Jediism?

[Homuncul]

And chi is not Jediism. And GUYS were just kidding

 

And religion does not necessarily assume a prophet present. And books are for commendments and not just "there's bible in christianity therefore it's a religion"

[Rainer511]

(I'm tired, please excuse misspellings and grammer errors)

 

I can see how Chi could be considered much like the Force, but it has nothing to do with demons and I don't see why you would want to call it Jediism.

 

anyways, that chi thing is really sort of like harry potter. Witchcraft, except chi involves something with demons, looks like it has come back and renamed itself jediism. Really, i go on to the christian chat rooms to bring people to christ. I saw that jedi's temple, and thought it would be kool to talk about star wars...

 

Actually Chi is more like the force in Star Wars than it is like Harry Potter. I'm pretty sure Chi itself means something like life energy. Supposably everything living has Chi in it. I'm not gunna go into it because I'm not positive if that much is true and I don't feel like looking it up. Harry Potter doesn't proclaim a spritual source for the magic. I think that you are getting a very Bias opinion on the books. It turns out that Rowling is actually a Christian. I don’t have a direct quote for that, sorry, but I doubt you have a direct quote for the latter. The incantations in her books are based on latin words, and others are just made up. I think you are talking about Wicca when you mean real witches and yes this is true, but Harry Potter isn't based off of that. Here is something I wrote as part of another document. The doucment in its entirety is far too off topic so I'm just quoting it.

 

" I don’t think I’ve ever seen this used before, so I’ll bring it up. I think that Star Wars is just as (or possibly more) “dangerous” than Harry Potter, and I’ll tell you why. Unlike Harry Potter, Luke and the other Jedi Knights actually have their own religion. They believe that the force is all around them, that it can influence you and that you can influence it. The power to wield the force comes from the midicloriens inside you. You could say that although in Star Wars there is a religion established, no one follows it, I mean who would believe they could become a Jedi? It’s scary but in truth there are many, many people who have put down “Jedi” as their religion when voting or taking surveys. Also in the movies half of the times a Jedi defeats a Sith he does it by dipping into the power of the Dark Side through anger. When Obi-wan defeats Darth Maul, he was fighting with anger from QuiGon’s death which allowed him to dip into the Dark Side of the force. When Luke unleashed his attack on Vader it was the anger that burned inside him from the thought of Vader tempting Leia that gave him a near fatal victory. Are these things saying that to defeat the worst of evil you must use evil? No, its just part of the plot of a made up story that exists in a fantasy world. "

 

In Harry Potter there isn't a power being protrayed as governing the universe, and there is no basis in belief or worship. To me it seemed more like it was saying magic is just part of the natural world. In fact you see that the people who are able to use magic inherit this ability in a samilar way that someone would be born with blue eyes. If you haven't noticed Anakin Skywalker was born of a virgin, I'm not sure if it says this but does that mean he was conceived the the midicloreans? Or a child of the force? Again I'll quote myself,

 

"It is a made up story in a fantasy world, which happens to be filled with witches and wizards. The fact that I read the books does not mean that I’m going to try and become a real wizard. It doesn’t mean that I’m supporting and worshiping a demonically inspired literature. I’m just exercising my imagination by immersing myself in the creativity of a very talented lady. "

 

And this applies the same to Star Wars.

 

A new religion, based upon current knowledge might not be a bad thing. It would certainly have as much validity as any other. Unless of course you already subscribe to an "other."

 

As far as validity, the Bible has more evidence support its historical accuracy than practically any other book. The fact that its religious is the only reason it isn't accepted. It is believed that the gospels were written 70 years after the events that they tell about. That seems like a long time but there are other books from that era that are considered historically accurate yet they were written 300+ years after the events depicted in them. Other trusted documents may have somewhere around nine or ten manuscripts to test its integrity while the New Testament has more than five thousand manuscripts to test it integrity to yet it still isn't accepted. You could say because there are many errors, and in essence, there are. But that is because of the way that the errors are counted. If you had two thousand manuscripts and one of them had incorrect word ordering then it would be counted as two thousand errors. And in Greek word order isn't as important as it is in English. There is also corroborative evidence from other historical documents that supports the existance of Jesus. Tacitus wrote a passage in which he talks about Pontius Pilotes prosecution of Christians and Christ. There is also a refernce to him by Josephus, and a roman called Pliny the Younger.

