Sentences with phrase «love of nature on»

Read more about Ecological Responsibility and Love of Nature on our resource page.

Not exact matches

These three brands have tapped into something deeper in all of us with their spot - on video advertising campaigns that, respectively, inspire our love of nature and adventure, our need for human connection and the desire for creative thought and expression.

We transcend ordinary life, as it were, in moments of imaginative, ecstatic insight, sometimes brought on by the power of nature, and sometimes by the power of love, or even by the power of what is ugly or evil.

Contrary to the plati - tudes abhorred by Lamott and put forth often by people who claim to be Christian, putting faith in God does not mean letting go, it means grabbing on to the truth of God, trusting fully in Him, and acting responsively to His love which endures for us despite our undeserving nature.

And wiht the cross in the cartoon another symbol of gods love, the giving nature of God in the soldier posessing the rainbow coloured garment and not forgetting what Jesus said on the cross «father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing».

Assuming it was Christianity, it ameliorated many of the harsh realities of human existence, such as your own death, the death of a loved one, injustice, feelings of being at the mercy of the forces of nature, and so on, gave you answers to questions about life, and so on.

Ephesians 5:21 - 33's teaching on marriage is about changing that view of marriage to one of unity and love — the kind of love that could transform the authority - subordinate nature of first - century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in the New Covenant: oneness, companionship and mutuality.

The process thinkers of our time who have turned their attention to the religious question — the process theologians, as they are usually called — are sure, however, that there is another and sounder conception of God, one which makes love the clue to the divine nature and manner of working in the world and one which is also in accordance with what we know to be going on in that world.

He then utilized terminology that for decades informed the basic stance of process theology on the nature of true power, though, as we shall see, that is open to challenge: God «persuades the world by an act of suffering with the kind of power which leaves its object free to respond in humility and love.»

This self love is sin.God never forced chaos on us.we gave in to satan's lies about evil being an inherent necessity.Jesus said he was the way, the truth and life.He was the life (love) that everyone craves for, he is the truth which meant that his love was our only need and he exposed the lies of satan that we could attain bliss on subordinating people to our cravings.Sinning people don't accept a God who requires us to renounce ourselves because they are not convinced of God's love being enough for them and they are afraid to destroy their identity and live for the Glory of God.So, upon death, these souls realize that the physical world was just a shadow of God's love (the nature, food etc) and their own lies (violence, self love etc) and realize that love is their only need.They pursue it from other soul beings but are hurt that there's only hate and self love.They are afraid to approach the light because they don't want to renounce their identity as they have not recognized God's love before.

Oh, the Calvinists could make perfect sense of it all with a wave of a hand and a swift, confident explanation about how Zarmina had been born in sin and likely predestined to spend eternity in hell to the glory of an angry God (they called her a «vessel of destruction»); about how I should just be thankful to be spared the same fate since it's what I deserve anyway; about how the Asian tsunami was just another one of God's temper tantrums sent to remind us all of His rage at our sin; about how I need not worry because «there is not one maverick molecule in the universe» so every hurricane, every earthquake, every war, every execution, every transaction in the slave trade, every rape of a child is part of God's sovereign plan, even God's idea; about how my objections to this paradigm represented unrepentant pride and a capitulation to humanism that placed too much inherent value on my fellow human beings; about how my intuitive sense of love and morality and right and wrong is so corrupted by my sin nature I can not trust it.

However, unlike the environment of purely material creatures, this relationship of growth to fulfilment is based on freedom of response, because that is the condition of existence as spiritual personality, and it is the very nature of God who is Love.

Does this mesh with the Redemptive Power of Jesus Christ on the Cross and God's Nature and Teaching of «Love your Enemies, Bless those who curse you» etc etc?

The undeniable fact that Jesus loves ALL mankind seems to be lost upon many who profess to follow Him, while the fact that He came to deliver us from the bondage of «natural» desires, those carnal impulses which contradict the spiritual nature for which we were created, seems lost on many others without regard to any principles of character which conflict with the principle «if it feels good, it must be right».

