If the resurrection of Jesus and God’s creation of the universe are such an important part of history, then why aren’t we taught about Jesus and God in World History classes? I know it’s easy to say because of separation of church & state. But a man rising from the dead and the creation of the universe fall as much - if not more - into the category of the physical history of the universe than they do into the category of church.
Believe me, a lot of people would love to do just that.
It’s easy to say because of seperation of church and state because that’s the fucking reason.
=D>
The same reason you aren’t taught about the Revolutionary War in church.
The more important question is why aren’t we taught the history of theology in the anthropological context in public curriculum?
Teaching theology in an anthropological context would be like teaching American history without heroes and legends. Theism, like ‘patriotism’, is something a majority of people are raised on – our notions of which are easily undermined by facts. We are pacified, in a sense, by our imaginations.
And simultaneously inspired. 
You can stetch that imagination when attending your worship of choice.
Learning of how theology has come through the ages is not the place for fancy.
Sure, but inspired only insofar as we provide fodder for the imagination. Limiting the input will inevitably limit output, albeit not in direct proportion. Even still, some things are just off limits in many circumstances.
We are allowed to imagine God and the stories from a respective religious text, for instance. But the morality a religion speaks to is often considered objectively – it is what it is, not to be questioned or amended. So, our imaginations are limited as such that they ultimately inspire an appeal to authority. The same goes for parents, teachers, and anyone that claims to speak for a greater good or higher authority. We are inspired to develop a sense of ‘duty’, which is propagated in fairy tale accounts of history.
Of course, there are exceptions, so I’m not positing this as a ‘rule’. In short, to answers Stumps’ question, I think we are afraid of providing an education that doesn’t directly foster obedience and predictability. Parents would bitch to no end and kids would find new ways to challenge authority. Public institutions don’t want the responsibility, so we are forced to assume that responsibility on the outside.
And I think that strategy works in a few different ways. For one it keeps the generation gap tolerable, and the fear thereof manageable. But it also separates those who genuinely want to know [and can handle it] from those who don’t [and probably can’t]. I’m not saying this is the ‘right’ way of doing things, but I suppose I can also understand why parents and teachers struggle to understand their kids. They were raised to be even more narrow minded and stubborn than we are. So they either pass it down or reform themselves. Reform is always the more tedious road, though usually the most beneficial as well. We are just too lazy and afraid to make such a massive collective effort.
But this is exactly my point. Religion in a historical, anthropological context would make our fanciful, whimsical notions of “God” seem far less pertinent to daily life. Could you imagine what that would mean for the billions of people who use “God” as their sole driving purpose in life? To learn their ideas and practices are not so unique or meaningful. To place the responsibility of faith on the believer, rather than some divine authority…
Wouldn’t that seem to invite notions of nihilism instead? People can’t handle that on a mass scale. Even some of those who endeavor such knowledge can’t handle it.
In my own opinion, I think such a course of study would be fantastic. But it would inevitably result in a shit storm at some point.
That is cardinally not true. Nothing of the sort has occurred to me; and I spend a large amount of my time as a student to the anthropological grounds of theology.
If anything, it is what gave me a grand level of en-valuableness (not invaluable) into the faiths of humanity.
As to the shit storm. Good. We need more shit storms.
The train left Carebearland many stops ago.
A man rising from the dead and how the world came into existence aren’t exclusively church. They are part of the physical history of the universe, earth and man. Do you consider the physical history of the universe, earth and man to be such that they should not be taught in school?
If so, then why do we learn about tectonic plates, magicians, stunts, gravity, medical treatment, inventions, meteorites, galaxies, etc in school? And why is Christmas a federal holiday in which all schools are shut down?
Perhaps I should reword my question. Why do the rising from the dead of a human and how the universe came into existence fall into the category of church when things like gravity, light years, medical breakthroughs and polar exploration don’t?
Is it illegal for a church to teach about the Revolutionary War?
Because the religion of Science can only declare truth to be what it can repeatably (somewhat mindlessly) observe. In the USA, only the State religion can be taught in public schools.
Why don’t unicorns appear in zoology?
I could state anything I want, and many people do, and call it a religion.
There is no special sanction of what can and cannot be claimed by a religion - truly, the religions of humans has claimed several exotic assertions.
Why do we care what they decide is worth their time if we are not among them?
Again, you are asking questions you already know answers to; no idea why you waist your time doing that.
Because creation and the resurrection are religious beliefs. Gravity, light years, medical breakthroughs and polar exploration are not.
However, if you’re implying that these topics are not discussed in church you are very far off.
Also, gravity and light years are not taught in world history. Polar exploration is lightly covered at best, and only substantial medical breakthroughs ever get discussed, and usually in just a general way. There is this thing called curriculum, where specific topics are taught in specific ways in order to create a more cohesive learning process, instead of just talking randomly about different topics with no link between them. It helps people to learn about topics in a more exclusive ways so that they can learn the finer details of things like gravity or polar exploration. So for example, things that are based in science get boiled down into more specific topics like physics or biology, since both subtopics are very extensive in their own.
You can read all about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curriculum
And here is an example of a specific form of curriculum that you can view at your leisure, chosen entirely at random of course: ringling.com/TextContent.asp … lderID=708
Can it repeatedly be observed that there was a Civil War?
Can it repeatedly be observed that George Washington was a revolutionary war hero?
Can it repeatedly be observed that Krakatoa erupted in the late 1800’s?
Dinosaurs do because dinosaur fossils have been found. I’d venture to guess that unicorn fossils have never been found.
Is it Christians who decided that Jesus rising from the dead and the universe being created by a higher intelligent being are religion? Or did non-Christians decide that those would be a religion?
I only know that there is a government mandate that public schools cannot teach about Jesus and God. But who decided that Jesus and God are religion and not part of the history of the world?
I’ll save you the hassle of dancing around.
Look, I don’t believe in gods, or Christianity.
You want my reason for things not being in the history books as they are in religions?
Because they aren’t empirically true.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, get on with something useful and tell us your thoughts on life; not your thoughts on other peoples thoughts on life that you think are silly.
You have opened a mass array of threads to implicitly get around just simply saying, “I don’t believe Christianity”.
Great.
Now what else do you have to offer, because if that’s it then piss off, live some, and then come back and talk.