Relda and Sells,

Polanyi does argue that at the Christian Church saw itself the custodian of all knowledge. When science usurped religion, he claims science took the Church's old role. The fallacy being that there is non-sciencific knowledge.

Science does put religion on the backfoot based on knowledge. Yet, scientific knowledge is knowledge of a special kind.

Just the same, I guess the will always be a "God of the Gaps". No final scientific thrust, to religions' (with an an "s") perries. The religions will re-invent themselves, even in the face of cosmology and particle physics.

Actually, I feel history and cultural anthropology are worthier candidates than is science at interpreting scripture, because the disciplines state what happened and often why, typcially with counter religionist findings. Science and religion can argue First Cause until the cows come home, yet history can produce a stone table assigning Ashara to be the Consort of Yahweh. Do we have quadry to accommodate God the Mother in ousia?

I know you good folk are aware of his little Book on faith. However, the broader Polanyi corpus, associates believe with indwelling in a performance. Also, he sometimes referred to plays and art in concert with religion. Religion itself to be seen as a form archaism.

Crabsy, Waterboy..&..OUG,

As Christians you can't call people names or bear false witness...you let down your Christ by doing that. Oh how Pharisee-like you are!

Your God is watching and writing in the book Revelation 20:12.

The fact that Christians continually re-interpret their Bible to suit their argument is quite instructive. This has gone on since the year dot of course.

My guess is that they need to do this because they are justifying their faith by the manipulation of the word rather than just possessing a faith alone.

So they defend any contradiction to the nth degree and manipulate the meaning to suit.

I am still waiting to hear the word Allagory used in a church in relation to the Bible. I am still waiting for answers to simple questions from the Bible.

1. Which words are actually God's words?

2. Which words did Jesus actually say?

3. Which words, phrases, sentences or paragraphs did the writers change, modify or alter? Where did they change context?

4. Did God drown innocents in Noah's alleged flood, did he Murder the first born of Egypt at Passover and did he write Moses' crazy laws?

What do your Churches teach? Do they

But more on the contradictions John 5:24 ...he will not be judged...

John 5:27 "...he has given the son the right to judge..."

John 5 :30 "...I judge only as God tells me..."

Why didn't the all knowing, all seeing all powerful Jesus just say "I will judge you" OR "God will Judge you" OR ONLY non-believers will be judged"?

For someone so intelligent he sure waffled on.

And then this gem....John 5:45-47....Moses...is the very one that will accuse you..."

How can God let Moses accuse people after the murders of innocents Moses ordered?

Numbers 31:17-18

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." A pretty good haul 16,000 Numbers 31:36-40

Which loving God do I worship?

opi-2<<I..waiting for answers..>>ask reasonable questions..really seek to hear reasonable answer's,..you number points

<<Which/are..God's words?.>>..those that are live-time/loving..[god lives in real-time[live time]..any good we get comes directly from god..[any bad thought does not come from god..[as god is the only reality only good from god is true..[even a beast in the stable KNOWS its masters voice[is good]

<<Which words..Jesus..say?>>he spoke them not in english[so of all the words..[even those in red][in all my bibles]he spoke not one,..he spoke in arabic,our english words at best can only be translations of their specific/generalised interpritation

<<Which..did the writers change,modify or alter?>>ALL OF THEM..{SEE YOUR POINT 2]

<<Where did they change context?..>>the context is as recorded..from the memories of those who witnessed certain events..[yet as translated/as modified by the writers beliefs..of what they were personally/witnessing/transcribing copying

<<Did God drown innocents>>..NO FLOODS COME FROM RAIN..[the prediction of rain came from god..[the reason blamed,for the rain came from noah]

<<he Murder the first-born of Egypt>>no that came from the first born ritual of letting the first-born eat first..[the grain had gone bad]..source modern science/research

<<did he write Moses' crazy laws?>>the good'laws'come from god..[not murder,..not adulterate gods GOOD..etc..the respect..[no god befor god]..came from mosus]..the logic from traditions

learn to hear the good/god..sends to each of us in real-time,my brother

<<What/Churches teach?>>they teach..as was taught to them..[with the highest intent..[mostly]..but i can only do as i see my father do..[get it?]

<<Do they>>?teach?..i dont go to any church..[god lives in our heart, thus we bring him to any place we go..[jesus revealed a personal living loving god..[we either accept that or know him not]

<<..contradictions/John 5:24...he..will not be judged...>>WRONG..he who hears my words and believes in HIM..has everlasting life..has passed from death into life

<<John 5:27"...given/judge...">>WRONG..has given him authority to exicute judgment..[to tell good from ill]..like even a beast in the stable[to know his gods voice

<<John 5:30 "...I judge..">>WRONG..i do not seek my own will..[but my fathers

<<Why didn't..Jesus..say"I will judge you"OR"God will Judge"OR ONLY non-believers..judged"?>>..BECAUSE HE DIDNT..they are all incorrect..[read 5;34..i do not recieve testimony of man..but i say these things that you may be saved]

OUG et al,

The Laws of the Hebrew God are reflected in the Chuiqq and Torah, long before Moses. Also, see the OT, Genesis 26:5. KJV:

“ … Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

If historical, Moses could have been putting himself in the role a magistrate authorised by his God.

