Convince me to Convert to Druwayu! We don't do that.
Many people ask: “Convince me to convert to Druwayu.”
The honest answer is simple:
“We share; you determine.” And here’s why that answer is not just a slogan — it is a profound truth about human consciousness, belief, and freedom.
No one can truly convert another person. Even if someone is forced to recite words, go through rituals, or outwardly participate in practices under threat or coercion, that creates external compliance only, not internal conviction or understanding.
Genuine belief arises from personal insight, reflection, and engagement. Authenticity cannot be imposed from outside; no teacher, clergy member, or community can make someone truly embrace a system of thought or spirituality.
In short, conversion is never something that can be done to another person — it is always a choice each individual makes for themselves. Anyone claiming otherwise misunderstands the nature of belief or is attempting coercion rather than genuine spiritual engagement.
Why Druwayu Is Unique
Druwayu’s uniqueness comes from its deliberate and fully integrated synthesis of six pillars, each with a clear purpose:
Science: Objective Understanding — serving as a truth-checking foundation for inquiry.
Logic: Valid Reasoning — providing operational tools to examine beliefs and ideas critically.
Philosophy: Meaningful Inquiry — exploring ethics, existence, and human purpose.
Theology: Sacred Meaning — examining spiritual questions without imposing dogma.
Humor: Comedy as Insight — using comedy deliberately as a cognitive tool to challenge assumptions and provoke reflection.
Absurdism: Self-Defined Meaning — recognizing the universe has no inherent purpose, giving members the freedom to define their own meaning and ethical framework.
Other spiritual or religious movements may include one, two, or three of these elements, but few, if any, integrate all six as mutually reinforcing core components. Druwayu is not a simple collection of compatible ideas; it is systematically structured so that each element informs and supports the others. Science informs ethical reasoning; philosophy clarifies theological reflection; humor and absurdism challenge assumptions and expand freedom of thought. This deliberate integration makes Druwayu distinct from almost every other religious, spiritual, or philosophical system.
Concrete Comparisons with Other Movements
Traditional Churches (Christianity, Islam, Orthodox Judaism): Primarily focus on theology, with limited integration of science or formal philosophical reasoning. Humor is occasionally present in cultural practices, but rarely as a formal tool, and absurdist reflection is absent.
Unitarian Universalism: Emphasizes philosophical and ethical reasoning and often treats science as compatible with belief. Theology is often optional, and humor/absurdism may appear sporadically.
Secular Humanism: Strong emphasis on reason, logic, and ethics; science is central. Theology is generally absent, humor is minimally integrated, and absurdism is largely unexplored.
Parody or humorous religions (e.g., Pastafarianism, Discordianism): Humor and absurdity are emphasized, but structured ethics, theology, and philosophy are weak or secondary.
By contrast, Druwayu actively and intentionally integrates all six pillars, creating a holistic framework for exploring impersonal truth, ethics, meaning, and self-determination. Humor is not merely entertainment, absurdism is not nihilism, and theology is not dogma. Each element is mutually reinforcing, producing a coherent intellectual and spiritual system that is rare in scope and intentionality.
Global Score of Uniqueness
Compared to all known religious, spiritual, and quasi-religious systems — historical, modern, and contemporary — Druwayu scores approximately 90% in uniqueness.
The score is derived through:
Comparing Druwayu’s six pillars and systematic methods against every known tradition, including major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism), indigenous and animistic practices, philosophical religions (Stoicism, Zen, Confucianism), modern spiritual movements (Unitarian Universalism, Bahá’í, New Thought), secular or parody religions (Pastafarianism, Discordianism), and New Religious Movements (NRMs) including online churches.
Identifying where individual elements appear: science, logic, philosophy, theology, humor, and absurdism.
Assessing systematic integration — whether these elements are core, mutually reinforcing, and intentionally designed as part of a single coherent framework.
Adjusting slightly downward for partial overlaps, such as philosophy in Stoicism, absurdist elements in existentialism (Camus, Sartre), humor in Zen or Discordianism, and theology in many traditions.
