sells,
I haven’t stated anywhere, “that he [Tillich] was the greatest 20th C theologian”. I did say, however, “…theology is important and I’ll put some weight on one of the foremost theologians this century” - this is perhaps where you may have taken an incorrect inference….. But I do hope you take “the time to investigate further and give.. a fuller response”.

spindoc,
Your admonition, “give away your worldly goods and serve the needy” has a spiritual base and is founded on the code, “love your neighbor as yourself,” - it has also been described as the mother of the commandments (and certainly also embraces, “being kind to one another.”) Here, you show your knowledge of a spiritual principle. ‘Spirituality’ is more related to acting upon (or application of) such a principle. Therefore, per se, “spirituality” isn’t knowledge, just as technology isn’t science. My previous post spoke of two types of ‘knowing’ - one, we “know our finitude” – that’s obvious, we all die. The second type of ‘knowing’ (and apparently no longer as obvious for us), as inferred to by Tillich, is ‘seen’ in another way, but is 'knowledge' (albeit spiritual) nevertheless and can be ‘enacted’ on. Crabsy made reference to “intuition” as a way of “grasping objects as symbols rather than facts’ – it is a good analogy. I haven’t, therefore, confused “knowledge” with the word “spirituality”.

You say that “each scientific or medical achievement presents complex and almost insurmountable technicality” which has culminated in an answer that can be reproduced, i.e. this is the application of “knowledge”. Evolution represents a steady increase of complexity, from inanimate matter to animate matter, and finally the emergence of human consciousness. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, French Jesuit, paleontologist, biologist, and philosopher, believed consciousness and matter are aspects of the same reality - the "within" and the "without". This evolving ‘matter’ is an important aspect for theology to explore and define but it also rightly resides outside the realm of science, and I’d suggest this is where the true ‘power’ of theology lies.

hey Relda.
"Here, you show your knowledge of a spiritual principle."
Really?
I would have thought the principle of being nice to others was more a moral principle, than a spiritual one. If you said being nice to others was a 'soul cleansing' exercise, or was purely for the purpose of getting to Heaven... (with or without the 72 virgins, and the rivers of honey...)
I would have to disagree.
Being nice to others is simply proactive self interest. If we all do it, and if we teach the next generation to do it, there's a better than average chance the world will be a better place.
For everyone.
Including ourselves.
I don't think that's spiritual.
I think it's just smart.
Ultimately, ethics and morality are about survival. Not survival of the fittest, or of the self, but of the species.
There are some radical green groups out there that think our species doesn't deserve to survive, and I can empathise with their point of view.
Maybe I'm not totally objective, but I think if we teach our children to care, and they teach their children to care, maybe one day our species will deserve to survive.
Who knows?

Quite so Grim.

And the problem with 'the religious' is that they do not care.... about anything or anyone but their own cults, and their own welfare.

Just watched the Jews on Dateline stealing Arab lands on the basis that they are 'God's chosen people'.

Indeed.... chosen for what I wonder?

And Xtians are no better, hating Jews for killing Jesus, and all the other rubbish that goes with that.

Thousands of years of vilifying and murdering Jews, and Muslims, and anyone else not of their particular 'brand'.

No, we'd be better off without them all.

Can it be possible to organise a global lobotomy session, I wonder?

Excising the sick part of the brain and leaving the largely unutilised 'social' part?

I doubt it.

Anyway, then there'd be no Sells to amuse us all.

please reply..the 3 questions...lol..with your..knowledge/science

..if you really got..a science..give me...a genus/evolution-tree...[not species]

2.give me the name of that first living thing that evolved...as even science dare not go this far...simplify...was this first...'life'...in salt water or fresh

3.validate a SINGLE EGSAMPLE...OF GENUS EVOLVING INTO OTHER GENUS...again..this is an impossability...as no such event..has ever been reported/..nor observed..

it's concept..[evolution..is thus revealed illusion/theory..not knowledge...not science

ANSWER
..THE QUESTION..using science..