Relatedly, Abraham or his equivalent would have likely borrowed Laws from Babylonian and/or Canaanite myths. The tradition of borrowing is also evident between The Code of Hammurabi and Exodus 21:1-36:

Bible:

http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Exodus+21

Hammurabi:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Regarding the content of above URL sites, it is interesting the way Christians would deny that Hammurabi 196 & 200 were borrowed for Exodus 21:24. Moreover, Moses was not a plagiarist, Christians would have it...

When denial becomes detachment from such clear evidence, the pursuit of God would have one strive for ignorance to achieve understanding beyond knowledge. Such anti-intellectualism is called, Mysticism.

quote oliver<<Abraham obeyed my voice,..and kept my charge,>>thus he HEARD gods voice...lol,

i did visit your 2 de link,they are not like..the ten commandment's..[in-fact it seems more the laws of trade/commerce,..

<<..Marduk sent me/to rule over men,..to give the protection of right to the land,>>..here in the last line[of his preamble]..he reveals not to be hearing gods/good voice..[god gave ALL/all belongs to god]..it is man/ego..who would stupidly claim to own that god alone could claim

<<I did right and righteousness..brought about the well-being of the oppressed.>>..this clearly comes from god..[but then he drifts off into ego..ergo]

<<1..If any one ensnare another,putting a ban upon him,but he can not prove it,then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.>>hardly as important..a first law..as having none before god

<<2..If any one bring an accusation against a man,and the accused go to the river and leap into the river,if he sink...his accuser shall take possession of his house.>>>stuff and nonsense..no where near as clear as showing mercy to thousands

<<But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty,...who..brought the accusation shall be put to death,>>again with this faulse voice of ego...[WHAT DEATH CAN SERVE THE LIFE_GIVER?...man takes away/life god gifted

<<while he who leaped into the river shall take possession./..accuser.>>nothing like do not take the lords authority..[name]..in vain

<<3..If any one bring an accusation of any crime./.he shall,if../..be put to death.>>..not even close to keeping the sabbath day holy..[or thou shalt not murder,..or honour thy mother and father,..or not adulterating gods word..[or not stealing

even if mosus was only sorting the wheat from the tares..[he HEARD the goodly of god[enough]..to make into commandments

[the nutter who ruled under the mess-o-put-paininian,..reeks of ego and ignorance..[though some wisdom clearly must be in the long list that follows...lol

mosus was at least inspired into the basics..[lest we forget the torah[IS SUPPOSED to be the old test]..ok its not.. the torah is more..yet less..because it isnt the complete version..[leaving out the prophescy and the witness/lessons/teachings of the messiah..[and his message][new/testiment]

Oliver,
Polanyi, as with Popper, defended the metaphysical conception of “a reality underlying mathematical relations between observed facts.”

The exact sciences, like logic and mathematics, require a relatively low degree of personal participation but in the natural sciences, the sciences of life, and the social sciences, ‘indwelling’ increases both in profundity and in complexity and reaches its most comprehensive and intimate form in history, particularly in the study of great historical figures. So your expression, ‘worthier candidates’ is quite apt. In order to understand, a person has to become wholly or largely “immersed” in them (i.e. the humanities). A sharp distinction drawn between the natural sciences and the humanities, however, is fallacious. A methodological (epistemological) dualism is rejected because “science, conceived as understanding nature, seamlessly joins with the humanities”.

Realists, and Polanyi appears as no exception, typically take it that the hierarchical ordering of the sciences is paralleled by an hierarchy of comprehensive entities, such as natural systems and processes of varying levels of complexity. Through an evolving process, the cognitive capacities of the mind display emergent features (self-transcendence) and the mind is itself an emergent feature of the body.

Dualism, or the mythic, religious and philosophical view that separates spirit from matter and mind from body, is found in what Paul Ricoeur calls the "myth of the exiled soul." It is an attempt to explain where evil comes from and how we may escape from it. It came to expression in ancient Orphism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism and has persisted down through the centuries in religious and philosophical forms of expression. Numerous thinkers have been shaped by this Platonic-Cartesian tradition. Dualism perhaps gives legitimacy to what we call "inner" experience, but ironically it prepares the way for the materialist interpretation of the world it seeks to avoid. By placing the soul or mind in a sphere radically different from that of physical reality, dualism abandons the physical universe to the realm of the spiritless and mindless. And it is fundamentally the mindlessness of nature that renders it incapable of sustaining purpose – the rationale underpinning scientific materialism.