Dear relda,

In reference to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#12521. Up to 7816 we have defined the string please tell me how to get 12521 from the string.

Sells et al. Is my question not worthy of an answer? Could it be you don't have one? Have you gone away to work up a response in your next missive?

I note frantic diversionary dialogue into overcomplicated theological content whilst avoiding even the simplest questions about the title for your article.

I smell a "third strike" Sells, I think the umpire is about to send you back to the pavillion.

“Can we please have an example of religious knowledge, or if you prefer it, “knowing”?

I'm a fan of (GW) Bush bashing myself!

I just want to see if Sells can say anything cogent (modern) on the trinity, or in answer to all these rebukes. I very much doubt it, just as I very much doubt anything cogent could be presented on numerology. But you have to give people a hearing---of course I haven't been giving Sells a hearing for nearly as long as others here, so probably not so jaded.

I've been looking at institutional religion in the US, and Robert Bellah's notion of "symbolic Realism", which accepts that religious truths are mutable rather than immutable; thus, human cultures can reappropriate and modernise ancient religious traditions. It sounds like pure sophistry to me, designed to maintain religious hegemony, going forward, in that benighted "land of the free" (what a joke). Nevertheless, the ostensible premise is interesting; that ethical societies "require" a transcendental component to balance the amoral propensities of scientific rationalism and capitalism, as well as to provide individuals with meaningful totems.
I have my own idea about adapting this notion.
What did Hubbard say, "if you want to get rich, invent your own religion"?
Not my intention, of course. I don't mind getting rich, but I'd spare the world another religion!

"Can we please have an example of religious knowledge ...?"

“Religious knowledge, according to religious practitioners, may be gained from religious leaders, sacred texts (scriptures), and/or personal revelation.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion).

That, of course, is just one possible definition, and probably too terse, but it hints at examples. More generally, Wikipedia will return 255,000 entries on “religious knowledge”, (as well as 3,160,000 on “scientific knowledge”, and 11,000 entries dealing with both “religious knowledge” and “scientific knowledge”). This indeed represents a huge number of resources for everybody to choose his/her examples with the interpretation he/she prefers.

Talking about religious knowledge. The point of the doctrine of the Trinity is that it defines how that knowledge comes to be. So, the Father stands for the truth, the Son the historical event of that truth, and the Spirit the presence of the truth into the future. While I am wary of such definitions because they always fall short of a full expression this one goes some way Notice that in this scheme religious truth includes the experience of the believer in the spirit but that experience is based on the historical event of the Son. My dispute with Tillich is that the self is placed at the centre, his existence is something to be solved, whereas in Barth the starting point of theology is always the Son, an historical event that we can see and hear through the words of Scripture and in the church.

Modernity would insist that all of this could be deduced the reasoning individual. This is where modernity gets it wrong. The age of reason produced a hiatus in the doctrine, as I have pointed out. But reason is not everything. While the doctrine cannot be derived by reason it is not unreasonable, otherwise we would have no way of talking about it. I am at the moment engaged in a PhD at Murdoch university on a Trinitarian topic. While I doubt the university would take astrology or magic seriously, (here I cross my fingers!) they have no problem with theologians discussing the Trinity. All of the oldest and best universities in the world have faculties of theology, it is just in Australia where the completely secular university holds sway and the result is that very few understand the origin of our culture. History teachers complain that students do not know the biblical stories and so much in English literature passes them by.

I keep wondering why so many in this thread are so angry. While I cannot imagine a life without the church many cannot imagine life with it. Why so cross? Why do you hate us so much

Like you a lot more now, Bushbasher, just give me a call if you want any help.

Cheers, BB, WA.