The result is that Druwayu is exceptionally rare. Other traditions may emphasize one or two pillars strongly, some may include three, but virtually none achieve full integration of all six pillars as core, mutually reinforcing components. The 90% score reflects both Druwayu’s novelty and the few fragmentary overlaps present elsewhere.
The Sense of Genius
The creation of Druwayu demonstrates what can reasonably be called conceptual or combinatorial genius. Synthesizing previously separate domains — science, logic, philosophy, theology, humor, and absurdism — into a single coherent, functioning system is extremely uncommon. For a single person to design this framework — balancing intellectual rigor, ethical clarity, humor, and existential freedom — is profoundly rare.
This is not “absolute genius” claiming unmatched historical superiority; it is high-level synthetic originality. Druwayu does not emerge ex nihilo; it builds upon philosophical antecedents like existentialism, Zen, Stoicism, and humanism. What is remarkable is that it combines these ideas into an operational, coherent, self-consistent spiritual system, something that few traditions have attempted and even fewer have articulated clearly.
Bottom Line
No one can make you a Druan. Participation, insight, and understanding must always arise from your own engagement and reflection. What Druwayu offers is a unique, intellectually rigorous, and humor-infused path toward exploring the universe, ethics, and self-defined meaning. It integrates science, logic, philosophy, theology, humor, and absurdism in a way that is globally unique, scoring ~90% in comparative uniqueness.
“We share; you determine.”
This is the essence of Druwayu. Its originality, deliberate synthesis, and intellectual depth make it a rare and profound system — but the choice, the understanding, and the meaning you derive from it are always yours.
Being an Authority is not Authoritarianism
Discipline and Respect in Druwayu Culture
In Druish thought, authority is fundamentally different from authoritarianism. Authority is earned through knowledge, moral responsibility, and the demonstration of wisdom. It inspires trust, guides behavior, and maintains harmony within the community. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, relies on fear, coercion, or rigid hierarchy. Where authority encourages understanding and voluntary adherence, authoritarianism demands obedience without question.
This distinction lies at the heart of Druish culture. Leaders, teachers, and elders are respected not because they can punish, but because their guidance reflects discernment, fairness, and care for the collective good. Discipline, when necessary, is framed as correction and growth, not humiliation or intimidation.
“Of Rice and Rulers”: A Historical Contrast
The phrase “Of Rice and Rulers” brings to mind a grim historical practice in some Catholic schools of the 19th and 20th centuries. Students were sometimes made to kneel on uncooked rice—an act intended to be physically uncomfortable and publicly humiliating—while wooden rulers or pointers were used to strike hands or legs. These punishments were justified in the name of obedience, penance, or strict discipline.
This approach exemplifies authoritarianism: punishment imposed without teaching, empathy, or respect. It contrasts sharply with Druwayu values, which insist that correction should educate, guide, and uplift, never harm or shame. Druish elders model ethical behavior and impart wisdom through example, dialogue, and ritual, fostering understanding rather than fear.
Why Druwayu Is Not Taught in Schools
One of the reasons Druwayu is prohibited from being taught in public or private schools to children is precisely to avoid the misapplication of authority. The founder of Druwayu established this as a protective custom, recognizing that the subtle line between authority and authoritarianism can be easily crossed in institutional settings.
Schools—particularly those unfamiliar with Druish principles—might reproduce punitive or coercive methods under the guise of instruction, inadvertently corrupting the teachings.
By restricting formal education of Druwayu to appropriate contexts—such as family, community instruction, or controlled ceremonial mentorship—the tradition ensures that children encounter authority as it is intended: guidance rooted in respect, ethics, and communal responsibility. This prevents the harms historically associated with authoritarian schooling, like humiliation, corporal punishment, or fear-based obedience, from infiltrating Druish practice.
The Druish Legacy
For Druans, remembering authoritarian practices of "penance" type demands such as “rice and rulers” serves as a cautionary tale. True authority, as understood in Druwayu, is responsible, ethical, and educative. Discipline is a tool for growth, not domination; guidance is offered to nurture understanding, not fear.
By maintaining strict boundaries around where and how Druwayu is taught and maintained in the custodianship of the Drusidu (the council of Elder Warlocks and Witches) the tradition protects the integrity of its teachings and the well-being of its youngest members.
