Whatever our beliefs may be, we usually learn them from
other people through civilisation into a
particular faith or from converting from one faith to
another. The religious convictions that anyone holds
(or not) are thus influenced by the historical and social
context in which that person happens to live.

We are not the passive prisoners of our upbringing.
Of course, but even people who decide to convert
from one belief to another must almost inevitably select
their new belief from the unique range of options that
their particular culture happens to offer at a particular
point in its history.

Of course there are a large number of religions, many of
whose members are convinced that theirs is the one true
faith and that all others are misguided, superstitious,
even wicked. However I don't believe that any of us are
really competent to investigate the supernatural or to
play umpire between competing beliefs. One may be personally
committed to a religious viewpoint or a viewpoint directed
at the social. One thing appears to be clear however, and
that is that regardless of whether or not a supernatural
power exists, religion, like any other institution,
does have social characteristics that can be studied by the
methods of social science. We can study the relationship
between society and religion.

Dear david f,

I just wanted to point out the difference between the two meanings of “culture/cultural” (that cannot be distinguished in English as they can in the Slavic languages) as I thought you used both the meanings without making the difference explicit.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree that the object of worship can be anything. You mention some examples - ideology, patriotism, politics or some self made idols may be other examples - that the jealous God of the Abrahamic religions warns against being worshiped as gods. On the Eucharistic Congress Melbourne 1972 the sociologist Andrew Greeley put it this way: The question is not so much whether god exists; the question is who is your god.

As there are different representations of e.g. gravitation (pre-scientific, Newtonian, Einsteinian, through graviton particles), there are also different representations (depictions) of a much more abstract notion of God that depend on culture, personal education and disposition.

For e.g. a Christian the Father figure is the preferred way of seeing God, a preference rooted in their religion that begot their culture. The Catholic and Orthodox veneration of Mary corresponds also to the psychological yin complement of the yang-worship of God as the Father. Feminists or Yogananda or Wickam worshipers, that you linked to, might prefer the Mother representation of God.

>>So rather than attributing the apparent differences to East/West, we should view them as personal.<<

I think the one does not exclude the other: You might have a personal preference for spaghetti but it is still true that spaghetti are representative of the Italian cuisine.

Dear George:

I used the word, culture, in the three following sentences:

“Christianity not only was intolerant toward other religions but destroyed classical culture and brought on the Dark Ages.”

“The Renaissance reconnected Europe with its pre-Christian past and culture which Christianity had done its best to eliminate.”

“The greatest anti-cultural force in European history was Christianity.”

The adjective, classical, makes it clear that the culture was the art, philosophy and religion of pagan Greece and Rome.

The second and third use of the word was derived from the first.

Let’s look at Dawson’s statement again. Christopher Dawson wrote: "A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture."

If we consider that the religion of the classical word was mainly the worship of the classical polytheistic, pantheon Christianity destroyed that religion and in so doing destroyed the culture. What neither Sellick nor Dawson probably considered was that the peoples of Greece and Rome had a religion. The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire destroyed that religion along with its culture. The Renaissance reconnected with the pre-Christian culture but did not restore the pre-Christian religion which was the base of that culture. The Enlightenment in part questioned the intolerant and authoritarian nature of Christianity which made it so destructive of classical culture and religion.

What missionaries of any kind generally do not take into consideration is that they are destroyers of the religion they are trying to displace. Dawson's statement "A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture." probably did not refer to the destructive nature of Christianity, but the missionary thrust of Christianity is destructive to religion.

' Are you talking about the same Mr Abbott who
stated that living in the outback for the
Indigenous People was a "Lifestyle Choice?"'

David f is obviously ignorant to the fact that in Australia since the secular missionaries (highly paid suckers of the public purse) took over missions for our Indigenous it has led to untold misery for a couple of generations.

//it is still true that spaghetti are representative of the Italian cuisine.//

As a chef, I can confidently state that is unequivocally not the case.

There is a legend that Marco Polo imported it after his travels to the east. This is probably not true, but there is good historical evidence to suggest that Asians invented noodles before Europeans did - and ample contemporary evidence to suggest that they might even love their noodles a bit more than Italians.

//You might have a personal preference for spaghetti//

I do, but that because he is the one true god, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

And not because he is made of spaghetti.

.

Oops ! … in my previous post I wrote : « Greek, Norse and Christian mythologies ». I should have written: « Greek, Norse and Judeo-Christian mythologies ».

Sorry about that.

Here is the corrected post :
.

Greek, Norse and Judeo-Christian mythologies have been largely incorporated into every aspect of Western civilisation. None of this will be lost as long as mankind exists.

Whether any, some or all of these narratives are true or not is of no importance.

That some of us place our faith in them, for whatever reason, is a personal matter. We are free to do so.

It is that freedom that we must cherish, preserve and defend. Without it, life is not worth living :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEVow6kr5nI

.