The woman was going on about how she loves the animal and did nt want to harm it but she forgot the nature of what she was dealing with.

This obstinacy is like the infantile notion of a child, who in his lack of judgment even sets up a cleft in the father's nature; for the child imagines that the father is the loving one, that punishment on the other hand is something that a bad man has invented.

But not everyone agrees with us on this issue and the families of those who want nature to take it's course sacrifice so much and love while they do it.

If the history of nature is a result of unilateral, divine control, then God's love must be questioned, for the history of life on earth does not readily attest to the existence of an all - controlling and all - loving God.

This is so spot on to the very nature of our God who is love.

To say, on the contrary, that the Spirit is the personification of the love between the Father and the Son is possibly to confuse the terms person and nature.

On the contrary, because the nature of God is here conceived processively, i.e., as an ongoing process of interpretation and / or self - giving love, the process of creation can be contained within the broader process which is the divine life.

Here we are in the realm of speculation, of course, but we can say this at least: no preacher who knows his business and who is aware of «the wideness of God's mercy» can dare to talk as if only those who have visibly and expressly professed Christian faith are the concern of a deity whose «nature and name» is Love, Thus the preaching of the ordained minister must necessarily err, if it errs at all, on the side of generosity and charity.

Among them will be the Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas on «An Ontology of Love: A Patristic Reading of Dietrich von Hildebrand's The Nature of Love»; philosopher Josef Seifert on «Dietrich von Hildebrand on Benevolence in Love and Friendship»; and literary scholar Brian Sudlow (author of Catholic Literature and Secularization in France and England 1880 - 1914) on «The Non-Violence of Love: A Hildebrand - Girard Encounter.»

Note also the key passages in the New Testament that define the quality of God ~ s love; if our love for one another depends on his love for us, we must get very clear the nature of that love.

And so there live perhaps a great multitude of men who labor off and on to obscure their ethical and religious understanding which would lead them out into decisions and consequences which the lower nature does not love, extending meanwhile their aesthetic and metaphysical understanding, which ethically is a distraction.

«Pope Benedict XVI thawed his previously chilly image yesterday» wrote Bates, «by producing as his first message to his world - wide flock a notably warm rumination on the nature of love.

Newman explains: «A man who thus divests himself of his own greatness, and puts himself on the level of his brethren, and throws himself upon the sympathies of human nature, and speaks with such simplicity and such spontaneous outpouring of heart, is forthwith in a condition both to conceive great love of them, and to inspire great love towards himself.»

Instead, Dark advocates «keeping everything talkaboutable» — a phrase I love, and a phrase I hope describes the nature of our conversations on this blog.

This is where the high poetry of the passage on love in 1 Corinthians 13 or the paradoxes on the nature of sin in Romans 7 have immediate cash value.

A thorough philosopher looking to modify Hartshorne's position might also wish to examine the consequences of using Hartshorne's conception of love as the sole determining factor in the abortion issue, to probe Hartshorne's views on potentiality and to consider the criticisms of those who see Hartshorne's position as too utilitarian in nature.

The whole neo-orthodox case against the liberal doctrine that the orders of this world can be transformed into the Kingdom of love rests ultimately on two propositions about the actual situation of man in nature and in society, which we need carefully to examine.

Actually, the nature of life on Earth makes more sense with a group of malevolent gods who are in constant conflict with each other and don't really care about humans than it does with a single all - powerful loving God.

While following Augustine's lead, new threads were woven into the fabric of his tapestry, including both a refined understanding of the character of God's power and fresh reflections on the nature of God's love.

The interpretation of the present nature of human beings in any situation, as «made in the image of God» and as «brothers for whom Christ died» should be as Persons - in - Relation and destined to become Persons - in - Loving - Community with each other in the context of the community of life on earth through the responsible exercise of the finite human freedom reconciled to God.