[SkinWalker]

Well written and thoughtful post, Rainer511. I for one would like to take the opportunity to welcome you to the Senate and I hope we see more of you here.

 

One cannot discount the works that were left out of the compilation we refer to as the bible. There is evidence to support the notion that politics of the time influenced what gospels were included or omitted.... such as the gospel of Thomas...

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by Rainer511

As far as validity, the Bible has more evidence support its historical accuracy than practically any other book. The fact that its religious is the only reason it isn't accepted. It is believed that the gospels were written 70 years after the events that they tell about. That seems like a long time but there are other books from that era that are considered historically accurate yet they were written 300+ years after the events depicted in them. Other trusted documents may have somewhere around nine or ten manuscripts to test its integrity while the New Testament has more than five thousand manuscripts to test it integrity to yet it still isn't accepted. You could say because there are many errors, and in essence, there are. But that is because of the way that the errors are counted. If you had two thousand manuscripts and one of them had incorrect word ordering then it would be counted as two thousand errors. And in Greek word order isn't as important as it is in English. There is also corroborative evidence from other historical documents that supports the existance of Jesus. Tacitus wrote a passage in which he talks about Pontius Pilotes prosecution of Christians and Christ. There is also a refernce to him by Josephus, and a roman called Pliny the Younger.

 

As I've pointed out to skywalker1, proving the Bible correct with regards to persons mentioned and the accuracy as to when they lived, even Jesus of Nazareth, does not in any way validate the Bible's statements of God or divinity. It's that, God and divinity, rational sceptics question when they attack the validity of the Bible, not it's historical accuracy. And I do hope you do not go down the same road as skywalker1 did and propose, that since we have proven some of the historical elements of the Bible to be true, proof of it's divinity will automatically follow.

 

I'm sorry that I can't label such a presumption with anything but one word: Absurd. It would be equal to saying that because we can prove the existence of the dinosaurs, a hyper-intelligent shade of the colour blue resides inside the dreams of backward read books - doesn't really connect, does it?

 

But for the topic, Jediism, there is no more wrong with letting yourself be guided by the ethical teachings of Jedi and the belief in an all-encompassing energy than being guided by the morals of the Bible and a belief in God. The only difference is that Lucas and his colleagues don't claim or even propose Jediism's validity - as far as I know anyway.

 

I propose, nay dare, any Christians in here to either prove Christianity as more valid than Jediism or disprove Jediism any more than Christiany can be disproven. And quantity of believers or span of time for the religion does not count as valid arguments - in case you ask "why not?", think of Earth and it's flatness.

[Rainer511]

Actually, I don't know whether or not I will stick around, I despise reading long posts and High School gets in the way. Thanks for the welcome though!

 

The Gospel of Thomas has no narrative of what Jesus did, it is more a collection of sayings. The sayings when compared to those in the other gospels vary in ways that go against everything the rest of the gospels say about Jesus. For example it supports pantheism, which isn't supported in any of the other gospels. It even says that women are not worthy of life! Also the Church only tried to ratify what was already being accepted by Christians of the time. Besides if they were trying to put together a religion by matter of convenience, they didn’t do a good job at it. Why would you want a religion where you are asked to try and be Christ-like, especially when even lust itself is being described as adultery, that is unless you truly believed what was written.

 

If they were so careful to be accurate from a historical stand point then why would they be less accurate in what they believed to be true. The fact that they believed it to be true doesn’t prove anything either really. All it proves is that something happened to make them, and a mass amount of people, believe it. So as far as proving that there is a God? I believe that if you accept the Bible as historically accurate then it gives reason to believe that there is a God. But in the end I think it’s more a matter of faith than anything else.

 

What I think is absurd is the idea of basing a religion off of practices and ideals from a fictional movie. George Lucas doesn’t even propose that there is a force besides in his movie. They say that they are not the same as the Jedi in Star Wars, but look at the first line in their description of the Force, “One all-encompassing driving Force influences the destiny of the universe. An energy field generated by all living things, the Force surrounds and penetrates everything, binding the universe together.” Any Star Wars fan would recognize this. At least the Bible has a basis in history.