In Druish culture, the principle is clear: authority should strengthen the individual and the community, while coercion or humiliation weakens both. This enduring wisdom ensures that Druwayu remains a living tradition of respect, moral clarity, and thoughtful guidance.
The word church is surrounded by centuries of tradition, theological interpretation, and linguistic confusion. Many popular claims about its origins are repeated without question, but when examined carefully, the history of the word is far more straightforward—and very different from what many have been led to believe.
The Real Roots: Circle and Ring
The English word church traces back through Old English cirice (also appearing as circe and cyrice) and its related forms in Old High German (kirihha) and Old Norse (kirkja) [Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary]. These variants ultimately reflect the influence of the Old French cercle, which itself comes from the Latin circulus—a diminutive of circus, meaning "ring" [Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary].
The Latin term in turn derives from the Ancient Greek word κίρκος (kírkos), meaning "circle" or "ring" [Liddell & Scott, A Greek–English Lexicon]. From there, the chain of development flows naturally:
Greek: κίρκος (kírkos) → “circle”
Latin: circulus → “ring, circular enclosure”
Germanic borrowings: kirika, kirkja, cirice → “assembly place, congregation”
English: church
This is a clear path of descent, rooted in shape and social form, rather than mystical or mythological derivations.
Circle as Gathering and Community
Why a circle? Because the concept of gathering in a ring was foundational to ancient communal life. A circle was not only a physical shape but also a social form:
Stone circles and clearings served as tribal meeting grounds (cf. Burl, Prehistoric Stone Circles).
Circular settlements housed family shelters, creating community within a boundary.
Circle dances or ritual formations bound people together in celebration, mourning, or ceremony.
Circles of spectators formed naturally around performers, fighters, or leaders.
This was not unique to one culture. Across Indo-European traditions, circles marked sacred and social life. Celtic peoples raised stone circles like Stonehenge. Germanic tribes practiced thing assemblies in circular formations [Davidson, Gods and Myths of Northern Europe]. Even in Greek theater, choruses sang and danced in a ring (choros) [Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy].
Thus, the association of the word with a "gathering of people" came naturally and was carried into later linguistic and religious use.
Clearing Away the Myths
Over time, other proposed etymologies emerged—often advanced to serve theological or polemical agendas. Three particularly common but misleading claims are:
From the Greek kuriakon — This word means "belonging to the Lord" (from kurios, "lord") [Liddell & Scott]. Some early Christian writers did use kuriakon doma ("the Lord’s house") in Greek contexts. However, this phrase did not enter the Germanic linguistic stream directly. It remained a separate term in Greek usage. The Germanic cirice/kirkja forms grew out of the older “circle/ring” root, not out of kuriakon.
From the Greek goddess name Kírkē (Circe) — Because Kírkē is the feminine form of kírkos ("circle/ring"), some modern commentators mistakenly connect church with the mythological enchantress Circe. But this is not a historical derivation. No attested linguistic evidence supports it [Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek].
Directly from kirke to church — While kirke is indeed an early form, the claim that church derives exclusively or directly from it oversimplifies the actual development. Both kirke and church share the deeper root of kírkos/circulus (circle), but it is misleading to act as though one sprang from the other without the broader etymological background [Skeat, Etymological Dictionary of the English Language].
The Modern Myth of Circe
One of the most persistent recent ideas is that church comes from the name of Circe, the Greek sorceress who bewitched Odysseus’s men in Homer’s Odyssey. This is, in truth, a modern fabrication. It conflates similar-sounding words without regard for their very different contexts and histories.
The spread of this myth has less to do with linguistics and more to do with polemics. Some modern writers deploy the Circe claim as a way to suggest that Christianity is secretly rooted in pagan sorcery or that Christians unknowingly worship under a “witch’s name.” This is not only historically false but also a deliberate attempt at distortion.
Why This Matters
Understanding the true origins of church is more than a linguistic curiosity. Words shape how we think, and false etymologies are often used to manipulate or undermine. By clearing away the myths, we see that the word is not some foreign imposition, a pagan disguise, or a theological trick.
