Is "secular" education possible?

[Carrie12345]

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. :)

 

Don't tell the cheeseburger I had for dinner.

[Mom to Aly]

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

 

So do I; that is why I put, "if nothing else, Hinduism".

[Hoggirl]

Anybody ever compare the definition of "marriage" from a Webster 1828 dictionary to the definition in a Webster 2008 dictionary? Very interesting.

[Mom to Aly]

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. :)

 

Actually, Hindus assign worth to all living creatures, including cats, dogs, etc. That is why we don't eat meat. And it is in our religion. Cows became sacred, more from worth than anything else, but most Hindus would give the same worth to any animal. Well, not most, since some do eat meat now, but those that do follow it strictly.

[Laura K (NC)]

nt

[Mom to Aly]

Anybody ever compare the definition of "marriage" from a Webster 1828 dictionary to the definition in a Webster 2008 dictionary? Very interesting.

 

Ooh, I'd like to hear it--I think :001_smile:

[rowan-tree]

Actually, Hindus assign worth to all living creatures, including cats, dogs, etc. That is why we don't eat meat. And it is in our religion. Cows became sacred, more from worth than anything else, but most Hindus would give the same worth to any animal. Well, not most, since some do eat meat now, but those that do follow it strictly.

 

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

[genie]

Take "thou shall not kill". Is this an absolute moral truth, or a religious construct? I think it is very likely a religious construct.

 

I think of it more as a social construct. For humans to live successfully in any type of social environment, there must be certain understood rules. Otherwise, the society would not continue to exist. As social groups grew larger and larger and harder to govern, these rules were ascribed to a powerful deity. Control by fear.

[rowan-tree]

I think of it more as a social construct. For humans to live successfully in any type of social environment, there must be certain understood rules. Otherwise, the society would not continue to exist. As social groups grew larger and larger and harder to govern, these rules were ascribed to a powerful deity. Control by fear.

 

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?

[Hoggirl]

Ooh, I'd like to hear it--I think :001_smile:

 

Our home school moms' group was discussing dictionaries one time and the 1828 came up. At the next meeting a mom brought it, and she read the definition of "marriage" (and a couple of other words I can't recall) from it and a contemporary dictionary. The differences were striking. But, since I don't own one, I don't want to try and paraphrase it from memory from hearing it two years ago!

[Carrie12345]

Take "thou shall not kill". Is this an absolute moral truth, or a religious construct? I think it is very likely a religious construct.

 

I think of it more as a social construct. For humans to live successfully in any type of social environment, there must be certain understood rules. Otherwise, the society would not continue to exist. As social groups grew larger and larger and harder to govern, these rules were ascribed to a powerful deity. Control by fear.

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

Sorry, I don't know how to do a quote within a quote.

 

Personally, I don't see "thou shall not kill" as an absolute moral truth. I also don't refrain from murder out of fear. There just aren't many things that would compel me to take someone's life! I don't need a law or a religion to tell me not to.

[rowan-tree]

I think of it more as a social construct. For humans to live successfully in any type of social environment, there must be certain understood rules. Otherwise, the society would not continue to exist. As social groups grew larger and larger and harder to govern, these rules were ascribed to a powerful deity. Control by fear.

 

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.

[rowan-tree]

I think of it more as a social construct. For humans to live successfully in any type of social environment, there must be certain understood rules. Otherwise, the society would not continue to exist. As social groups grew larger and larger and harder to govern, these rules were ascribed to a powerful deity. Control by fear.

 

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?

[genie]

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.

 

So I take it we are then to believe that Elvis is still alive, too? If I formed a religion around Elvis, then you would have to believe it since he's been seen by thousands of people since his death?

[rowan-tree]

So I take it we are then to believe that Elvis is still alive, too? If I formed a religion around Elvis, then you would have to believe it since he's been seen by thousands of people since his death?

 

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:

[nmoira]

So I take it we are then to believe that Elvis is still alive, too? If I formed a religion around Elvis, then you would have to believe it since he's been seen by thousands of people since his death?

 

DH and I were |--| this close to being married by the pastor of the 24 Hour Church of Elvis. She used to have a shrine downtown, but the think rising rents pushed her out.

[Jenny in Atl]

So I take it we are then to believe that Elvis is still alive, too? If I formed a religion around Elvis, then you would have to believe it since he's been seen by thousands of people since his death?

