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.