Sentences with phrase «as complex human»

As complex human beings, it comes as no surprise that our relationships can get a little complicated sometimes.

We no longer perceive the other person as a complex human being, one who may have hurt feelings, or be yearning to connect.

It therefore takes an effort of historical imagination to put ourselves into the shoes of the statue erectors, and understand them as complex human beings.

Even if we abhor the beliefs of others, we are exhorted to see them as complex human beings like ourselves.

Not exact matches

Where we are being connected together as human beings, and together — we have complex problems in the world, and we will solve them better together.

Ten years after «Night of the Living Dead,» Romero made «Dawn of the Dead,» where human survivors take refuge from the undead in a mall and then turn on each other as the zombies stumble around the shopping complex.

Utilizing gigantic data pools, deep learning can identify and interpret complex patterns much in the same way as the human brain.

These robots function as a digital workforce — either completely autonomously or under employee supervision — and free up human capital for more complex tasks.

The biggest hurdle, of course, is what is seen as the future of investing: a dramatic turn toward complex computer algorithms and artificial intelligence - and away from the human touch, the instincts and the judgment honed over decades that once put Miller at the top of the heap.

Instead, the technical and emotional guidance that only a trusted, human advisor (as opposed to robo - advisors, for instance) can offer to investors who are attempting to undertake the complex job of coordinating the accumulation, distribution and transfer of their wealth, is invaluable — particularly in an environment that is likely to deliver lower returns and higher volatility than investors have grown accustomed to recently.

It is far more challenging when trying to replicate processes of nature, because nature is wildy more complex than any human engineering, but as we get smarter and learn more we come closer adn closer to being able to simulate natural conditions and create the expected results.

But I want to respond to people throwing out examples such as: The human body is too complex to have formed from evolution or where did the universe come from, both must have come from god because none of you can explain it.

But I do argue that even if we each had privileged and direct access to, and guaranteed inventory of, our own individual human experience, only a complex dialectical examination could, if anything could, reasonably and nonarbitrarily determine which features of our own experience — individual and human — are essential to experience as such, which are essential to human experience but not to experience as such, and perhaps which are essential to one's own experience but not to human experience as such.

Theism explains everything we observe, argues Swinburne, including «the fact that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains conscious animals and humans with very complex intricately organized bodies, that we have abundant opportunities for developing ourselves and the world, as well as the more particular data that humans report miracles and have religious experiences.»

As human intellect evolved, revelations became more complex.

I prefer to apply lessons learned from a wider range of human experience and condemn those biblical passages as the product of an ignorant, arrogant, bloodthirsty tribe of self - centered nomadic shepherds whose primary characteristics were a raging persecution complex and an unending quest for justification for their major case of the hots for the little girls in the naboring tribes.

Theres a human designer... Would it be logical for something so complex as a living being, animal, humans..

By locating the discussion of evil in the context of the entire cosmic complex, one may overlook the particular powerful role that human beings increasingly play in bringing evil to their own species and to other species as well.

Whitehead did work out a complex theory of value, but my point here is only to indicate that Whitehead's way of understanding human beings as part of nature both requires that we extend the ethical discussion and gives us clues as to how to do this.

Unfortunately, some defenders of theism in the eighteenth century wedded themselves to this view of the complex machine and its maker and associated it with the view that such special forms of the machine as the human body came into existence fully formed in an aboriginal creation.

The complex of ordered energy that is the human body centred on the brain must itself be integrated through its own individual principle of transcendental control and direction - the centred knowing and loving as person which we call our «soul».

your understanding of the change process is very simplistic, because your mind is not open, you specifically believe already in the traditional doctrines, Dogmas as shown in thousands of years of history evolves, and the need for input variables, meaning the diversity of religious belief is necessay because nature through his will is requiring this to happen, we are being educated by God in the events of history.In the past when there was no humans yet Gods will is directly manifisted in nature, with our coming and education through history, we gradually takes the responsibilty of implementing the will.Your complaint on your perception of abuse is just part of the complex process of educating us through experience.

There are more complex, more important human questions than have been addressed by either the stern denunciations of divorce or the accommodating «cheap grace» efforts to bless divorce — or by the heralding of divorce as a liberation from outmoded bourgeois morality.

A human person is an example of such a personal order, and one could extend this image to include larger and more complex corpuscular societies, such as ethnic groups, geographical communities, or subcultures.

For if a husband may lord it over his wife, then it is only a matter of establishing additional categories as the human race increases and civilization becomes more complex: chiefs and little people, conquering tribe and conquered tribes, white people and dark people, rich and poor, the «civilized» and the «barbarians.»

While guarding against a rush to judgment, we can easily think of ministries that are pushing all or many of the current success buttons: they are carried out by a professional elite; they utilize the best marketing and media techniques; they dispense a personal fulfillment strategy to essentially anonymous folk who are regarded as consumers and called to respond in carefully prescribed ways which do not implicate them or their leadership in the more complex and controversial human issues.

As has been intimated in these posts, human sexuality is incredibly complex.