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by Rainer511

What I think is absurd is the idea of basing a religion off of practices and ideals from a fictional movie. George Lucas doesn’t even propose that there is a force besides in his movie. They say that they are not the same as the Jedi in Star Wars, but look at the first line in their description of the Force, “One all-encompassing driving Force influences the destiny of the universe. An energy field generated by all living things, the Force surrounds and penetrates everything, binding the universe together.” Any Star Wars fan would recognize this. At least the Bible has a basis in history.

The jediism.org page has more in common with Buddhist concepts that are far older than the Star Wars movies. The concept of a universal consciousness and/or energy connecting everyone is something that GL reverse-engineered into the "force."

 

Buddhists have believed in it, Carl Jung wrote about it - Lucas didn't come up with anything revolutionary, and neither did these Jedi. But that doesn't make it absurd... it's a completely legitimate belief, as credible as any other religion / philosophical system out there.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo

WHY DOES EVERY FREAKING DANG POST IN THIS FORUM TURN INTO A CHRISTIAN BASHING THREAD?

 

Because someone *coughskywalkercough* keeps using the Bible in the manner of a blunt instrument.

 

Let me stress, again, that the historical validity of the Bible is questionable at best. The corruption rates that you mention don't really count as a measure of accuracy because a certain institution called 'the Church' had (has) a bad habit of burning anything that didn't comply with their doctrine. Which means that you cannot use uniformity of doctrine to prove the validity of the text. That aside, even if the Book does contain historically accurate information, it'd be a far cry from proving that the whole book is factual. Consider Hitler's political program: The parts that concern themselves with Germany's financial problems correctly identify quite a few economic causes for concerns. Does this mean that the rest of the program is factually correct? Not by a far cry!

 

BTW: Skywalker: You didn't answer my question.

[Rainer511]

There are good chunks of the Gospels that date around the year 200 and earliest parts that date around 100 to 150. That doesn't give hardly enough time for the Church to corrupt it, if that was their intention. Even if the information was being altered the Christian community would have noticed it. Besides, I say again, if they were putting together a religion by matter of convenience they didn't do a good job.

 

What incentive did the early Christians have to follow Christ, especially after his death? If anything you would want to downplay him at that time, considering what early Christians went through. But no, Pliny the Younger mentions that they persisted to call themselves Christians when asked. They said that the total sum of their guilt or error was no more than meeting before dawn to chant verses amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and that they bound themselves by oath to abstain from robbery, theft and adultery. They were put to death for their stubbornness and obstinacy. So in that I doubt early Christians would have any incentive to alter the text.

 

Also as I have mentioned with more than 5000 manuscripts from different geological locations to test its integrity against, you would think that you would find manuscripts that would disagree with each other drastically if the Church had altered it, but there's not. I won't say that things haven't been lost, take this for instance. John the Baptist was struggling with Jesus’ identity, so he sent someone to ask, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" Then (Matt 11:4-5)"Jesus replied, 'Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.'" This is referring to Isaiah 35, but in it, there is nothing that says the dead are raised. If Jesus was trying to tell John he was the Christ why would he throw that in making it more confusing? "the dead are raised" is absent from old testament text. However if you look at one of the dead sea scrolls it contains a version of Isaiah 61 that contains that phrase. John would have recognized this as a distinct claim that he was Christ. So finding errors like this only improve the integrity of the Bible and of the stories in it.

[Kurgan]

First off, the whole idea of Jediism is based on a shakey foundation. Now don't get me wrong, it could BECOME a religion, but it didn't start as one.

 

Let me explain...

 

 

George Lucas is a religious man. He was raised Christian (Methodist IIRC with exposure to Lutheranism in his childhood through people who worked for his parents) but in life he seems to have come up with his own beliefs. I don't know what he currently says he is, but anyway... suffice to say he isn't a "Jedi."

 

Star Wars's spirituality was supposed to be symbolic of all religions and the "search for meaning" by human beings and the struggle of good vs. evil. In other words, the Force isn't "real" it's just a metaphor for "that thing" that religious people are seeking after and encountering in their lives.

 

I honestly doubt any of these so-called "Jedi" really believe that they can use telekinesis or influence minds. But then again, there are people who believe in ESP, so perhaps they DO believe they can.