 

I don't have time to dig through my massive encyclopedia of world faiths, but there are a number of other ones that have resurrection myths. Many see the Jesus myth most likely taken from the Egyptian myths, as alluded to earlier. Mohammed was said to have come back to speck to his followers for a time. People say they see dead people all the time. Why should we believe a few friends missing their leader? This whole thread is a circular argument. The Christian myth is no more believable or amazing than any of the other faiths, if anything, it's rather boring - not as much flash.

[Jenny in Atl]

DH and I were |--| this close to being married by the pastor of the 24 Hour Church of Elvis. She used to have a shrine downtown, but the think rising rents pushed her out.

 

Even better! The Church of Bob

:lol:

[Mom to Aly]

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

 

Ya know--I have a true phobia of roaches--I mean, truly a phobia, and if anyone mentions them, I have nightmares of them, that is how bad it is. I qualify this as, the real reason for the sacredness of life is because of reincarnation, the worth of the soul, and, if you are a roach, you have nowhere to go as up, so, anyone who does away with you must be helping you.

 

It is the only way I can reconcile them in my mind. Which I try not to do. Ever:ack2:

 

PS I should add that they grow to 22" in India--that is 22. inches!!!!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Without having read ahead, I consider my kids' education to be secular. That is, we don't teach any religion as fact. It has nothing to do with *opposing religion, or considering our own morals and values to be some sort of religion (we don't.)

 

We do teach our personal morals and values as based in fact, in as much as that can be done. We're also tip toeing into comparitive religion. Now, if someone could get on writing an elementary curriculum for that, I would be eternally grateful!

 

Usborne's World Religions is a pretty good spine if you want a good comprehensive source for upper grammar/logic.

[genie]

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?

 

Uh, I certainly hope no one would take something a stranger says on the internet as a source of authority and agree. I'm simply stating my opinion based on my anthropological and philosophical studies and ponderings.

 

Why should we desire for humans to live successfully? What is success in this context? Why is "existence" something valuable for a human?

 

Humans desire to live successfully because life is what we have. What is success in this context? Propagation of the species and the society. Again, existence is valued because it's what we have.

 

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?

 

Again, you don't have to agree with me on anything. You seem to be trying to get me to say that my opinions came from a particular source or authority. Maybe that's how you operate. Personally, I collect vast amounts of information over years of reading and draw my own conclusions based on what I find to be the most logical reasoning.

[rowan-tree]

I don't have time to dig through my massive encyclopedia of world faiths, but there are a number of other ones that have resurrection myths. Many see the Jesus myth most likely taken from the Egyptian myths, as alluded to earlier. Mohammed was said to have come back to speck to his followers for a time. People say they see dead people all the time. Why should we believe a few friends missing their leader? This whole thread is a circular argument. The Christian myth is no more believable or amazing than any of the other faiths, if anything, it's rather boring - not as much flash.

 

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.

[Book Crazy]

Nope. I have a hard time believing that.

 

You want your children to be "open" minded, I'm guessing, so you are raising them in a particular way that you think will benefit them later on. Maybe you are raising them to be kind, or generous, or honest, but you are doing more than just feeding them objective facts. Maybe you unschool to a degree that you don't even think they need to know certain objective facts -- maybe you let them completely design their own course of study and whether they will read or know the multiplication table, or not. You would advise them not to murder, I would wager, and probably teach them tolerance, and not to disparage another's religious beliefs. :leaving: Or then, maybe you really would let your kids do their own thing morally, educationally, and physically, and let the chips fall where they may. That seems like chaos to me.

 

I would be surprised if you gave your children complete freedom to choose their own path in life. If their own path meant running out into traffic from between parked cars, I would expect you do do a little directing.

 

When I say that I am letting my son choose his own path in life, I am referring to whether he wants to follow a religion or not.

 

If he wants to follow the Jewish faith or even Rastafarian faith, that is entirely up to him. As it is, he chooses to be atheist. Would you let your child choose for themselves what religion they choose? What would you say if they choose to follow a different religion or not believe in anything?

 

I don't see how having a Christian education is going to lengthen my or my sons life. We do unschool to a certain extent, but that has nothing to do with my sons path in life. We don't follow a 4 year cycle for history, but we have covered most of the main topics in history. I am an atheist, and I do not need to put the fear of death and what will happen to us when we die into our every day lives to teach my child about the world.

[rowan-tree]

Uh, I certainly hope no one would take something a stranger says on the internet as a source of authority and agree. I'm simply stating my opinion based on my anthropological and philosophical studies and ponderings.

