If it was never about you why should it be about others or even something or a book?

Then on that score your insistence is consistent with Genesis account that has the effect of deflating the self-significance of humans by the insistence that humans were 'made'.

The literal flavour of it. Why are you contradicting yourself as you go along? To me that is what I see from your posts.

We try and make an effort to understand even as we all live one day at a time. That entails having pet theories including our own examined. Science.

Having studied history (impartially presumably), what other historical worldviews are out there? You do not have to defend anything for that matter in as much as 'attack' is the best 'defense'.

If you feel no compelling burden of proof to talk about your ground are you honest to talk about another's ground?

@wendz and @ballistic, you're both asking the same questions. You're asking how, or what I mean that God can be re-understood, and how the form of Scripture can change over time.

Firstly, 'God' relates with Man in a context not immediately perceptible to Man. You're born, and as you go for Sunday school or madrassa you begin to form your conception about God, and this conception changes for as long as your stock of knowledge is built. For example one day while experiencing a blackout at home my neighbor's daughter asked me, 'will God bring back the lights?' I found it not only amusing, but that no other answer would do except a 'yes'.

In the next few years she'll laugh at my answer if she remembers our conversation.

Right now I can't pray to God to get a matatu or a plot in Kayole.

The same way for humanity in general. It's dreamed that in the eighth millennium AD humans will be able to tame the sun. Maybe I've gone too far. It's expected that by the middle of this century robots will be more intelligent than Man and even difficult to distinguish from Man. Who will God be then? Who will Man be? What will we pray for?

Yet the fundamental issues will remain. The questions Scripture have tried to answer will still remain. There'll always be points of helplessness, ignorance, aspirations. How will these questions be expressed? That's something only specific to the context.

You're mistaken @swenani. The aim of knowledge isn't to reduce uncertainty. And humans aren't less certain than in the past.

Knowledge must be uncertain given the nature of acquisition and growth. It's like a sea, and we're always in the middle of it. The shore isn't as important now than the present experience. One needs the peace of the moment, and only knowledge can supply that.

And again, knowledge isn't what your religious leader says, or what your professor taught you, knowledge is what you see as true, as good, and moral.

The task of knowledge is the task of experience, of being. Are you less certain than in the past? Then you haven't been working your experience.

@Tycho,if you are in the middle of the sea you are at peace because maybe you are not aware of the existence of the shore(lack of knowledge) but once you become aware that there is exists(knowledge acquisition) a shore line;You can never be at peace.

Knowledge cannot provide peace,only ignorance can and yes I'm less certain than in the past.

At this point the challenge is to give evidence. I give mine to show you're mistaken and you show otherwise.

Then again I have given a precise definition of knowledge as experience that is clear sighted, and good and moral. These are what peace and happiness are about.

Are those who throng the churches for miracles people of knowledge? Are they happy? Show me a person who's suffering and I'll show you an ignorant person.

it's not a misquote... i just created it.... feel free to quote and distribute but ensure that you cite source

@Tycho I think you are contradicting yourself, If knowledge which should supply peace is uncertain, I fail to see how you can be peaceful in uncertain situation; If you are implying that we gain knowledge through experience which is clear (certain),I think we can only be at peace during the process of knowledge acquisition adn not after we have gain it.

For the guys who go to church for miracles, please refer to quote below

Knowledge to me is getting to know that which was unknown to you through experience (being taught by your professor or sheikh is included here) and it isn’t necessarily true, good and moral.That’s why in my thinking, I conclude that acquisition of knowledge by humanity has caused more confusion and uncertainity in understanding the genesis of universe.

@swenani, your task was simple; to show knowledge as suffering. You haven't shown that.

There's a difference between learning and knowledge. Getting to know the unknown is learning. Or may in some cases be knowing. To define knowledge you need to avoid using words like 'know' or 'unknown'.

As for 'uncertainty' and morality I will give you a gem that has guided me through the years. There inside, you shall meet this expression 'trust not in your understanding, and in everything trust in God, and he'll make your path clear'.

https://www.biblegateway...1-9%3A12&version=NIV