 

What this is then is they are just slapping a cool sounding name from a movie onto an old belief system. Sort of like if somebody created a religion called "matrixism" that was just Gnostic Christianity with terms from a movie slapped on.

 

Okay, fast forward 18 years or so. There was a census (and many people hate the census, because either they think it goofs up their taxes or they just don't want to have people going door to door bothering them with surveys that their tax dollars pay for) in Australia and Britain (I forget which was first).

 

Anyway, there was a "protest vote" type of thing that people were doing, and there was even an email campaign about it. In order to protest the census and how silly they felt it was and a waste of time, in the section on their "religion" they would just put "Jedi" instead of their real belief(s).

 

One of the email campaigns started an Urban Legend (a widely believed story without real credibility or evidence to support it).... they mentioned the protest vote, but they did one extra thing.

 

They said that if enough people put "Jedi" on their census forms the government would be FORCED to recognized "Jedi" as a legitimate religion! Considering no Jedi religion existed, this was wishful thinking at best.

 

The real story was that the census bureau (I imagine in both countries, but whichever the first one occured in) got so many "Jedi" replies and other "non replies" (which occur in any kind of survey, even in presidential elections people put "Mickey Mouse" in the write-in section.. see if you don't choose an option you can often "write in" and people put strange stuff there) into a pile.

 

Normally replies with "non answers" (like Mickey Mouse or whatever) just go in the trash, but I guess they got so many they had to create a seperate file to contain all of them, and many of them were "Jedi." This story grew into the idea that it would become a real religion.

 

Obviously somebody either believed the hype (leading to this website claiming to be for the "Jediism" religion) or it was a joke continued a bit too long.

 

Frankly, I'm glad people can find meaning in their lives, and yes, yes, I have heard the old argument "How do you know your religion isn't true" etc etc, but the fact that Jediism is based on something that started out as fiction and symbolism and was followed by a protest and a joke (all within recent memory with facts that can be verified), I don't think it's legit.

 

But it could become one... in the same way that other religions are recognized by the state as "legitimate." Note that legitimacy by the state doesn't say whether the religion is true or not, just whether or not it's a "real religion" (ie: one that you can join right now as an actual institution or some historical tradition).

 

For now it's just a philosophy believed in by a few people, apparently. Again I would speculate that they are just putting 20 year old terms (from the movies) onto older philosophies (the same ones Lucas used for his fictional "force" metaphor) like Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, martial arts, etc.

[Kurgan]

I will further amend my post by saying that many people do find meaning and insight in movies like Star Wars, without saying that it "Is their religion."

 

Interestingly enough, I was at a conference in Toronto and gave a talk on religious views in Star Trek and other sci fi (my opinion was that that majority of trek is anti-religion). A person stood up in the back and asked me if I thought it was ironic that "for fans, Star Trek IS their religion." ; )

 

Anyway, on the Groundhog Day DVD (one of my favorite movies btw) it is mentioned in the audio commentary how the filmmakers got calls from people of all kinds of religious groups all saying "you captured our beliefs perfectly!"

 

People can see their faith or beliefs revealed to them in different ways through different things.

 

This is why you have some people saying that they see Satanism in Harry Potter, while others see Christianity or Wiccanism. The same is true of Star Wars.

 

I think that people who latch onto "Jediism" are missing the point. Star Wars isn't trying to advocate Jediism, it's advocating all religions.*

 

Another thing here is the difference between fiction and myth. Griff, I'm sure you weren't trying to be insulting by saying "all religions are based on fiction" although you may believe that in your heart. ; )

 

"Myth" in common parlance means a story that is not true. However, in anthropology and in ancienct usage, the myth is a story that conveys truth, even if it itself is only a metaphor (ie: whether it happend literally or not is not important). For example the story of Job in the Bible is widely regarded as not a true story, but a myth meant to discuss the problem of suffering and evil in human life (ie: if God is good, how can he allow suffering?). Similarly the story of Noah's Flood, the Tower of Babel and the Garden of Eden are all myths meant to convey truths about human nature and why the world is how it is. Now some people may get angry when I say those stories are myths, but if you look in history, the earliest views we have of those stories (and current scholarship agrees) is that these stories were written AS myths from the beginning. It is true that at times people took them literally, but most of the literal interpretations of these stories began centuries or millennia after they were written.