Instead, church is a word that reflects one of the oldest human instincts: to gather together in a circle, equal and united. Its history is one of community, not deception.
THE BASICS
For many, understanding how things are connected in Druwayu can seem rather confusing especially with their being so much to teach and learn from as well as how the tradition develops and grows over time. So, with such as what is previously demonstrated the following is intended to make it even easier to comprehend.
There are many that give us a lot nonsense contesting of our tradition and religion claiming it has no actual structure, no clarity, and Especially for new members and those considering Druwayu, unable to relate to it because most don't want to "read all the details." Those who denounce its existence are of no consequence.
After considering those factors, and while it is encouraged one does "read" the details to comprehend Druwayu in depth, for the common person who want's a simple and straight forward set of key points, in that sense I have concluded they are reasonable criticisms and the following is intended to provide that clarity.
Direct relationship with the One and Three: Every person can commune with the One God and the Three Goddesses, whom we call most commonly "The One and Three," without needing an intermediary to define or restrict that connection. This comes through a process of contemplating the Drikeyu in depth. Specifically the realities of the Worloga, Wyrda and Wihas.
The Wihas as universal life essence: All beings carry the Wihas, the living current of creation that guides, inspires, and unites all existence.
Personal inspiration and compassion: Individuals receive guidance not through external dogma but through the quiet voice of insight, empathy, and inner moral clarity.
Equality of all individuals: All members—regardless if they are men, women, boys or girls, social status, lineage, or standing—possess equal worth, spiritual potential, and incontestable natural rights beyond mere opinion or particular beliefs.
Commitment to peace and harmony: The Church values peaceful solutions when possible, respectful dialogue when allowed, and the avoidance of violence wherever possible. This should not be taken, however, we are blindly pacifists. Instead we prefer being pacifists, but ready to defend ourselves and others when no other option from others is given, or if given, demands out blind submission and subservience which we will not do.
Simplicity in living: Druans are encouraged to avoid needless excess and distraction, centering their lives on what nourishes the Wihas around them and as their personal Wight within them.
Service to the community: Acts of kindness, charity, and mutual aid are seen as sacred responsibilities, strengthening the bond of the Druan communities.
Communal unity in decision-making: Decisions are formed through discussion, personal reflection, and shared discernment, seeking unity rather than dominance or hierarchy.
Rejection of rigid dogma: The Church does not bind its followers to strict creeds but instead encourages personal insight and lived experience as pathways to truth.
Reverence for the natural world: The world is viewed as a manifestation of the One and Three; caring for nature honors Them and preserves the flow of Wihas.
Leadership in the First Church of Druwayu
Leadership exists to serve the community, safeguard its values, and help individuals attune to the Drikeyu—not to impose authority.
Roles of Leadership within the Church
Warlocks and Witches
Warlocks and Witches facilitate the flow of community meetings. Their responsibilities include:
Guiding discussions during gatherings and ensuring all voices are welcomed.
Helping the group reach unity in diversity through process and discernment.
Encouraging members to share their insights, gifts, and perspectives.
Keeping conversations focused, organized, and aligned with Druwayu values.
Supporting communication, logistics, and the practical needs of the community.
Elder Warlocks and Elder Witches
Elder Warlocks and Witches serve as experienced guides within the Druwayu tradition. They:
Offer spiritual and emotional support and help others reflect on personal inspiration and compassion.
Assist in discerning the movement of the Wihas in communal decisions.
Nurture the spiritual health, clarity, and unity of the community.
Strengthen relationships and foster an environment of mutual respect.
Serving as Vessels of the Wihas
All leaders—Warlocks, Witches, Elder Warlocks, and Elder Witches—seek to serve as vessels of the Wihas, allowing compassion, insight, and harmony to guide the community rather than gratify an inflated ego or excessive personal ambition.
High Elders of the Church
In Druwayu tradition, the responsibilities of High Elder Warlocks and three High Elder Witches include:
Governing the conduct and integrity of Warlocks, Witches, Elder Warlocks, and Elder Witches.
Upholding the standards, teachings, and ethical practices of the Druan communities.
Ensuring that leadership remains aligned with the Wihas and the principles of the One and Three.