<<last post..failed to..offer an example..of religious knowledge>>>..lol correct..but read its preceeding post

lol

<<six domains..into which all things human..(cognitive)..exist...These are Social,..Political,..Economic, Religious,..Ecological..and Scientific.>>>

what about../law/antisocial/real/delusional/good/bad/need/greed/we even have such sciences/knowings..such as..fiction and non fiction/sport/crime/colluded/and the red flag/patriotic/materialistic/spiritual and black-swan spheres

phycology is..Organized around six domains..of personality functioning/biological/intrapsychic/dispositional/phenomenological,socio-cultural,..and adjustment-adaptive,..Personality Psychology...examines the theories..and research within the context of each of..lol..the domains.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070366055/

how..can one appear..so wise..yet so limited..in your regurgitated opinion's?

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes:../perception/learning/communication,association and reasoning....

The term knowledge...is also used to mean the confident understanding..of a subject..with the ability to use it...for a specific purpose..if appropriate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&ei=5l_tSsZsz52QBeSp_JwP&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CBMQBSgA&q=human+knowledge+domains&spell=1



<<In the real-world,..questions are very complex..but the answers,..when we get there,..are very simple.>>>
..great...so how about replying...the answers...i already done the..''very complex'''..bit...in asking them

<<once the answer..is discovered we can..very simply reproduce it.>>.
..ok i will add a further challange..for you to ignore...

make just one like it...
if science..REPLICATE IT...LOL

<<Theology is precisely/the opposite;>>..lol..your overthinking it...

god is the living love..sustaining ALL LIFE..TO LIVE
god is love...if its not good...its not of god

we love god by loving neighbour
god is..that good still/quiet..loving/voice..that lives within..all[emmanuel]..

<<Institutionalized religion..has capitalized on this..and made it into a global business>>....naturally...but those who know/god is love..know their masters voice...thus..arnt fooled..for one second

<<It..has already permeated domains..such as politics and science..in its quest for more power and affluence>>...mate please rethink...sepperation of church and state...just how does this validate seeking..lol..more power?..trying to retain it..maybe?

<<When will the Vatican follow the tenet>>when they read..the full books..with an open heart...sepperating the fact..[good]...from the deception..

[wrought by those..serving satanic beings...by decieving..from gods children away/from...their creators love

bushbasher,
>>mathematicians ended millenia of waffle about infinity. they mastered the concept, to great effect. calculus is the beef<<
Calculus was introduced by Newton and Leibniz in 17th century, Cantor solved the problem of infinity end of 19th century. So if you are looking for the “beef” if was rather the other way around.

>> if you're referring to me and you<<
No, the context was Dawkins. Nevertheless, you’re right, he does not use these derogatory terms to describe people but world-views, beliefs, concepts etc. he dislikes.

>> i ... consider some of your arguments irrational or ridiculous<<
In distinction to you (and Dawkins?) I do not apply this language to the opinions of people I engage in discussions with or want to criticise, apparently because I am “a little precious”.

>>it is not unfair or impolite to point out that, with all the grand general talk, neither you nor sellick nor reida, nor anyone here, will point to any religious beef.<<
No, it‘s not unfair or impolite, it only shows that you are looking for a confirmation of your choice of a world-view orientation as against the alternative.

I believe asking for a powerful enough argument or evidence - a “religious beef”, whatever that might be - that would force you to change your orientation is not unlike asking for a powerful enough microscope to see a photon. The photon is itself part of the process of seeing, like your world-view orientation is part of how you understand reality and yourself. Nevertheless, photons can be studied, and world-view preferences changed, however it is not that straightforward.

crabsy,
Thanks for a stimulating post.
>>“Intuition” ... a way of grasping objects as symbols rather than facts ... the sensate types demand “data” while the intuitives demand symbols. <<
Except for trivial knowledge (awareness of reality through senses and instruments, referred to as facts) most of knowledge occurs through symbols and models: scientific knowledge through concepts often modelled on mathematics, religious knowledge through concepts modelled on myths (mythologies) or “sacred texts” (c.f. Ian G, Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, SCM 1974)

george, i know you know your mathematical history, but i think you have the wrong end of the infinity stick. calculus is mighty fine beef. and, whatever lack of clear logical foundation, the beefiness of calculus came from newton's and leibniz's precision, and this beefiness was entirely evident in the 17th century. (well, except to bishop berkeley ...) cantor and the other 19th century analysts simply ruled out (mostly) the question of whether the beef was somehow tainted.

of course, if i ask for *any* evidence of the power of a god machine, i do so only to confirm my choice of world-view ...

photons or not, spindoc's question remains, seemingly evermore. kinda like poe's raven.