 

Example: St. Augustine wrote many interpretations of Genesis (Adam & Eve), but his last writing on it was "the literal interpretation of Genesis" and it seems that one has stuck in people's minds in the 20th century, which is why you some people believing in "young earth Creationism" (there's also Bishop Ussher who had a theory of the age of the earth based on a literal interpretation of the Bible).

 

Similarly, Jediism could use for its myth, the Star Wars movies. But it's interesting how a religion could be based on a myth, that's based on a myth, that's based on real religions. ; )

 

But I digress...

 

To make another comparision, I'll go out on a limb here and compare Star Wars to Scientology (don't stone me yet, listen...).

 

The difference between George Lucas's Star Wars and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology is simply that Lucas doesn't claim that his story IS a true religion.

 

To quote a popular saying from another movie.... Star Wars isn't the moon, it's the finger pointing AT the moon. ; )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Heck, I have even seen some atheists say that Star Wars actually reinforces their beliefs, because in Star Wars the force is something that can be scientifically measured and quantified, so it's "not supernatural" and thus something they have no problem believing in if it were ever found.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Interestingly enough, I was at a conference in Toronto and gave a talk on religious views in Star Trek and other sci fi (my opinion was that that majority of trek is anti-religion).

 

If my memory serves correct, Gene Roddenberry was an humanist and probably agnostic. This is why the "anti-religion" perspective of Star Trek was prevalent. I've always noticed this, even when I subscribed to the Christian belief system.

 

Even then, however, I found it somewhat refreshing... perhaps because it didn't make assumptions about what was considered "correct" by pretending to predict our religious future. For instance, by making christianity, islam, or some invented religion the dominant faith, Star Trek wasn't trying to imply any were more or less "correct" than the others.

 

I found it also refreshing that Roddenberry left the idea of religion alone entirely (at least as far as I can tell from what I remember of the program)... even though he professed some decidedly "anti-religious" views, he didn't put them in Star Trek. He could easily have slanted the show to demonstrate his discord with organized relgion.

 

I have to agree with your posts here... our mythology speaks volumes about us as a society. We are able to tell each other "how" to live, "why" to live, and that it is "okay" to die.

[XWING5]

When I first heard of those who listed Jedi as their religion in census polls, I was amused. I mean, there are so many religions and philosophies out there, what is one more (I don't quite understand the Wiccans or Hari Krishnas - sp?) But while I found the idea of a bunch of SW fans practicing the force and wearing tunics kind of cool, I guess I never thought it a serious religion. Of course, this thread has shown that Jediism is not the same Jedi Religion that I picture. I tried to interpret the "Guys" and must admit that I couldn't quite get my brain around what they were saying. Should such a religion be accepted? I don't see why not. I, myself, am a Christian, but don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. What I take exception to really, is calling it Jediism when that so clearly references the George Lucas films. An argument could be made that the balance of the force and the beliefs of the Jedi do hold many similar threads with popular religion, but Jediism as they describe it, seems a little strange. It seems more to capitalize on the success of the films and the devotion of the fans. But I guess in conclusion I am just saying that I am not a subscriber of Jediism, but more of Jedi philosophy. And while I disagree with their ideas, I see no harm in their religion.

 

And as far as Harry Potter goes: I have this continuing argument with my Southern Baptist father. He goes on about the evil of HP though he has not read a single page of any book. And for those Christians out there who need someone to tell them it is ok to read HP, try "What's A Christian to Do with Harry Potter?" or "The Gospel According to Harry Potter." HP can be interpreted so many ways, which is why it is so great for kids. They don't see the evil or religion. Just the good vs. evil and the good always wins.

[Kurgan]

I feel that Christianity is not religion. Rather, it is a relationship with God's son, Jesus. In that sense, how can Jediism be the same religion when they don't even mention Jesus, let alone admit to a relationship?

 

I hear people say that all the time and it annoys me no end.

 

Granted, finding one a satisfactory defintion for "religion" is difficult, but not impossible. Tell any religious scholar or anthropologist that Christianity is not a religion and they'll throw it back in your face pretty fast.

 

I think people are inventing their own definitions for words here. They try to make "religion" a prejorative term like "oh they're RELIGIOUS but they're not SPIRITUAL like me" or "I don't follow a religion, I believe in a relationship with God" or something. Of course people who are religious who feel they have a relationship would be greatly offended.

