Very good article. Thanks.

Last bump, I promise.

If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is naked, give him dress.

This is pretty much the only statement of substance in your last post. I think that means we're peetering out. Thanks for sticking with it this far. I think I'm done for now on this topic. Maybe we can give it a go later. So, if you want the last word, go for it.

This comment reveals you've forgotten the content of the OP, where I asserted my position. If you think it is disingenuous to assert a position as a means to engage other folk who both agree and disagree, then I suppose you can add that to the list of things I've been labeled during my first short week of posting. I happened to have benefited from this discussion. You wouldn't? And yet that's exactly what you did. It goes without saying that when I post something, it's what I believe. If others disagree that I represent them, they have the liberty to speak up, as they often do. I wasn't making a distinction between Xy and other religions on that point. I was making a distinction btn Xy and secularism. However, the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to hold it. Every position requires loyalties and personal allegiances. What annoys me is the claim that secularism is somehow "neutral" and therefore a more appropriate form of education than a religious education. Neutral does not equal right. And it certainly does not equal "rational."

Is it ok to bump this up?

Well, that is the question. I think that trust in an outside authority is a religious act, although I recognized, as you point out, that this is not the generally understood definition of religion - which is normally associated with something institutionalized. But the real difference, I'm saying, between the groups of people who adhere to a set of beliefs and the individuals who choose another belief-set, is not merely that the former can be called a "religion" and the other not, but that the former is a collective while the latter is an individual. The faith demands upon the members of a religion are the same essential faith demands upon the individuals who aren't part of a particular group (is that possible?) The belief in the non-supernatural is just as much a 'religious' belief as the belief in the supernatural. Both require faith. The curriculum an educator chooses to impose, then, cannot be neutral or without an interpretive framework. That interpretive framework (worldview, as our Catholic friend, above, called it) has so much in common with any framework an organized religion suggests, that I would identify it as its own religion. Either way, you have to believe in things that can't be seen. Again, I'd say that to formulate an understanding as to why others don't believe something is essentially the same as atheists suggesting that Christians believe what they do because it "comforts" them - as someone in this thread suggested. Why didn't you think that was arrogant? I'm the only one speaking, and I may be one of the few who hold this position, but, historically, this has been the Christian position, and I think you can see from Romans 1:18-22 (which I paraphrased) that my position is consistent within the Christian faith. No, I wasn't saying you were being arrogant. And, yes, Christianity requires faith in a peculiar way, i.e., it requires faith in a person - not just that He exists, but more - the requirement to place our trust in Him and to be loyal to Him. My distinctions had more to do with the aspects and qualities of religion that are concerned with the nature of knowledge, and since education is concerned with knowledge, I saw the two (religion and education) as related.

Many of you are interested in sending assistance to the areas affected by the recent hurricanes. If so, here's a church that has some need and it looks like they will be active in recovery efforts beyond their own congregation. I'm sure any help will be greatly appreciated. From what I understand they were very active in helping out with hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I think that the "digging down deep" part is an act of faith as well, i.e., faith in your own rational process. I think Nietzsche and others has shown that such an approach logically ends in skepticism. I personally, am a commonsense realist and don't think rationalism, with its system of internal verification, has gotten us very far. At bottom, we rely upon external testimony as the foundation of our knowledge, and although we employ our rational faculties of discernment, we incorporate each foundational axiom as an act of faith. This is trusting in an outside authority, and we do it with religious zeal. This is why I don't think education can be non-religious, strictly speaking. Rather, it's a question of which religion. Am I be arrogant again simply because I believe what I'm saying to be true? We all have theories of why this or that thing is the way that it is. We all have theories by which we understand the nature of the world and humans around us. Such theories do not make one arrogant. What can be known about God has been clearly demonstrated in the world - His divine nature and his godhead, because He has testified of these things through His creation. Men know these things in their hearts. They can't help but be struck with the majesty of creation and even of their own fearsome and wonderful constitution, understanding themselves to be created and, therefore, accountable to their Creator for the way they live their lives. But they reject this knowledge and are not thankful in their hearts, and therefore rather than becoming wise, they become fools. This is what Christians believe. Does that make them arrogant? No more arrogant, I would say, than anyone who claims to be right about their beliefs and who formulates reasons why others believe what they believe.

That's funny. 'Cause, although, my dad and mom always discouraged fighting, my dad told my brother that, if someone wants to fight to remember two things: 1) Hit him in the nose first, and 2) always get in the first punch (especially when my brother got older and the first punch often determined the outcome).

Sorry, I've been tied up. Alright, back to it. My point is that everything we believe requires faith. Faith being the "inclination to believe." I get this understanding from the philosopher, Alvin Plantiga who wrote a very readable epistemology "Warrant: The Current Debate." My point with Lincoln was that, the same warrants one has for believing in the existence and the actions of anyone for whom you have no direct contact is the same as for any other. Therefore, to believe in the persons, acts and events of Jesus requires no different sort of faith than belief in Lincoln. The faith is not of a different order or nature, faith being fundamental to any knowledge (again - to know anything at all you have to believe it). The difference is not that faith is required, but that we are inclined to believe/disbelieve something based on the demands it places upon us. Christianity is rejected, not because its claims are implausible, but rather, because, of the implications for one's life believing the claim that Jesus rose from the dead (and is therefore King of humanity and requires every human's allegiance) requires of that person. That clearer?

I grew up in small town Mississippi. I was amazed at the courage of some of the boys I knew. I remember one boy, who in ninth grade, got his teeth pressed through his bottom lip when a nasty opponent stepped on his face while he was face up on the bottom of a pile up. Everyone was aghast at the blood. The coach wanted to sit him out. The boy wanted to keep playing. The coach asked the dad. The dad said, if he wants to play, let him. He played out the whole rest of the (long) game. When I got to college, there was another boy I knew from McComb, MS who told a group of friends (you know how boys like to brag about their "battles") about how he and his brother grew up duking it out all the time. Really! They would spend whole days doing it. The girls were always appalled, of course, which egged the boys' stories on. But those boys I knew who grew up standing up for themselves turned out to be some brave men, although I can't say much for their other traits. But our schools always had a zero-tolerance policy for fighting. This applied, of course, mostly to the boys (although I've seen some girls get into it, too, and I had my share of spats). Is this right? One of my favorite bloggers (who I've referrenced here before) wrote a blog on this. It sort of seems counter-intuitive to a woman who wants her young men to be men of peace. On the other hand, I see the point and think it's a good one, and I've come over to this view after reading Doug Wilson's thoughts on the matter (which book the blogger references). Thoughts???

Yes! Not so much a sore throat, though, but I lose my voice if I get too into it - like yesterday when I was reading Lewis' "The Last Battle" from the Narnia series and trying to growl out the voice of a Calormen. I think it has mostly to do with being hydrated! If I drink enough water, I don't have near the problem. Also, if I try to use my diaphragm rather than my chest voice (like when singing).

This homeschool mom has two very different children who both experience math meltdowns. She uses different approaches for both, and different curricula. I highly recommend her as a resource.

Thus, my point. Ancient historians went about their business, too, and in much the same way. You accept the fact of Abe's presidency based on authenticating documentation. You find your sources credible. It's an act of faith. You're not asking anyone to prove it to you or wishing for a time machine. What's the difference between that and any other religion's followers? Sorry to leave with a question hanging. I'll leave you the last word and have a look tomorrow. 'Night.:seeya: