs are Honourable Members. Membership of the Privy Council makes one the Right Honourable Member for Footown.

    (S)

  216. He's not a Jedi, he was taking the mickey by Smalldog · · Score: 1

    The comment was made during a debate on a new bill which would outlaw religious hatred and the MP in question was trying to make a "witty" point against the bill by claiming to be a Jedi. I don't what's more inane - him thinking he was being funny, or you guys taaking it seriously.

  217. So I'm guessing Bush is a Gungan by db10 · · Score: 1

    ..or however you spell it.

  218. Re:Yes, except... (long) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you noticed the appearance of your hand when generating chi. It should appear mottled. Your hand also probably feels cooler. This is due to changes in blood flow. I guess you were measuring the increased heat given out by the increased blood flow.

  219. So, you make a mockery of his beliefs? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    You'll be first in the clink, matey.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  220. All Hail President Jar Jar Binks ! by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    Me sirs think we should grant exceptional temporary power forever to the supreme chancellor to meet this terrorist emergency....

  221. Re:Yes, except... (long) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But here I have data---objective and quantitative data---whose most reasonable interpretation seems to be that I was projecting chi out of my palms. It was inconclusive, but it was sufficient data that "chi is bunk" can no longer be my default stance.

    this sounds more like evidence that it is possible to psychosomatically increase heat-generation/blood flow to at least parts of your body than any mystical/ethereal force?

    (which doesn't necessarily mean that that isn't what "chi" *is*... one can think of many useful things for increased blood flow/heat generation)

  222. Mod bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect that the content of this comment will get me modded abysmally low, but maybe not (precedence puts me at 5!)

    As I read through the comments, it struck me as odd that the Christians were not replying to the attacks on their beliefs (and by Christians, I mean those people who believe that the Bible is more than a bunch of trumped-up fairy tales).

    But then I realized that they had replied, but were modded quite low, regardless of the pertinence or validity of their arguments. To be sure, some of the Christian arguments have been poor, but some have been quite well written.

    The best example of this is the debate between Decaff and The_Wilschon... Both of them end up with (perhaps grudging) respect for one another's arguments, and both of them bring up some decent points. However, Decaff is consistently rated at 2, while The_Wilschon is consistently rated at 1.

    Does Slashdot score things to keep the most relevant information and most interesting arguments at the top levels, or to suppress ideas the moderators don't agree with?

    Is this a forum for intelligent debate, or for private censorship? From the looks of this thread, it's the latter, and that dissappoints me.

  223. so....... by azbrdhntr · · Score: 0

    We have had dooms-day theroist/nuts. since the dawn of history?

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  224. What about his wife though.? by essreenim · · Score: 0
    I can stop her from dieing during child birth.

    Lets see that parliamentarian jedi do that!!..

  225. No, we have a Sith Lord in the Oval Office... by Matarick · · Score: 1
    and his name is Karl Rove. You have to watch the American Dad "Deacon Stan, Jesus Man" episode for the proof.

    Notice at Papaltine's red robe and medalion when he apeared to the Galatic Senate in Episode III.

  226. Re:Yes, except... (long) by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1
    > Have you noticed the appearance of your hand when generating chi. It should
    > appear mottled. Your hand also probably feels cooler. This is due to changes
    > in blood flow. I guess you were measuring the increased heat given out by the
    > increased blood flow.

    I had considered that, hence my original "physiological changes" suggestion; however, upon thinking about it there is no actual evidence for that hypothesis, and there are three pieces against it:

    1) There was no observable change in my hands, either at the time (although I couldn't see the palms, for obvious reasons), or now (when I can see the palms).

    2) There was no lag---the sensor spikes coincided exactly with the "channelling" period. For a blood-heat-based explanation---which was (and still is) one of the stronger hypotheses I've considered---I would expect at the very least a residual effect due to the surrounding tissues absorbing some of that heat and releasing it after the blood rush. There was no such moderating effect observed.

    3) The temperature difference between the inside of my cupped hands in a medium-temperature room and that same condition with a rush of blood sounds like it would be a lesser change than the difference between having the sensor exposed to the air or cupped in my hands; however, that was not the observed result. By far the largest change was observed during "channelling", even though the likely temperature difference between my cupped hands (29C or more---since I'm male, they tend to stay pretty warm) and my blood (37C at core, 31C in arms) is likely to be lower than that between my hands and the ambient temperature in the room (~20C), yet the sensor observed a much greater difference during large "channelling".


    My bias is to look for a purely-physiological explanation, but so far I haven't found one that satisfactorily explained the data. And, after all, data is king---any hypothesis which fails to match the data is discarded.

