One thing I have found interesting is the interpretation Christians have made of God's personality over time. Certainly until relatively recent times the Christian interpretation was that of a vengeful, angry being, hell bent on punishment, "the wrath of God" was the accepted norm, and it was very much part of ordinary peoples daily existence as decreed by the religious. There was scant reference to the love of God, it was more the fear of God that was important. Much of the Bible describes God in those negative terms. Then at some point in time God's personality changed, no longer was he interpreted as an angry vengeful being, but become a loving, merciful, compassionate being, an entirely different personality. This change in God's personalty very much reflects the different thinking of man over time. The question being is man the creation of God, or is God the creation of man? The other explanation could be there is more than one god.

Joe,

I generally agree with everything you’ve said there. I particularly appreciate the way you framed it. I think you’ve managed to describe Christianity’s influence in the West in a neutral and less emotionally-charged way.

However, the mentioning Judaism and Christianity together still makes me twitch. For starters, Jewish people don’t like it because Christianity is heresy to them.

The term ‘Judeo-Christian’ has a funny history. It started out as a descriptor for a Jewish person who had converted to Christianity, then it became a means of showing solidarity, and smoothing things over, with the Jewish people after the holocaust. Now, in a post-9/11 world, it’s had a bit of a revival and has become a way of separating us from ‘evil Islam’ in the same knee-jerk way that Americans unconstitutionally plastered ‘In God We Trust’ and ‘… one nation under God’ over everything in the US as a means of separating themselves from those godless communists.

But even removing the reference to Judaism, the referring to our Western culture and values as specifically “Christian” is a remnant of the ‘50s red scare. I see no reason why referring to them as simply “Western” shouldn’t be sufficiently descriptive.

I particularly liked your pointing about ideas “spinning-off” Christianity, though. It accurately portrayed the extent, in my opinion, to which Christianity influenced Western thought and values; in contrast to these likely-exaggerated claims of an “orderly creator” being a necessary ingredient for the birth of modern science, without it ever being explained why order for order’s sake could never have been enough to inspire curiosity.

In fact, given how satisfying “It was God wot dun it” is to so many people, I would have thought the “Creator” bit was more likely to have sapped motivation to investigate further, if anything.

--

Paul1405,

It’s interesting, isn’t it? This god that is credited for providing us with all our morals actually gets its morals from us.

//From the bits and pieces around//

From the bits and pieces around? Seriously, Joe?

From the bits and pieces around, it seems that, yes, there really was a stolen generation.

Evidence or it never happened.

Hearsay, conjecture, speculation and anecdote remain as unpersuasive when the subject is food processing as they do when the subject is history.

//is there anybody on the 'Left' who dares to criticise Islamists for attacking homosexuals//

I might be that way inclined if they weren't so shy; they seem to be like platypuses, these Islamists. If we did have some dick coming on here arguing that gays are wicked because the Koran says so, I'd take him to task over it. But as far as I know, it's never happened. Every time a homophobic comment is logged around here it comes from the very same posters who are most opposed to Muslims. Please alert me if the situation changes.

It's hard to argue with somebody who isn't there. When Muslim runner shows up and starts making a nuisance of himself, I'll be happy to argue with him - but when he's not here there's nobody to argue with, and one looks a bit mental arguing with people who aren't there.

I know they throw them off buildings on the other side of the world, which is appalling. But in Australia - or at least on OLO - they're remarkably quiet and polite. I guess that means they're just up to something, eh Joe? Devious Calormene bastards.

Dear Paul,

«The question being is man the creation of God, or is God the creation of man?»

The human mind has always attempted to explain the unexplainable and describe the indescribable.

God is not a creation of man, but concepts of God are.

If God had any attributes, including for example "creator", then that would have been a limitation of His, thus He would not be worthy of the name 'God'. However, the human mind is finite and cannot grasp unlimitedness, so it keeps imagining God with human-like attributes.

The human mind (and nervous system) cannot stand the ecstatic raw awe at the reality of the presence of God, so it keeps inventing gods with attributes to shield itself and remain within its comfort-zone - and those attributes vary from culture to culture, from time to time and at times even from person to person. While worshipping such imaginary representations of God is inferior to relating with God directly, people are normally not ready to give up their minds, so that's the best they can do for now, which is better than nothing.

Hi Toni,

Sorry, I meant " ..... from the bits and pieces" of information that are available, about halal certification: it does seem as if the only food products that we buy in supermarkets which are NOT halal-certified, for which we pay, would be pork, roo and fish. Glad that's settled.

Nice segue: to the 'stolen generation'. Do you mean Aboriginal kids taken into care for reasons which satisfied a magistrate ? Or do you mean the men in white coats prowling the country in trucks, ready to grab any Black kid they could find, for no particular reason ?

As you request, quite rightly, asserters need to provide "Evidence or it never happened."

Cheers,

Joe

Yuyutsu, I take your explanation and it is a good one. Then I must ask the question What is the purpose of God in the equation? If the attributes of God are simply the figments of the limited mind of man and you imply by your explanation God is beyond the reasoning capability of man, then what is the purpose of God in relation to man. You said "While worshipping such imaginary representations of God is inferior to relating with God directly," I agree worshiping the imaginary is what the vast majority are doing, Christians, Muslims etc without anyone actually admitting it. The more difficult relating with God directly is abstract in that the worshiper may be doing the aforementioned. believing they are truly relating with God. Going to church on Sunday and taking part in the rituals would give one the belief and satisfaction that they are relating with God. Why does God allow all this falsehood to exist in his name?