I think you need a closer inspection of the Egyptian myths before concluding the Jesus myth could have in any way derived from it. I doubt many of the fishermen followers of Jesus knew very much about Isis anyway. Islam doesn't claim that Mohammed has a reconstituted body. No other person's claim to have seen a dead person has turned into a world-dominating religion. "Friends missing their leader?" That just proves my point of authenticity. Friends who are devastated by the death of a man whom they considered to be their religion's Messiah would be in no condition to persuasively make such a false claim. To say Christianity is not any more believable than any other religion is to overlook a glaring fact - more people believe it in the world than any other religion. So, what you really mean is that you don't find it believable. Christianity doesn't claim to have flash, if you mean something akin to Elvis' sequins. This could also be considered an authenticating characteristic.

We'll see how long the religion of Elvis can be sustained in our society/cultural context. Then I'll answer your question.:tongue_smilie:

One more thing (and I'm sorry I didn't get it all in one post!) Even though I can't agree that Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) uses "fear" as an instrument for control, I certainly don't think that simply because a person has his/her life informed and directed by "fear" means that person's belief-system is automatically invalidated. We all fear the consequences of our mortality. We all fear pain and death and sorrow. What mother doesn't "fear" danger for her child and therefore make a decision to keep him from running out in the road? That decision does not become illegitimate simply because it was made out of the fear of danger/death. Would your child object to your decision by accusing you of trying to "control" his urge to place himself in harm's way?

One more thought. And here, I'll offer a reason why I find Christianity to be credible, and thus a legitimate source for authority informing my understanding: Christianity is unique among all the world's religions for its essential claim that a man rose from the dead. There is no other religion in history that has made such a claim. The closest thing we have is the Egyptian religion of Osiris/Isis and there it is not a human that dies and raises, but a god. In the context of the Christian religion's origin, the whole world had been thoroughly instructed that such an event was impossible. See Cicero's The Nature of the Gods, and see Homer. No human could ever come back from Hades. For such a claim to be sustained in such a context, it had to be verified. Unless it is true that a man actually did die and rise again and people witnessed it, there is no way such a religion with such a claim would have existed for more than a moment. Other religions can exist because they don't require such an outlandish belief. They are all based upon revelation of propositions alone.

A few questions, then. What's your source of authority for understanding it as a social construct, or are we to take your understanding as our source of authority and agree with you? Why should we desire for humans to live successfully? What is success in this context? Why is "existence" something valuable for a human? I don't understand how you can conclude that the desire to control others is why government (either civil or ecclesiastical) is the origin of the world's religions/civil governments. Who told you that, or is that just your own fancy? Should I agree with you just because you said it or can you make it more credible for me than that?

What about roaches? 'Cause I don't think I could ever be a Hindu if it meant I had to like roaches.:ack2:

You should ask cajun.classical what she does.

Hindus assign worth to cows. And they'd consider such attributing to be a religious act. Maybe you're a Hindu and just don't know it. :)

No disappointment here. I believe it was established before all those things, including Hinduism, as well.

Hey, we're cool.:001_smile:

More and more, because of my understanding of epistemology, I'm thinking that there's no clear division between the secular and the sacred when it comes to education. ! I guess, then, it's a good thing Christians don't believe that, or else this nation wouldn't be nearly so much fun. :D You're probably right on that. Many Christians think the world is "going to h** in a handbasket," so to speak. That's not my perspective, though.

"worship" comes from the Middle English "worshipe" which means "worthiness." from weorth (worth) + scipe (ship). Hey! I used a dictionary! :D

Wow. No, I'm not trying to be an obscurantist just to make a point. I think a word has to have a precise and distinct definition for it to have any meaning at all. But, I admit that I'm struggling with definitions in this discussion.

Maybe it'd be better if I said, rather, that every belief set is 'religious in nature' than that it 'constitutes a religion.' On the other hand, if believing anything at all (in order to therefore know it) implies attributing worth to its derivative authority (I'm having trouble here!), then, yes, perhaps it is a religion (again, broadly defined). I guess talking past one another is just part of this kind of process. Sorry.

Rapid fire, man! I feel like I'm in high speed catechism class here. :001_smile: Let's see. Yes, everything is necessarily a "faith" choice. But I don't mean, by that, that the choice is necessarily informed by institutionalized doctrinal tenets. I simply mean that "faith" or "believe" is necessary for knowing anything at all. That to know something, one has to choose to know it. that they choose to know it based on whether or not they deem it credible (i.e., "believe" -able). I'm not just playing with words here. I'm approaching it from my understanding of epistemology. Knowledge = proposition + faith + warrant. Take, for example, any old proposition. You tell me, "My dog's name is 'Sue'" (proposition). Immediately, I deem you to be credible (warrant) and I believe what you say (faith) and, therefore, it can be said that now I "know" your dog's name is "Sue." See what I mean? That's more difficult. I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. If we hold something to be true, then we have attributed worth (worship) to the authority of its source. I don't think that means we worship everything that serves as a source for knowledge. But when everything which concerns education is considered, I think the collection of our choices for authoritative information indicates what we value. We know the vast majority of the things we know based on other peoples' (sources) testimony. It can only be said that we "know" those things to be true when we deem those sources (attribute worth) to be credible. That's what I understand the essence of religion (uh... at least partly) to be - submitting to another's testimony as your authoritative source for truth. In a round-about-way, yes. According to my (admittedly broad) definition of "religion," it seems to me that the choice of any particular source for knowledge requires faith and is therefore religious. And that makes me think that, e.g., in our government schools, the real issue isn't "religion" or "no religion," but rather, "who's religion," i.e., what is our source of authority (assuming no one knows everything and can be the sole source). Am I making any sense? (not asking if you agree with my conclusion, :tongue_smilie: just whether you see any holes in my thought-process).