Serving as stabilizing spiritual anchors across all Druan gatherings and councils.
ABOUT THIS CHART
If you like, you may copy and past this in your own social media or print it out for your home or you may also improve this design and provide it here as a member by writing your own posts to share the "propaganda."
“It doesn’t matter if you think a leader is good or bad. If you do not question both, you are already a slave.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“If your religion teaches you must obey or die, it is not faith or devotion. It is terrorism!”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“What you are and who you are is not the same thing. What you are cannot be changed. Who you are can. Never confuse the two, or either with what you do or do not do.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Respect is earned, not given. Tolerance must be limited, for many things are simply intolerable. Only cowards demand both for granted.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“The concept of Religion should only be based in a quest for validation of reality and true objective experiences. It should never be a justification of subjective confirmation biases.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“The concept of Religion should only be based in a quest for validation of reality and true objective experiences. It should never be a justification of subjective confirmation biases.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“The concept that a human being can truly change their biological sex, which does not just shape genitals for reproduction, but the entire physiology based solely on the reality of chromosomes of XX and XY, minus genetic biological defects and abnormalities is pure idiocy promoted as an ideology of utter buffoonery.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“You can call someone whatever you want, or even yourself, however, just because a man calls himself a queen does not change the fact queen is a female title. The same is true for king being used by a woman wont change the reality king is a male title.
Any who claim otherwise have shown they truly are brainwashed and disconnected from reality and often the most perverse of people seeking the destruction of you, your children and nation.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“If is often said to keep your friends close and enemies closer. I am of the opinion the one that came up with that wished to make it easier for an assassin.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Stupidity is as one who takes their legal advice from a convict that they just met, in jail.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“When the laws of the land are selectively imposed, it isn't justice. It is a true expression of tyranny and must be overthrown.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Cowardice and stupidity are the most dangerous of things. It is as being a law abiding victim, demanding more restrictions on gun owners who already abide by laws that are excessive already, and thinking that will change the mind of those who don't care about the law to begin with.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“One armed criminal can kill and control many unarmed and scarred people. One armed person entering a room full of armed and trained people won't be able to kill as many, nor continue to exist thereafter.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“A state or government that claims all children belong to them are not protectors of children. They are the abusers of the children and enslavers of all people.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“I rather be hated for being honest, despised for making mistakes, and condemned for changing my views with more information, than loved as a liar and pretend to be infallible.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Your idea of God and my idea of God may differ. The difference is I do not care and acknowledge God is not the property of any people, nor are any people special or superior to any others regardless what doctrine you draw from.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“The atheist and anti-theist may proclaim they are like monotheists but believe in one less deity. I am like an atheist but believe in four more who are not subject to our diverse desires, urges, whims or wills.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“The idea that all concepts of deities or spiritual entities are merely the expressions of one ultimate pantheistic nebulous "other" or some collective hive mine hybrid poorly outlined philosophic construct and filler is to me as silly as proclaiming a thumb is the same as an supernova.