 

Trust me, whatever you decide to call it, Christianity IS a religion, encompassing some 30,000 denominations, but it's one in any sense of the term. Besides, the word "religion" is used in the New Testament to refer to Christians, so I don't get why its such a big deal.

 

Sorry for the rant.. no offense intended.

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

A quick summury of my findings about Religion in Star Trek is that most of the time the characters encounter (made up) religions and the religions usually turn out to be false (ie: powerful aliens, misunderstood technology, etc) and no modern earth religions are mentioned (except Hinduism in "Data's Day" TNG, but the way it was portrayed sounded like it was somebody studying it, not actual worship). Oddly enough, while TOS seems to have had the most "false god" episodes, the Enterprise had an actual Chapel (with only generic glyphs and infinity symbols on it) where Kirk performs a marriage ceremony (note it was the Captain and not a chaplain or minister). TNG took out the chapel and instead had Counselor Troi, who reminded me a lot of a New Age guru/Psychoanalyst (perhaps the closest Roddenberry would come to allowing a clergy person onboard).

 

In later shows after Roddenberry's death, we get softer sentiments towards religion, such as the Bajorans in DS9. However, they are still often portrayed as fanatics and their religious leaders are portrayed as corrupt or hypocritical (and of course, the Prophets and Pah-Wraiths are still portrayed as just really powerful aliens). Finally we have Voyager with Chokotay, who embraces a generic futuristic Native American belief system, which everybody admits is weird, but they let him well enough alone about it (though it should be noted he's a guy who left the Federation to join the Maquis, a terrorist group, and only came back because he was forced to join Voyager to survive). In addition, the Dominion Founders (the major villians of DS9) keep other aliens as slaves to worship them.

 

In all the shows, the Vulcans have a pretty New-Agey/Stoic kind of philosophy, and are portrayed the most positively of any religious group (though this is changing in Enterprise, as they are portrayed as bigots and egomaniacs). The Ferengi worship money and greed, the Klingons worship violence and war, the Borg and the Romulans are portrayed as racist megalomaniacs, much in the same vein as the Nazis with their mythology of the master race.

 

There just isn't much to work with if you want positive views of religion here.... and "Q" the only recurring and recognizable "god" figure of Star Trek is an egotistical prankster whom the Federation captains treat with utter contempt.

[vegietto]

i would be in it if u started it i think it would be a good religion to me

[lukeskywalker1]

think of Earth and it's flatness.

 

 

The bible doesnt say its flat!! They are assumptions.

[vegietto]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

The bible doesnt say its flat!! They are assumptions.

i agree it doesn't say it in the bible if it does where does it say that

[lukeskywalker1]

In fact, it says its round.... Although that is open to interpretation.

[vegietto]

yeah if it was flat how did megallan sail around the world, huh

[ShockV1.89]

http://www.flat-earth.org/

 

Ha!

 

[lukeskywalker1]

O_O!! (didnt look through the whole site, but does it say something about the bible?)

 

lol:

 

20. Does Idaho exist

No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).

 

21. What about North Dakota?

That doesn't exist either.

 

22. Any other places which are believed to exist but really don't?

Yes, Australia. And then there are the cryptogeographica, places such as Kadath, Carcosa, Hobbiton, Narnia, Hy-Brasil, Hell and such whose existence has not been satisfactorily proven.

 

 

Based on this, i think that site is a joke...

[vegietto]

i agree with you about that site it is a really bad joke to me if you ask me

[SkinWalker]

The "flat earth" scenario of the bible originates from a biblical quote (or quotes) that includes "four corners of the earth" as a reference. Literally translated, this would mean that the planet had to exist in a shape that could have four corners, such as a two-dimensional square or one side of a three-dimensional cube.

 

As is common in many works of literature, this is likely to be simply a colloquial term of the period in which that portion of the bible was written or (most likely) translated. The colloquialism, as it survives today, simply means "no matter where you go," "as far apart from each other as two or more objects can get," etc.

 

Anti-biblical type people frequently use this as a way of discrediting the bible as a valid source of information. Personally, I think its a weak argument, since the colloquial nature of the phrase is well-known.

 

Besides, I think that the bible, along with other great works of literature, can offer valuable insight as to how people once lived.