 

Yeah. I guess I wasn't precise enough. I meant to imply my above point that when you chose to believe something, you are relying upon an outside authority, which is what you've basically said.

 

Humans desire to live successfully because life is what we have. What is success in this context? Propagation of the species and the society. Again, existence is valued because it's what we have.

 

 

I believe these propositions would be tautologies.

 

Again, you don't have to agree with me on anything. You seem to be trying to get me to say that my opinions came from a particular source or authority. Maybe that's how you operate. Personally, I collect vast amounts of information over years of reading and draw my own conclusions based on what I find to be the most logical reasoning.

 

No offense intended. I'm not trying to get you to say anything. ;)

[genie]

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.

 

Where did I say that it was?

 

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?

 

Fear is a wonderful motivator.

 

That decision does not become illegitimate simply because it was made out of the fear of danger/death.

 

Nor does it make it divinely inspired.

[Mom to Aly]

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.

 

Well, actually, Christians may believe it, but I really doubt you would find most non-Christians believing it. As a non-Christian, I can say that I believe it is possible, as I believe anything is possible, without it being proven not, but I certainly don't believe it happened without a doubt.

 

And there other things that have happened that are similar. Siddhartha became the Buddha by abandoning his own life. He gained complete enlightenment, and was about to go to Nirvana, but instead sacrificed himself, and returned to Earth as a boddhisatva, as the Buddha, to help others achieve Nirvana, so, basically, it is the same.

 

There are things in each religion that are miraculous, but to say that that proves that religion is correct, whether it is the Buddha returning in his holy form, or Jesus being resurrected, or Lord Krishna giving the song of the Bhagavadgita to Arjuna as they went into battle, or so many other things, that are taken on faith, is really stretching it, in my opinion. Just as I might doubt the resurrection of Jesus, or the Bible, or the parting of the Red Sea and the Ten Commandments being sent down from God, you can doubt the things in Hinduism most Hindus would take as fact. None of those things are "proof" either of those religions are true, not solid, unrefutable fact for the whole world to see, or we wouldn't have such disagreements about religion.

 

As for the "fear" factor in religion, I grew up studying all different religions, allowed to choose when I was old enough. There were some things I had trouble with in Hinduism when I was younger, although, as I age, they do make more sense to me; but a couple of things I have always completely agreed with in it are: it does not believe in Hell or ****ation, as I cannot. In creating us with free will, He also created us as humans, and fallible; I have never understood how anyone could believe He would then condemn us for being just that, allowing us to suffer for all eternity for making an error, such as worshiping the "wrong God", or being the "wrong religion". I also cannot believe in Hell. I do not believe God would allow such a thing; that is why reincarnation does make sense to me, allowing people to work off bad acts here, on Earth, until they are ready for "Heaven".

 

But I do think Hell and ****ation are used to frighten Christians into "doing the right thing". I've seen it in families and churches. I want my daughter to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because she is afraid of eternal retribution.

[genie]

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:

 

That wouldn't be a proper comparison, now, would it? We would have to live in a world exactly like the one out of which Christianity grew.

[Jenny in Atl]

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.

 

Sorry Islam is the fastest growing are, followed by The Bahai Faith, Sikhism, Jainism, then comes Christianity. Yours maybe the largest faith currently, but I see that changing. The old pillars of the faith have fallen (Europe) and the areas with growth are competing with Islam. Jesus lived in Egypt, so it's not hard to believe he may have shared stories of their faith or even the Hindu beliefs he may have learned about during the lost years, with his followers. Why are his buddies any more "authentic" that my great aunt who says her husband visits her in a physical form. She misses him, and wants it to be true.

 

People believe all sorts of things just because others do, not because they make any sense. I'm so glad you have your faith and it brings you comfort. But your pompous belief that it is somehow better than all the others is just that... pompous. I feel this way about all faiths that think theirs is the best, their God is the one true God. You sure have been waiting an awful long time for his return.

[Book Crazy]

People believe all sorts of things just because others do, not because they make any sense. I'm so glad you have your faith and it brings you comfort. But your pompous belief that it is somehow better than all the others is just that... pompous. I feel this way about all faiths that think theirs is the best, their God is the one true God. You sure have been waiting an awful long time for his return.

 

:iagree:

[nmoira]

 

Other religions can exist because they don't require such an outlandish belief. They are all based upon revelation of propositions alone.

Scientology?

[genie]

Yeah I know, it was a bad example. I was trying to think of a good example. I am just saying that our everyday beliefs can probably be traced to religion. So is it possible to be devoid of religion?