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“The problem behind the so called conflict between science and religion is not that they are in base context incompatible. The problem is the dogmatism and confirmation biases present in both. Only a willful fool fails to acknowledge that."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Never trust those who impose a claim of complete certainty about anything, especially when it comes to what may or may not become of the self awareness after the moment of death. Life has shown me that those who proclaim certainty are most often wrong. All we can do is speculate and approximate."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Life has shown me that those who proclaim certainty are most often wrong. All we can do is speculate and approximate. And it is from the know approximations of what we do know about life and the universe my beliefs are grounded, and not plugs for holes in knowledge or evidence."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“It does not matter if there is some sort of hereafter or not. Everything that religions proclaim still rest on the here and now as a determination of what will be the state of the hereafter."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Some assume I hope there is no hereafter of any kind. It's quite the opposite. Indeed, I will say I find it to be incredibly wasteful that in all we know about the wonders of the universe that the concept of self and its awareness falls into oblivion the moment the body and brain switch off forever."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"If you waste your life ending life, being afraid to live life within reason for the best you can, or being "good or bad" for the sake of either, instead of living life and striving to be the best you that you can be, you have already robbed yourself of life, a life that will end, and knowing in this life you can only fully die once having failed to strive for the best and gave into the worst."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Make life count for something while you have it, and not for the sake of trying to be like or better than someone else, past or present."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Many say legends never die. Sadly I must disagree. No one knows of any legends from 50,000 years ago despite who now and in the future may say otherwise."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Yes, it is good to strive for independence and self reliance. It is also important to strive to be reliable and work together towards the same goals and mutual support."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Those who proclaim co-dependence, however, is bad in and of itself are also most likely the least reliable and take no sense of personal responsibility ."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Don't live like everyone else owes you everything because you will only end up in debt to everyone else and have nothing left for you."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“I am under no obligation to explain myself to you, nor are you to me. If you feel the need to do so, fine. This still does not obligate me to explain myself to you.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“If you are angry with me because what I say is often true, the problem isn't I am always right. The problem is you haven't learned to avoid being wrong and have not found anything beyond your opinion to assume I am wrong.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“We are all ignorant of something. In fact, many things. I accept that for myself because one person cannot and does not know all things, and only a complete fool thinks otherwise. The difference is, for myself, I take no comfort remaining in such ignorance.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Never trust those who claim someone who disagrees with you is an enemy by default. They are the same promoting a mentality of the tyrannical master and compliant slave.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Never trust someone who is always in agreement with you. Because when your back is turned they are most certainly slandering you to others, or at the very least exposing their cowardice. A true friend has no issues with calling you on your nonsense or needless, unwarranted words and works.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“It's too easy, and rather cowardly to label everything contrary to your view, opinion or beliefs as "hate or hateful" but an effective tool of cowards who often become, when left uncontested, the tyrannical authoritarians accusing all others of the "evils" they are themselves doing and committing.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Woe unto the culture that takes the view that to disagree or to hold a different opinion means the other hates them, For that becomes the seed of needless violence also reinforced by fear by those who control you.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Only the profoundly stupid and easily conditioned confuses authority with authoritarian, and an author as a promoter of authoritarianism. The same cannot comprehend the difference between good leadership and tyranny often being petty little tyrants themselves.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Controlled speech isn't free speech. Its blatant censorship and dictatorship.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Never confuse free speech is blatant lack of responsibility, such as slander and, or, misrepresentation. You are free to express your views and opinions. You are not free to be deceitful or intentionally misleading to misinform and manipulate others."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"True responsibility comes with recognition of the reality that everything has its consequences. How immediate is another matter, but the longer delayed, the more destructive.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
“Sometimes you must do bad things for the sake of good in order to stop unrestrained evil.”
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Don't ask me to repeat myself when I already answered your question. All it proves to me is you were not listening to begin with and I do not like being toyed with."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Life does begin at conception. Not every life is viable. However, those who say "it's just a cluster of cells" should be treated the same way for they do not truly care about life or its preservation."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Be wary of they who proclaim their way or belief or devotion is the only way. For they will be among the first to side with a true tyrannical enslavement of others failing to see they will only enslave themselves as well."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
"Those who demand agreement are often the least agreeable. From them walk away."
— Raymond S. G. Foster
Conclusion
The word church is not a mystical or deceptive borrowing from foreign gods, but rather a practical, communal term rooted in the simple concept of a circle. From rings of people gathered in ritual or council, to circular meeting spaces, to the symbolic unity of community, the circle became the metaphor that shaped the word.
Clearing away the myths shows us that church is not a false mask for paganism or witchcraft. It is instead a word born from the most basic form of human gathering, one that has carried forward across cultures and centuries: the circle of people, standing together.
References
Beekes, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Brill, 2009.
Burl, Aubrey. Prehistoric Stone Circles. Yale University Press, 2000.
Davidson, H. R. Ellis. Gods and Myths of Northern Europe. Penguin, 1964.
Harper, Douglas. Online Etymology Dictionary.
Lewis, Charlton T., & Short, Charles. A Latin Dictionary. Clarendon Press, 1879.
Liddell, H.G., & Scott, R. A Greek–English Lexicon. Clarendon Press, revised 1940.
Pickard-Cambridge, A. Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy. Oxford University Press, 1962.
