Relda,

Thank you for an excellent and informative post.

“A sharp distinction drawn between the natural sciences and the humanities, however, is fallacious.” – R.

Fully agree. Moreover, where we bring personal knowledge to situations, explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge are said, by Polanyi, to coefficient. This would apply to humanities and science. Sciences and the humanities would have their own domains, which overlap. Yet, our explicit understanding of the science sand humanities is processed via our tacitly knowing. This “tacit dimension” is personal.

The penchant of even philosophers to build hierarchies would seem to be a product of our Classical Western heritage, wherein we have objectification, reductionism and atomisation.

Eastern societies would be more concerned relationships "between" (comprehensive) entities: The relationships between the domains of the natural and the supernatural are permitted to be ambiguous and vague. Also, there are intermediate states, e.g., the Tibetan Bardo and Indian Transmigration existing between reality and the supernatural.

In Christian theology, the realms of the Creator and Created seem to be distinct; as are the realms of the natural and supernatural. Likewise, assigning Earth a part of the Space, as opposed to a natural Earth and the supernatural Heavens was a fundamental threat to the Christian Church. Sells wont be drawn into this topic.

In “Meaning” Polanyi (if I recall correctly), discusses the imaginary and the supernatural; wherein, with imaginary numbers, systems of numbers are ultimately understood, thus, becoming mundane to the mathematics discipline. Alternatively, the supernatural remains super-mundane, i.e. transcendental.

I will need to reflect a little on your articulate comment of Dualism. In the meantime:

Does (inverted) Dualism exist in transubstantiation? That is, the transcendental (the divine) is present in physical reality.
If God is bound with time in physical reality, does this state require a facet of divinity to be other than timeless? Or is the Divine, like one of George’s manifolds, existing in heaven whilst across realities? The presence of God in the Eucharist is, for want of a better descriptor, a co-ordinate?

oh dear..the intelectual pharosies are entering their abstracting quantative word elitisms..[name dropping platitudes]..to quote the deceptivly/simple unpretentious named..oliver..[quote]<<In Christian theology,the realms of the Creator and Created seem to be distinct;>>

why the use of seem..they clearly are distinct..[created/creator..[cant you think of a bigger word..[more definitive than'seems'..?..but that would mean definitivly saying something...if nothing/its an interelation..[that you so absurdly call..'natural'..NEEDS..THE SUPRA-natural to give it animus..[life]

animus was pre the big bang..[as was logus/logic],..or else no big-bang

<<..as are the realms of the natural and supernatural...Likewise, assigning Earth a part of the Space,..as opposed to a natural Earth and the supernatural Heavens was a fundamental threat to the Christian Church.>>what a clever definitive conclusion/sumation built upon..'seems'..but your interlectual intercourse..[not relitive to the reality or not of the christs reserection]..continues its pharoic-essent name-play of interlectual's masticating their educated elitism unwinding...

<<In“Meaning”..Polanyi..discusses the imaginary and the supernatural; wherein,with imaginary numbers,systems of numbers are ultimately understood,>>>..as numbers definitivly can..lol..[be they negative or positive they are quantitive definitives..[1 means 1.definitivly..[and quantivly]

<<thus,becoming mundane to the mathematics discipline.>>and completly ir-relitive to one named quantitive[jesus]..dying/reserecting

but you use the distraction..[to forulate a hypothetical opposing thesis by turning a definitive quantative..into a qualitive presented as an alternative..lol..

<<Alternatively,..the supernatural remains super-mundane,i.e. transcendental.>>..turning supra-natural,..into super-natural,..into mundane...how clever..[lets read your validation...lol

oh..its no/show,..instead we go to the next articulated wank

<<I will need to reflect a little>>..or pro-pound/com-pound it a little?

<<..on your articulate comment of Dualism.>>oh dear go verb-illy hug each-other some other topic

<<In the meantime:Does..(inverted)/Dualism>>ie not duel but singular...

<<..exist in transubstantiation?..>>luckilly you redefine it..<<..That is,the transcendental..(the divine)..is present in physical reality.>>,..it should have read IS IT PRESENT...lol..

but to reply your incomplete question..uterly and completly,..but the inverse is impossable..[spirit animates flesh..[but flesh cant translate its..lol..'natural/animate'..lol..into..the supra/..spirit

<<If God is bound with time in physical reality,>>..he cant be..[think..a car needs..juice/..petrol..[does petrol need a car?]

<<does this state require a facet of divinity to be other than timeless?>>..divinity is totaly imersed in time and timelessness..[time itself is mearly a facit..[all facits belong to the unity/we know as god..[god is not a..'state'..

god is omni-present...omni-potant..[live with it]..k.i.s.s.

OUG,

My recent post was endeavouring to suggest OT Laws were likely borrowed from the Babylonians and/or Canaanites. The Code of Hammurabi 196 & 200 compared against Exodus 21:24 is illustrative. Christians would claim “an eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth” originated in the word of the God Yahweh (or Elohim). Forensics suggest otherwise. The use of tablets might suggest Babylonian origin. If memory serves, the Babylonians built collections of books in sets of ten or eleven. The number ten is perhaps significant.

When Jesus was Man, "How was he bound to reality?,is what I previously asked. If he is in heaven and across realities (including being on Earth, as Jesus the Person, in the first century of the current era), he is not Man. Alternatively, if Jesus delimited, held within temporal reality only, he is not transcending time, and therefore not God.