 

 

I think it's more probable that religions pulled their laws from the ones that seemed to work the best in their cultural setting.

[rowan-tree]

Sorry Islam is the fastest growing are, followed by The Bahai Faith, Sikhism, Jainism, then comes Christianity. Yours maybe the largest faith currently, but I see that changing. The old pillars of the faith have fallen (Europe) and the areas with growth are competing with Islam. Jesus lived in Egypt, so it's not hard to believe he may have shared stories of their faith or even the Hindu beliefs he may have learned about during the lost years, with his followers. Why are his buddies any more "authentic" that my great aunt who says her husband visits her in a physical form. She misses him, and wants it to be true.

 

Nope. Christianity is still the fastest growing faith. Not sure what your sources are, but app. 6 million Muslims in the Middle East are converting to Xy each year. Furthermore, several estimates conclude that there are more Christians in China than there are people in the US and are predicting that it will be the next major Christian nation.

 

 

People believe all sorts of things just because others do, not because they make any sense. I'm so glad you have your faith and it brings you comfort. But your pompous belief that it is somehow better than all the others is just that... pompous. I feel this way about all faiths that think theirs is the best, their God is the one true God. You sure have been waiting an awful long time for his return.

 

Well, I suppose all "people" fall into that category. No one knows everything, which means all of us must base our beliefs upon another's testimony. That's simply the nature of knowledge and does not, in itself, either authenticate or negate any belief.

 

Yes, my faith brings me comfort, but I think you can see that it is not an un-thought-through faith. However, your accusation that I'm being pompous verges on the nasty. Everyone thinks they're right, else they wouldn't speak. But to think you're right doesn't make you pompous, does it?

[genie]

No other person's claim to have seen a dead person has turned into a world-dominating religion.

 

Timing is so very important.

 

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.

 

The fact that it spread as it did was due to rulers proclaiming it to be the official religion, not because people willingly chose to believe it.

[Jenny in Atl]

Nope. Christianity is still the fastest growing faith. Not sure what your sources are, but app. 6 million Muslims in the Middle East are converting to Xy each year. Furthermore, several estimates conclude that there are more Christians in China than there are people in the US and are predicting that it will be the next major Christian nation.

 

 

Well, I suppose all "people" fall into that category. No one knows everything, which means all of us must base our beliefs upon another's testimony. That's simply the nature of knowledge and does not, in itself, either authenticate or negate any belief.

 

Yes, my faith brings me comfort, but I think you can see that it is not an un-thought-through faith. However, your accusation that I'm being pompous verges on the nasty. Everyone thinks they're right, else they wouldn't speak. But to think you're right doesn't make you pompous, does it?

 

Christian loved to hold on to this... just not true. Rates

And what am I right about... I have never said my belief in God is better than yours. Where did I say that? And nasty is something you have tossed about in a number of your posts. I do think you are a troll. And I feel sorry for those on this board who truly here to learn from each other and not make fun of.

[rowan-tree]

You sure have been waiting an awful long time for his return.

 

Yep. But, then again, lots of things are happening in the meantime - like the continual growth of His kingdom. Yet another authenticating point, i.e., why should Christians continue to believe in a living man who's returning? Why so willing to wait for the Judge of the earth?

[Jenny in Atl]

Yep. But, then again, lots of things are happening in the meantime - like the continual growth of His kingdom. Yet another authenticating point, i.e., why should Christians continue to believe in a living man who's returning? Why so willing to wait for the Judge of the earth?

 

You have found nothing better to do?

[nmoira]

 

Yet another authenticating point, i.e., why should Christians continue to believe in a living man who's returning? Why so willing to wait for the Judge of the earth?

And exactly how is this authenticating?

[rowan-tree]

Christian loved to hold on to this... just not true. Rates

And what am I right about... I have never said my belief in God is better than yours. Where did I say that? And nasty is something you have tossed about in a number of your posts. I do think you are a troll. And I feel sorry for those on this board who truly here to learn from each other and not make fun of.

 

This thread was engaged in a legitimate discussion. No one was judging anyone until you threw out the word "pompous." Yes, I can be nasty. But I'm not in the mood right now. Troll? well, ... the kettle's black.

 

I think it's more accurate to say you don't like my posts because you don't agree with them. That's perfectly understandable. We choose the things we like. We like the things we choose. I think this brings us back to the proximity of my original question.