Relationships are simply the realizations of possible interactions between two existents (the possibility for interaction depends on the natures of the existents considered), whether they be love and jealosy, a knife and blood flowing from a knife wound, or parents caring for their children.

In short, I contend that the teaching that we are to love every human being is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word «agapeo» into the English word «love» combined with a misunderstanding of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (and, what I haven't touched on yet, a misunderstanding of the nature of God).

With regard to the evangelical insistence on the priority of evangelism, Thomas said that people are not isolated individuals but are social beings inextricably related to the structures of nature, history and cosmos through which they express the creativity of their freedom as well as the sin of self - love and self - righteousness.

Either American democracy is living on social capital inherited from an earlier time when Americans shared a common perspective on life's questions, in which case we face a slow descent into the fragmented and violent world Hauerwas sees; or else the enthusiastic, individualistic and yet genuinely loving piety of Emerson, Whitman and Ellison has a better grasp of our human nature, and it really is possible to be both democratic and virtuous.

Belief in non-violence is based on the assumption that human nature in the essence is one, and therefore unfailingly responds to the advances of love.31

ALL GLORY TO OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN Do you want me to be mute when they slaughter my people, the widowed, the abandoned, the poor and the hapless?The hurt they inflict on my people, how can a father bear his children being killed and left for dead?Therefore, to reinstate love on Earth, hope and my life to sustain my creations, I'm pushed by the unrepentant nature of my creations.

That God's love, manifest in diverse ways throughout the duration of the universe, might come to a full and unsurpassable self - expression in an individual human being who lived and died in the Middle East almost two thousand years ago does not seem incongruous with what we now understand about the nature of an evolving universe, especially if we regard religion as a phenomenon emergent from the universe rather than just something done on the earth by cosmically homeless human subjects.

But Faust is a sympathetic nature, he loves existence, his soul is acquainted with no envy, he perceives that he is unable to check the raging he is well able to arouse, he desires no Herostratic honor — he keeps silent, he hides the doubt in his soul more carefully than the girl who hides under her heart the fruit of a sinful love, he endeavors as well as he can to walk in step with other men, but what goes on within him he consumes within himself, and thus he offers himself a sacrifice for the universal.

I would love to see discussions here, too, on the nature of the universe, quantum theory and emergentism vs. panpsychism.

Can we get light on the nature of the divine love from man's distorted experience of love?

Responding to the kind of theology that suggests hurricanes and earthquakes and school shootings happen because an angry God has lost his temper and is unleashing his wrath and discipline on people whose sin nature makes them incapable of understanding such actions as loving, Kat R. writes:

Great theologians, like Augustine and Aquinas (to name but two), have worked in this fashion; but they were also strangely discontented in doing so, since their real faith was in the biblical God of unfailing love - in - action, effecting his purpose of love in nature and history, and most profoundly open to and receptive of what went on in the world.

Even so, his reflections on the nature of love and what that implies for the nature of God are truly trailblazing.

In terms of such process thinking (about which I have written in Process Thought and Christian Faith, Macmillan, 1968), God is not thought to be simply the absolute, self - existent, unconditioned reality; there is a sense in which these terms are applicable as adverbs qualifying God's essential nature — but that essential nature is God's concrete love, his unfailing relationship with the world, his self - giving and willingness to receive from that world, his openness to «affects» from the world and from what goes on in it.

The requirement of love in marriage is not correlative to the intrinsic nature of marriage but is based on the admonition for Christians to love one another.

Hasker next suggests that my position on the nature of intrinsic value is counter-intuitive by concluding — from my argument that within the Hick1 - lasker type of theism our enjoyment of freedom could be the same whether we had real or only apparent freedom (as Hick himself had said)-- that I would hold that falsely thinking one is loved and knows the truth is «just as valuable» as really knowing the truth and really being loved, so that these latter relations are «not of any worth in themselves.»