  227. Re:Yes, except... (long) by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1
    > this sounds more like evidence that it is possible to psychosomatically increase
    > heat-generation/blood flow to at least parts of your body than any mystical/ethereal force?

    Possibly, although I haven't found a mechanism which fits the data yet---see my response to the previous poster.


    > (which doesn't necessarily mean that that isn't what "chi" *is*... one can
    > think of many useful things for increased blood flow/heat generation)

    Yes, which IMHO is a more useful approach than bickering about what it actually is, at least at this point. There are observable effects from various traditional medical practices---for example, one of the top hand surgeons in Rhode Island became very interested in acupuncture after observing gall bladder surgery with no anaesthetic other than acupuncture (he was carrying on a conversation with the patient during the procedure)---and at this early stage, measuring and categorizing the observable effects is more productive than attempting to form a hypothesis on the underlying cause.

    Basically, gather data, then explain the data.

  228. Wrong celeb by kaladorn · · Score: 1

    Actually, I always thought his name was "Elron"

    No, you're confusing him with Hugo Weaving.
    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  229. Half right. by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Nobody has ever observed the Big Bang (nor something unequivocally attributable to it), nor a superstring. You could argue about quantum physics, but it would be an uphill battle. Embryology... hmmm... we still have Earnst Haeckel's frauds being touted as truth in textbooks after more than a century. That doesn't bode well.

    Not only is "founded on mathematics" about as much snake-oil as "contains herbs" (what herbs? parsley? spinach? lawn clippings? banana leaves? and does an 0.01% inclusion have in impact on the nutritional value?), you'll have woken up all of the mathematicians, now, so the whole thread'll degenerate into painstakingly exact and clever proofs of stuff which has no conceivable physical application. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Half right. by Bun · · Score: 1

      Nobody has ever observed the Big Bang (nor something unequivocally attributable to it), nor a superstring. You could argue about quantum physics, but it would be an uphill battle. Embryology... hmmm... we still have Earnst Haeckel's frauds being touted as truth in textbooks after more than a century. That doesn't bode well.

      The beauty of all of the theories you have posed is that they are testable. Either their predictions will observed or they will not. Either way, our knowledge is advanced - whether the theory is 'proved' or not. (I personally dislike the term 'prove' with regards to theories. They are either supported by the available evidence, or not.)

      Not only is "founded on mathematics" about as much snake-oil as "contains herbs" (what herbs? parsley? spinach? lawn clippings? banana leaves?

      Founding a theory on mathematics is most convenient because it leads to predictions, and some measure of precision on those predictions, that's all.

      All I was saying is, that if 'chi' exists, one ought to be able to obeserve it and measure it in some way. To my knowledge, this hasn't occurred yet. What people have found is some relationship between the meridians and the nervous system. Which, to me, makes 'chi theory' kind of like Aristotle's theory of planetary motion: it sort of worked, but was supplanted by other ideas once we had more information.

      --
      "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
  230. Er... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Read the next verse, too.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  231. Agreed by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    "I'm not saying the Jedi stuff isn't silly, but is it really any sillier than any other faith?"

    Exactly. The answer is: no, it isn't more silly then any other faith or belief, though this will be disputed by those that adher to other beliefs, ofcourse. As long as you can avoid anything that would be contradicted by proof (like all other religions and belief-systems do), then there is no valid argumentation possible that belief in the Force is any more or less 'valid' then belief in God or the Bible.

    "The whole idea of religion is antithetical to a rational mind."

    Hear, hear.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  232. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  233. dude... congratz you made the post by william_w_bush · · Score: 1
    --
    The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
  234. Re:Yes, except... (long) by XTbushwakko · · Score: 0

    I believe you when you say this, but I don't think it's "mystical" in the sense. I have no trouble believing that you can use your brain to generate heat in certain places. My belief is that this probably is the nervous system somehow... Like an electrical spike in your body, or your body telling the cells to just generate heat, not the blood pumping.

  235. Here's the science by Aumaden · · Score: 1
    Chi (Qi) is definitely real. Here's the science:
    Schlebusch K, Maric-Oehler W, Popp F. Biophotonics in the infrared spectral range reveal acupuncture meridian structure of the body. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2005;11(1):171-173.
  236. Re:No mention of hell in old testament. by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Also, there was no mention of Hell in the Old Testament.

    I would like this explained.

    Did God, create hell after Jesus or did he not care enough about his choosen people to warn them about hell? As far as I have come to find is that most modern Jews do not believe in hell as most Christians define it.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)