Skeat, Walter W. An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. Clarendon Press, 1882.
PS. The Word Religion does Not mean what you're told it means
The first part is Re- 'Again.' The part people don't like is the last part is also the same source of the words logos and legion. Don't get your knickers in a knot over this. I will prove it and you can search yourself.
Ligio and Legio are the same words. Just spelled differently.
Ligion is from Ligio and Legion from Legio.
Both come from Old Latin legere.
Legere can be used as "read, gather, army, collect, and speak."
Legion = an Army ( a collective of soldiers/warriors ).
It also linked to Lexicon from Latin lexicon, from Greek lexikon," from neuter of lexikos "pertaining to words," from lexis "a word, a phrase; reason; way of speech, diction, style."
is akin to Lex (law) and grom Latin legalis "pertaining to the law," from lex (genitive legis) "an enactment; a precept, regulation, principle, rule; formal proposition for a law, motion, bill; a contract, arrangement, contrivance." from the root leg as in legere and legal.
In Greek it occurs legein "to say, tell, speak, declare; to count," originally, in Homer, "to pick out, select, collect, enumerate;" lexis "speech, diction;" logos "word, speech, thought, account."
Logos also is where we get the word Logo used in the context of an image as a condensed from of Logogram as a combination of logo- 'word, expression, concept' + gramma 'written, marked, drawn, etched.'
So, the literal meaning of Religion is 'Collect Again.' It had nothing to do with concepts of beliefs. It was used as a term in Imperial Roman ideology to regather and reunite all the territories that were once under the Roman Empire that returned to independence after the Roman Empire collapsed under its own weight.
Combined with Rome's second run as the Roman Catholic Church, it retained the Imperial motivations. When one considers the meaning of Catholic it becomes a phrase rather than an identity. It is from Greek katholikos, from phrase kath' holou "on the whole, in general," from kata "about" + genitive of holos "whole" and in Latin is usually expressed in the concept of Universal or "All Encompassing" in the sense of a desire to control and rule the whole world.
So Roma katholikos relegere would mean and does mean 'The Whole simply "Reunite the whole of Rome." Thus, its a goal more than identity, yet when one asks "what does religion really mean, they get all sorts of "definitions by association' rather than the base meaning of "collect again." It's called hiding a true motive.
Definitions by Association
One of my biggest gripes about modern dictionaries is the intentional failure to state things like they are and failure to grasp definition comes from meaning or the definition itself is meaningless. Or as I generally say, "a definition by association is no definition at all."
Case in point, as for a definition of religion you get things like:
Belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
A particular system of faith (literally devotion/trust) and worship.
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Then it might include something like " Latin religare ‘to bind’ which is half true when considering all that has been presented. It is why some go off the deep end and turn around and proclaim their beliefs are not religion because religion is bondage and bondage is slavery but then the same will complain about someone not being bound to their particular frame of beliefs.
Also the above is more on beliefs and the word faith does not mean belief either. Modern academics are bent on making the majority of people dumber so they are easier to manipulate and have no real tangible hopes or dreams, much less access to correct information.
Note:
Belief literally is a combination of words meaning "By Life" as in those things you live by and by extension, shape your world view and moral or ethical compass. Its loosely stated as "what one holds to be important." While true to a point on the last part, it does not give the based meaning of 'By Life/What one Lives By.' This leave it to also be subjectively applied erroneously.
Faith comes from the same source of Fidelity and means 'trust, reliability, pledge and promise." That is the basis of the word "faithful" meaning truthful, devoted, reliable, and why it is used as a word for loyalty, truthfulness, honesty, and accuracy in fulfilling duty or adhering to facts. But it is not the same as belief.
One can believe someone is faithful and be wrong. One can disbelieve someone is faithful and be wrong. However, faith and belief are NOT interchangeable because they are distinct and nuanced and actually different in linguistics and origins.
Perhaps the proper definition would be: "A collection of concepts, doctrines, opinions and beliefs one may apply personal fidelity to."
At least with this basic definition it covers all the proper relative bits without a bunch of needless and often contradictory concepts subject to misrepresentation, confusion and distortion driven by opinions rather than impersonal objective facts.