Aside: It is interesting that Moses is an Egyptian name (even if Egypt is his country of origin).

Oliver,
Perhaps it's best to ignore the terra incognita shown by UOG, but your polite response may certainly give him pause for reflection...

The R.C.’s particular ‘transubstantiation’ theology was made in the formulation of a ‘Christ presence’ - it does present a form of dualism where it separates into a mere and vague incomprehension with physical elements ‘transforming’ into real flesh and blood.

One should view the original eucharist in the milieu of the Passover meal, celebrated by Jesus with his disciples, and in the early church, where the celebration was in the context of an agape or a fellowship meal - only in later centuries was the agape abandoned. The loss of the sense and sensibility of the eucharist as a meal has been theologically and spiritually damaging as it implies the loss of the sense of intimate fellowship and friendship that shared meals connoted in Old Testament and New Testament biblical cultures.

The ‘Church’ becomes truly distinctive and has a lasting spiritual impact on the world when the ‘body’ of Christ overcomes the individualism and egocentricity of the natural man: “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf”.

Interestingly, and to divert a little, the former poster boy of scientific materialism and astronomer, Carl Sagan, refers to a mystic core which sits at the center of our being. He adds that our sense of awe for the beauty, depth, and intricacy of the universe stems from the religious instinct rooted in human nature. The nature and ‘incarnation’ of Jesus certainly gives a material focus to this often vaguely stated aspect.

oliver<<..Christians claim“an eye for/eye”and“a tooth for tooth”..originated in the word>>..that stuff comes from the deciever..[ruler of this realm]..know your masters voice

from your link<<...nursed another child..without/knowledge of the father..her breasts shall be cut-off.>>..sound more like talmud law..[not torah law,..but the numbers you quote,..claimed to come from god..[i suggest others read them..not]

[that stuff COULDNT come from god]..neither the..'mosaic-laws'..of mosus..they are far from gist inherant in the laws ten..[thou shalt not muder et

<<When Jesus was Man,"How was he bound to reality?>>..well him dying on the cross..[for our sins...lol,]..sort of suggests him bound to..'reality'..

<<If he is in heaven../including being on Earth,as Jesus the Person,..he is not Man.>>..he was born of woman..[thus is called man]...he died to the flesh..then proved he lives on in spirit

<<he is not transcending time,and therefore not God.>>he didnt claim to be god,..there are those who CLAIM he is..but they dont read the scriptures properly..[he said i can only do/that i see dad do..[get it]..he cant be his own father..!

i see beasts in the form of man,claimning the right to drink his blood..[eat his body]..claiming to be as the risen/christ on earth[hanging his dead corpse,..

claiming he died for their sins..and see demons gory..made glory,and beg..why they cant see that they do?..satan has made them blind

good human's of the flesh/claiming to be the body of christ..[with their mouths..yet by their deeds are revealed to be far from him]..

''that ye see me do you shall do greater''..[greater than god?..or greater that our best teacher?..who came to reveal we shall all be born again..[even a thief on a cross]

he was offered this realm
he refused it

it was wrote he would return..[to prove he could conquere death..[and did return,..then left...he aint comming back,..

we either go to him follow the light he revealed..[or go to hell by rejecting the love and grace,living love,mercy,..light]..by which he revealed our creator/good/god

this realm belongs to satan...[get it?]

satan who revals in demonic demo-cracy..[de-mock-rc]
..where lives satan..bound to this realm..?

lest we forget jesus was the messiah../messenger..FROM GOD..[john 17]

17:1..When Jesus had spoken these words,he lifted up his eyes to heaven,and said...“Father,..the hour has come;..glorify your Son..that the Son may glorify you,

2..since you have given him authority..to give eternal life to all...

3..And..this is eternal life,..that they know you the only true God,

4..I glorified you on earth,..having accomplished the work..that you..gave me to do.

6..“I have manifested your name..to the people..whom you gave me out of the world...Yours they were,...and you gave them to me,..

7..Now they know that everything..that you have given me..is from you.

8..For I have given them the words that you gave me,..and they have received them and have come to know..in truth..that I came from you;..and they have believed..that you sent me.

11..I am no longer in the world,..but they are in the world,..and I am coming to you...Holy Father,..keep them in your name,..which you have given me,..{IMMMANUEL}..[god with-in us all]..that they may be one,..even as we are one.

12..While I was with them,..I kept them in your name,..immanu-el.!

13..But now..I am coming into you,..and these things I speak in the world,..that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves...

16..They are not of the world,..just as I am not of the world...17 Sanctify them in the truth;..your word is truth.

18..As you sent me into the world,..so I have..sent them into the world...19 And for their sake..I consecrate myself,...that..they also may be sanctified..in truth.

20..“I do not ask for these only..but also for those..who will believe in me..through their word/..testiment..that they may all be one,..just as you,..Father,..are..IN me,..and I..IN you,..that they also may be..IN us..!

22..The glory that..you have given me..I have given to them,..that they may be one....as we are one,!

23 I in them and you in me,.....that they may become...perfectly one

25 O righteous Father,..even though the world does not know you,..I know you,

26 I made known to them your name..[i-man..u-EL],..and I will continue to make it known,..that the love with which..you have loved me..may be KNOWN.....also to be..IN them.