No apologies necessary. I like your use of the word "mythology." Tolkien had some interesting things to say about Christian myth, namely, "myth" does not = "untrue." In fact, the great collective of myths amongst all peoples throughout history all seem to indicate a source further upstream... or a "true" myth. Hmmm. On the first question, I'm not sure. I suppose yes, according. But I'm not saying having a religion is bad, just that everyone's got one, whether it is informed from another authority (faith in an outside source) or according to their own authority (faith in one's own reason). Second question... I guess, again, that it has to do with the submission to authority, and so, essentially, I guess I'd agree with that. That's sort of what I'm getting at, i.e., if "faith" means "taking a leap" - every fact has to be believed in to be known, and therefore, knowing something itself is an act of faith. The choice to believe one thing over another implies submitting to the authority of the sources warrant, which is seems to indicate "attributing worth" or "worship," which would imply it is a religious choice. That question really helped me formulate this. Thanks! As far as ev v. cr., maybe we'll have a go at it sometime. No (intentional) chain-yanking here. I think we're tracking.

We probably don't need to get into a discussion on creationism vs. evolution here, which I see your question headed to. But be comforted, I graduated in Biology/Pre-med and took a required course (the only one offered in the whole state) called "Morphogenesis of the Vertebrates," which was touted to be the most difficult course at the university. Did more than just pass. And then taught evolution (and creation) in several schools. So, yes, my teaching is balanced and scientific.

That's an interesting take, which itself requires a certain faith-choice (forgive my limited vocabulary, having to make up hyphenated words). Is that indeed the purpose of a dictionary? Does a word's original meaning not derive from something more objective than a collective people's intent? although those definitions certainly change with the use. But the thing the word is getting at doesn't change, even if the words used for it change.

I also referenced passages in Acts.

Maybe so. But I still have to get at the question somehow. If philosophy is "love of wisdom," then that's weighted, too. After all, what is "love?" Why should we care to do it? Who gets to define what wisdom is? Are the answers to these questions not somehow principled choices stemming from one's faith-system? I.e., if "faith" is implicit in the very idea of knowledge. Ok. Are you saying, then, that according to your definition of religion, it necessarily implies worship to a higher, authoritative Being? If so, then (and I hate to keep struggling with semantics and word-meanings) isn't "worship"="attributing worth." If so, that seems to imply that, when you attribute worth to any "fact," by saying it's "true," and therefore, "valuable," you are engaging in a religious activity - i.e., worshipping (attributing worth to) a "higher" (or something from another source than your own brain) authority. Right? I agree. I'm not really trying to debate (in the bad sense) as much as attempting to flesh out my approach using the good minds of those who disagree with my position (and agree) in this forum as a sounding board.

But deisidaimoni, is also translated "religion" which implies a fear for divinity.

Sure. But isn't the choice of Oxford over the Christian Scripture's use of a term an epistemological choice based on a preference for one source of authority as a more credible warrant than another? Thus a "religious" decision(?... need some help here).

So, does that mean that if someone does not adhere to a religion, they have no thoughts on where we come from, what our destiny ies, what is true or what is false, etc? An education from such a limiting angle seems to be rather truncated. And if, according to your suggested definition, someone does address these questions in their endeavor to educate, does it not, therefore, make their education religious? Also, I don't understand how one can have moral principles and not be religious. You seem to be saying, rather, that they don't derive their moral principles from some outside source,whether natural or supernatural, but from their own, autonomously derived, religion. That seems difficult to demonstrate. E.g., when you teach, you teach what you "believe" to be true. To know anything at all requires faith - that is a basic epistemological tenet. If I don't "believe" something to be true (i.e., have faith that it's true), then how can it be said that I "know" it. And education is, at least, about imparting "knowledge." Right?

I guess my starting point would be James 1.27: "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." He seems to be pointing to moral principles and resulting actions. However, there are other places that seem to indicate something more formal or even institutionalized, like Acts 25.19 and 26.5, where the Jewish religion is referred to. Institutionalized religion of course implies moral/religious application. But that suggests the question - "Is any moral application the necessary outworking of a 'religion' or a 'religious disposition?'"

I'm throwing this question out there as sort of a spin-off of "Time-Palin." Would appreciate any directions on how to make a "spin-off" thread. I personally don't think "secular" (i.e., = absence of religious) can exist in a government, and especially not in education. But I guess that depends on what constitutes the "religious." Given our American disparaging of institutionalized religion, I suppose what we're really opposed to is any particular religious institution having authority to conduct the affairs of the state. While I agree with this, - because I adhere to sphere sovereignty (see previous posts, and here) - I don't think it means church and state have 'nothing' to do with each other. But since part of our education system has been subsumed under the auspices of the state, the state's disposition re: religion inevitably becomes manifest in its schools' curriculum. So, is an opposition to "religion" not somehow a "religious" position? After all, a state is an institution with moral principles. Does that not make it somehow religious? If this is true, then what I'm really perplexed by is the seemingly paradoxical claim that a "religion-free" education is its modus operandi. Welcome any thoughts.