SPECULATION the church of the force has no place in starwars

I am not sure that he is. He has a point. But his opinion suggests that the word alone has a tainted meaning that wouldn´t fit into Star Wars itself. The Jedi and Force Theme was mostly east asian but now we have so many words and pictures that put european or western accents in one movie it feels like a disconnect maybe.

But to make clear my stance is; Temple for me is more of a building, but church seems to be a more spirituel place to come together. It also reflects/connects better on the members that are more believers than actually Users of the Force...The Temple as in the Jedi Temple is more closer to the Force and its Users and a practice ground. A Church on the other hand as a place can be everything. A Temple suggest something more fortified or bastioned...

 

@FallenAngel
About the christianity in star wars, I would like to remember to everyone that anakin was basically presented as jesus in the prequels (the chosen one born without a father destined to save the world).
The force was always seen as a mixture of religions, from buddhism to christianity, so having something that is called "church of the force" is not strange or out of place at all, if you have problems with religion in general because you don't like it or think it's something that actually devide people and cause trouble in the world (and I'm pretty much on the same page as you on this xD ), it doesn't mean that it has no place in star wars, you should take away your personal convictions, because those don't matter in this case
More importantly the term church itself is not use only for christianity, and in this case I think it represents the fact that the people who are in this group aren't force sensitive, but they try to study the force from a mistycal point of view without the direct expirience of using it or directly connecting with it, they just believe in the force like people belive in a god (or more gods)

templars are not the only knights that used cross-guard swords, and the other knights don't resemble templars at all, I never saw a templar using a mace, a machete-like sword, or a rifle xD
they just look like medieval knights with modernized weapons, but not all medieval knights were templars, or you would say that every knight with a cross-guard sword should be a templar because his sword resemble a crucifix?
Sometimes the easiest answer is the right one: what is the most common weapon for a knight(or in general the one that everyone would associate with a knight)? a cross-guard sword, then let his leader have lightsaber that has a cross-guard.

 

I don't think he does have a point. I thinks he's a bit irrational for making an entire thread about a WORD in a visual dictionary. Especially one with a broad meaning and not used in any context that would evoke Christian meaning.

 

It does to him. I never had the problem because I handled the meaning and wording as part of the GFFA...Which with the EU had many different religions and organizations too.

PS: And Church is one of the best words describing what Lorr San Tekka is a members of.

Would be "Cult" a better word? No really...A Sect? Those are far more worse and have quiet bad representation IRL....

 

It's a interesting find, to balance religion with the force, we have seen in the past anger, hate, wanting a life outside of the order has led temptation & destruction, it seems nothing can be done right in any era, Yoda was wise never to fall, one of the few.

 

Is he this guy?

 

I really cant answer this question. Idk honestly...

 

I'd agree that the word "church" has heavy Christian overtones. Anyone who hears it is going to immediately think of Christianity. Sure the word can be used in a more neutral way but that's really uncommon in context, and words are defined by popular usage, and the popular useage of church is, well; church.

But I'd disagree that it doesn't belong. Star Wars is really the story of the bible, in sci-fi pictures, focusing on the story of Israel/Skywalker; the "old covenant" father redeemed by the "new covenant" son. Anakin Skywalker is an analogue of the old covenant Israel; which as a youth was a slave in a desert, was taken from the low place and put in the high place, was taught in all the ways of truth, was given the code of conduct, was greatly blessed above his peers, was to bring peace to the nations. But he became weak through the desires of the flesh, turned to false teachers, became power hungry and arrogant, became apostate from the truth, betrayed his brothers, commited abominable acts including the killing of children, and then his name was "blotted out", and he was cast down from the heights and into the pit of burning flame, and the revenger of blood was sent to punish him but, not to make a "full end" of him, because of the promise of "hope" to come through his line. Instead, he would remain dead in the spirit, a slave to darkness, until...

The new testament Israel. The promised hope. He will "turn the hearts of the fathers to the sons, and the hearts of the sons to the fathers"; again we find the son in a desert place- under the rule of an empire - and again he is taken and taught and tested and greatly blessed. But whereas his father succumbed to the desires of the flesh, and the worldly things, which corrupted his thoughts; the son does not, and through the work of the son, the father is redeemed, his life comes back to him, and his name is restored at the last, through the son. We could call it a resurrection of the dead.

Everything is a pretty straight fit. Take the lightsaber, for example. The word of God is called the "sword of the spirit" in the bible; the same bible that equates visible "light" with invisible "spirit" by way of metaphor- so you've got a "sword of light", a lightsaber: as a metaphor of the teachings, the "doctrines". It's the sword of light, the weapon of the disciple "Jedi". And we pass these doctrines down through the generations, like the lightsaber is passed down.

So basically episode 6 ends at the day of pentecost in the book of Acts. Episode 7 naturally follows. After pentecost, the disciples all go into hiding, and secretly congregate. "Churches" first begin to appear. So it fits for the interim to have the appearance of "churches" of the Force. Also in the biblical old testament there was a central temple in the capitol city; which was destroyed at the same time that the "father Israel" was "cut off"; and the new testament "son" was all about rebuilding the temple.

I mean, if it's not all intention then it's a strange lot of similarities. Obi-Wan in e2 holding up a lightsaber and declaring "this. weapon. is. your. LIFE"- perfectly conveys the concept that the "word of God"/"light sword" is the "life" of the disciple which concept the bible conveys by the same metaphor.

 

The Force = Visual evidence it exist. Concrete fact in TGFFA.

Christianity = A human belief based on writing and word of mouth.

I see no similarities.

 

Your definition of Christianity is wrong. Christianity is "The religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ."
There is factual archaeological evidence Jesus Christ existed.

 

It's also called "Church of the JEDI".
So if it were just referenced as "The Church", the similarities with Christianity might then be relevant. However, having the word Jedi in there, coupled with our understanding of the Force, it then is clearly about the basic meaning of the term church. The debate should really be whether the term is appropriate considering how the Force, especially in the PT era, is a proven, measurable and observable phenomena which in my view removes it from the grounds of faith and religion. And it has to be said that the majority of the terms used in conjunction with the Jedi are very much derived from eastern religious and spiritual belief systems - Meditation, temple, master, etc. Even the clothes of the Jedi are more suited to the garb of eastern religious orders and cults. So really it's only fair to have a more westernised term thrown in!

Yes, disciples, followers etc are probably more suitable. But you can kind of see what they wanted to infer here. Using the term church allows this group of people to take on a more devout image and thus are a good counter to their new Sith counterparts (acolytes of the beyond/KOR) who are clearly devoted to the Dark Side in a more religious way than we have seen before.

It'd be an issue if the new terms were:
Jedianity and Sithlam

 

There is no proof of Jesus' existence. What was provided as proof has been proven to be forgeries and fakes. In a time when there were prolific Roman historians, not one them mentioned Jesus - a man who supposedly spoke to thousands during the sermon on the mount. The fact that Jesus is so clearly based upon the sun gods from many religions that existed hundreds of years before Christs supposed time to me indicates that he did not exist.

 

You cant talk to these people Master Shaitan. *Bows*

They dont even know that many Gods before Jesus were born on Dec. 25th and rose from the dead, etc, etc. They pick and chose what they want to believe and when the Roman Empire flipped to christianity they forced it down everyones throat. Its not there fault. Sad. But not there fault.

 

I had a Jehovah's Witness come to my door. When I said I was an atheist she replied "how many atheists do you think prayed to God during 9/11". My response was "and who's prayers were realised? The victims' or the terrorists?". She then proceeded to explain the world would be ending soon, a prediction made numerous times before by said cult.

There is no reasoning with that kind of thought. It's dangerous. That is why the idea of the Force appeals to me. A power created by life that binds life together and so if you do bad you're hurting yourself as well as other lifeforms. If you do good, then it's a collective thing. It can be as spiritual or scientific as you like. Works both ways. That's the genius of it. It goes far beyond the primitive monotheistic religions that blight the world today.

 

True, but there is proof that Pontius Pilate existed, which is pretty close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone

 

Indeed. But then if there is proof of his existence but not Jesus' isn't that more proof that the latter didn't exist? Especially considering the records the Romans kept on everything - including executions.

 

I'm not getting into a debate about Christ on a Star Wars forum.

Remember, "sometimes many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view".

 

Or "Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows it?"

Just kidding, yeah this is derailing the thread somewhat.

 

There needs to be a hall of fame section for highly intellectual post. I nominate this post as the first