One way of viewing the religious crisis of our time is to see it not in the first instance as a challenge to the intellectual cogency of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or other traditions, but as the gradual erosion, in an ever more complex and technological society, of the feeling of reciprocity with nature, organic interrelatedness with the human community, and sensitive attention to the processes of lived experience where the realities designated by religious symbols and assertions are actually to be found, if they are found at all.

Human life as a whole is a complex interlacing of such webs of meaning.

You are applying human characteristics to a divine being, that doesn't work.God is more complex than that, you are running a shell game and calling it reason, you are, in this instance and for the cited reason, wrong.God is not a man, his ways are so far above mans ways, they can not be comprehended.You can not reduce God, and cite that as proof.

Addressing this poverty is a complex intellectual task, one that requires articulating the humanness of the human, and presenting children and childrearing as fundamental to the common good.

Stil not evidence that those colonies of bactieria can become a complex multicelled organism such as a frog or a human.

However, if he remains true to his Divine Will as reflected in the Law, it will not be sufficient for him to raise up religious truth in a sporadic fashion without any line of direction or fulfilment: «if God is the Environer of the soul of man, then from the very beginning of man there must be, within his personality and within the complex of human society a God - evoked and God directed line of spiritual truth, and good, and spiritual authority».

Just as the success of the computer depends upon the meticulous preparation of instructions by the programmer, omitting no step in the whole process, so it is assumed that the success of the human learner, who is believed to be (among other things) a very complex cybernetic mechanism, depends upon the scrupulous logical organization of teaching materials.

Even complex phenomena, such as the emergence of the human eye, can be explained by studying simpler versions of the same structure and positing some evolutionary succession of events.

Lumen gentium teaches that «Christ... has founded... his Holy Church»; «has made her visible framework... the dispenser of grace and truth»; «she is a society equipped with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, a visible assembly and a spiritual fellowship»; «we must not think of the Church as two substances, but a single, complex reality, the compound of a human and a divine element» (n. 8).

Between these two reductive positions the social sciences may portray the person as a complex organism equipped with intellectual powers for adaptive adjustment to its environment, both natural and human.

Aristotle described human being as a layered hierarchy of informed matter, the elements fusing together under the impress of a higher - level form to compose tissues, tissues serving as the proximate matter for a yet more complex organizing form at the level of organs, and organs bound into the active, dynamic organism by the yet higher form of soul.

The building block electronic and protonic actual occasions are, in the case of human beings, swept into vastly more complex, Chinese box - like sets of containing societies within which there are social levels that can be identified with cells, others which answer to Aristotle's levels of tissues and organs, and which finally are presided over by what Whitehead refers to as the regnant nexus, a social thread of complex temporal inheritance which, Whitehead suggests, wanders from part to part of the brain, is the seat of conscious direction of the organism as a whole, and answers to what in Plato and Aristotle is called the soul.

Having said that, it is obvious that constructing the case for heterosexuality must be as complex and nuanced as the cultural and spiritual trajectories of the human spirit.

Frustration is not new to human nature; but as life becomes more complex and the means of satisfying material desires more numerous and alluring, frustration at failure to find the deeper satisfactions increases proportionately.

I have suggested elsewhere that value - free technology, the military - industrial complex, and narrow nationalism might be modern examples of such principalities and powers.9 Hendrikus Berkhof suggests that human traditions, astrology, fixed religious rules, clans, public opinion, race, class, state, and Volk are among the powers.10 Walter Wink sees the powers as the inner aspects of institutions, their «spirituality,» the inner spirit or driving force that animates, legitimates, and regulates their outward manifestations.11 They are «the invisible forces that determine human existence «12 When such things dehumanize human life, thwart and distort the human spirit, block God's gift of shalom, the followers of Jesus are rallied for a new kind of holy war.

Nor did they tell us how humans came to have such unique and complex abilities as speech and abstract thought.

Once the exceptional, but fundamentally biological, nature of the collective human complex is accepted, nothing prevents us (provided we take into account the modifications which have occurred in the dimensions in which we are working) from treating as authentic organs the diverse social organisms which have gradually evolved in the course of the history of the human race.

In short, the Nature we know from modern science embodies and reflects immaterial properties and a depth of intelligibility... To view all these extremely complex, elegant and intelligible laws, entities, properties and relations in the evolution of the universe as «brute facts» in need of no further explanation is, in the words of the great John Paul II, an «abdication of human intelligence».»

The features of the human being identified as Homo economicus are abstracted from the complex fullness of human existence.

A corollary of this view, on the part of some scientists, is that the phenomenon of mentality in human beings can be explained by the complex interaction of molecules and atoms in the brain, as epiphenomenon of matter.

In fact, when social scientists contemplate the mutually conditioning relations among human development, family structures, law, commerce, and the overall culture, their situation is similar to that of natural scientists trying to make sense of such complex phenomena as the long - range weather or turbulence in fluids.

Naturally, he does not object to the use of such terminology as «body» and «soul,» provided it is remembered that the human body is essentially a vastly complex society of actual occasions and the human soul is the unifying, purposive agency of the body.

Unlike Pilgrim, with its several moments of intense oneness with nature, or Holy the Firm, with its more complex treatment of nature as a site of worship, Dillard here is bound by the project of the book, which has to do with human design and artifice, to see how far she can go in resisting all humanizing of nature.