[Jenny in Atl]

This thread was engaged in a legitimate discussion. No one was judging anyone until you threw out the word "pompous." Yes, I can be nasty. But I'm not in the mood right now. Troll? well, ... the kettle's black.

 

I think it's more accurate to say you don't like my posts because I don't agree with you. That's perfectly understandable. We choose the things we like. We like the things we choose. I think this brings us back to the proximity of my original question.

 

Back to your endless circle, since you really have no point. Have a great night.

[rowan-tree]

Jesus lived in Egypt, so it's not hard to believe he may have shared stories of their faith or even the Hindu beliefs he may have learned about during the lost years, with his followers.

 

I went back through my posts in this thread to see if I'd been trollish, because, given my unfortunate inclination to be mean-spirited, I might have easily stepped over the edge. But I've tried to amend my ways somewhat even in this thread, and honestly attempted to dull my edges. I only offered reasons for finding Xy authentic because it exemplified my point of credibility and that in our respective educational contexts, we all attribute value to outside authorities, which is, in essence, a religious act. That was the point this thread helped me to formulate. My thanks to all contributors.

 

Re: the above quoted section... Egyptian mythology is very clear that it is only gods who die and rise again. And although Jesus claimed to be divine, he never attributed his future resurrection to his divine nature. Neither does Xy claim that He rose because He was divine. Rather, He rose because of His righteous life. And although the other "heroes" recorded in the church's tradition were demonstrably fallen and made mistakes (e.g., Peter). These recorded instances are never glossed over or excused (which, again, I find authenticating, since other religions excuse the actions of their originators). But the claim that this man never sinned is almost as astounding as the claim the he raised from the dead. In short, the character of Christianity has its roots deep within the Jewish tradition, not Egyptian. And the idea that the Jews adapted some Egyptian construct from their time in Egypt during Joseph's day is even more absurd than the claim that Jesus developed his ideas from his stay in Egypt. With all due respect, nicely imagined, though.

[rowan-tree]

The fact that it spread as it did was due to rulers proclaiming it to be the official religion, not because people willingly chose to believe it.

 

Actually, it grew fastest within its original, persecuted context.

[rowan-tree]

And exactly how is this authenticating?

 

For it to be sustained without the visible presence of its leader in conjunction with the promise of his return.

[Laura K (NC)]

Yes, my husband and I are raising our sons in the Christian faith. If they choose something else when they are out of our home then that will be their prerogative and my great pain.

 

I apologize for my post above. I should have never gotten involved in this thread.

 

Peace.

[nmoira]

For it to be sustained without the visible presence of its leader in conjunction with the promise of his return.

 

It's not authenticating to say, "I believe because others believe." It's circular.

[genie]

Actually, it grew fastest within its original, persecuted context.

 

Why wouldn't it grow, with all its similarities to the many pagan religions of the time?

[Haiku]

So, is an opposition to "religion" not somehow a "religious" position?

 

No, because an opposition to religion is not "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (Dictionary.com)

 

After all, a state is an institution with moral principles. Does that not make it somehow religious?

 

No. Where so many religious people go wrong is in the assumption or belief that an absence of religion = an absence or morals. I am religious but not Christian and I can't tell you how many times people have accused those who are either not Christian or not religious of having no morals.

 

Tara

[rowan-tree]

It's not authenticating to say, "I believe because others believe." It's circular.

 

Perhaps. But we all believe things that others tell us, simply relying upon the warrant of their credibility. If we find a credible source, we cast ourselves upon it, even being unable to authenticate it. My point is that faith is essential to knowledge itself. How then can education be "secular" if its very nature requires faith in an outside authority? Again, this implies that our choice is not "secular ed or religious ed?" but, rather "which religious ed?"

[rowan-tree]

Why wouldn't it grow, with all its similarities to the many pagan religions of the time?

 

Yikes! What similarities are you thinking of? As I said above, all the pagan religions "of the time" taught the impossibility of a man raising from the dead.

[genie]

How then can education be "secular" if its very nature requires faith in an outside authority? Again, this implies that our choice is not "secular ed or religious ed?" but, rather "which religious ed?"

 

Because "outside authority" does not equate to "divine authority". Outside authority can be tested and proven. Divine authority can not.

 

You're trying to redefine the word religious. Don't be surprised when the rest of the thinking world doesn't buy it.

[rowan-tree]

Because "outside authority" does not equate to "divine authority". Outside authority can be tested and proven. Divine authority can not.

 

 

What kinds of tests can you contrive to prove Lincoln was the 16th president?