Sentences with phrase «as human interpretation»

Says Booker, «Through my work, I respond to visual phenomena occurring in nature as well as human interpretations of these naturally occurring forms.»

Not exact matches

The Bible is a book, and was «edited» by humans for the telling of a good «story», as with any «good book» there can be many (mis --RRB- interpretations of the text.

After reading several of the posts on the «interpretation of mythical texts into a book called the bible» one is left to wonder how a being who is supposed to have created the universe would permit what is often referred to as «his inerrant words»... to get so screwed up... you would think he / she / it would have been keeping a close eye on a book that he / she / it wanted to have in print for... mass distribution... it is not not a womder the bible is messed up the way it is... it is a «human» construct... only humans could mess a book up that badly... gods do nor make mistakes... except for Rick Santorum

In some cases this appeal to inner intuition might take the form of the claim that each of us has a «non-sensuous experience of the self» which is «both prior to our interpretation of our sense - knowledge and more important as source for the more fundamental questions of the meaning of our human experience as human selves» (BRO 75).

The categories suited to the interpretation of nature are treated in Sein und Zeit as restrictive and devolved forms of the existentials of Dasein, and in general it is denied that nature has any Being outside of the ecstatic - horizonal disclosure space of human historicality.

This model invites students to see the New Testament as the product of a profoundly human process of experience and interpretation, by which people of another age and place, galvanized by a radical religious experience, sought to understand both that experience and themselves in the light of the symbols made available to them by their culture.

And we have an interpretation of human existence as a movement toward love, accepted willingly or rejected selfishly with the inevitable consequences of human fulfillment or nonfulfillment.

In Israel, humans tended to distinguish themselves from the rest of nature, as did many interpretations of the book of Genesis by Christians.

In becoming a model, it has engendered wide - ranging interpretation of the relationship between God and human beings; if God is seen as father, human beings become children, sin can be seen as rebellious behavior, and redemption can be thought of as restoration to the status of favored offspring.

Whereas Marx defined transcendence as the human beings» possibility to move towards the future with freedom and choice, so that they could shape their own destiny, Bonhoeffer gave a this - worldly interpretation of transcendence in which the experience of transcendence is Jesus «being there for others».

But we could too easily replace this shallowness by another, cruel as sentimental attitudes inevitably are, which leaves out of account the presence in human life of the sheerly irrevocable, of that which has been done, and it is now too late to undo, of the damage inflicted on others that can not be put right and that no interpretation can possible render edifying.

However, combine this with the irrefutable observation of humanity that would see human evil as universal in its scope, and combine this with the fact that the VAST majority of human beings disagreed with your interpretation of essential human goodness, and the force of the conviction steels itself.

The problem may not be with rights per se, whose articulation is invaluable to our conception of modern republicanism (and may even help more fully articulate what is true about Christian morality), but with an interpretation that takes rights as the whole of moral discourse and therefore, understands the abstract Lockean individual to be a comprehensive account of the human person.

While we are on this subject, how is it that those who take a high view of the Scriptures are known to produce less by way of creative biblical interpretation than those who either bracket the question or treat the text as a human document?

Their individual interpretations, however, do not differ sharply from one another, as sometimes happens in human communities, for two reasons.

We provide an interpretation for (1) when we specify its domain as the set of all living human beings and let Q be the identity relation.

If this debate is still being carried on by those whose interpretation of human existence is distorted by what I have called falling off to one side or the other of the ridge, this essay will still be as relevant then as it is today, although the tone of urgency in which it was written will indeed be dated.

Once one has given up as incredible and impossible (save for mythological purposes) the Greek idea of a god who comes down to earth and walks about as a human being, there are two possibilities open for the interpretation of Jesus Christ.

Thus with each interpretation the process moves into a new state of affairs.9 In idealist fashion Royce sees human existence as this infinitely expanding community of interpretation.

Of course, an existentialist interpretation does not ignore this other relation, but, as Bultmann's essay shows, the importance of the world in that interpretation is limited to providing the stage for human life.

See paragraph 89 of the Center's lawsuit, which alleges that «CRLP advocates» for «interpretations of existing treaties and other international human rights agreements that favor protection of reproductive rights, including abortion, as internationally recognized human rights.»

What I have particularly in mind is that while there is much talk about taking Jesus as a key to the interpretation of human nature, as it is often phrased, or to the meaning of human life, or to the point of man's existential situation, there is a lamentable tendency to stop there and not to go on to talk about «the world» — by which Miss Emmet meant, I assume, the totality of things including physical nature; in other words the cosmos in its basic structure and its chief dynamic energy.

Thus I am obliged to say, with H. H. Price, that theism, at least in a Christian sense, is «a metaphysics of love»; and with this, I am obliged to affirm that «the world», including nature in its farthest stretches as well as in the intimacy of human existence, is given its proper «interpretation» only when «the key» to it is found in Jesus Christ.

It is so because spirit - filled interpretation is given us by and through bodied authors who must make their way in the world — and in making our way, we humans do not see so clearly or love so dearly or follow so nearly as we might imagine.

For example, Wheeler grants that the «New Testament images and concepts of human transformation such as justification, reconciliation, redemption and sanctification» have a long, rich history of «evangelical» interpretation.

By this interpretation, it seems to me, nothing is more wrong than to treat the Human as though it has been biologically stationary since the ending of the Ice Age.

At this time when hope runs low among men, we should be ready to give as sane an interpretation as we can fashion of the possibilities of human life.

We have to take our interpretations of human behavior as hypotheses and test them against an ever wider range of experience.

But, he said, «the latter history of this culture is not so much a debate between these two schools of thought as a rebellion of romanticism, materialism and psychoanalytic psychology against the errors of rationalism, whether idealistic or naturalistic, in its interpretation of human nature.

We must see the problem of human progress from a Christian interpretation, recognizing that it is not so simple a problem as romantic idealism made it, nor yet so simple as the present somewhat contemptuous rejections of it suggest.

Each of the great religions has also developed its own symbolic language as its interpretation of human existence within the world.

The facts of order from which the physico - theological argument starts are thus easily susceptible of interpretation as arbitrary human products.

This does not present us with facts of the past in their bare actuality, nor does it lead to encounter with human existence and its interpretation, but, as a sacramental event, it re-presents the events of the past in such a way that it renews them, and thus becomes a personal encounter for me.

This passage admits of both monogenetic and polygenetic interpretations, since it is unclear whether the «humanoid population» is to be regarded as the first humans, or the immediate ancestors of the first humans.

But this takes place not by his reproducing the events of the past in memory, but by his encountering in those events of the past (as his own history) human existence and its interpretation.

The interpretation of resurrection as merely the persistence of human or divine memories in «minds made better by their presence» can hardly persist beyond the crumbling of the rememberers.

It persists as a recognizable storied dwelling within the whole horizon of human interpretation.

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.

True, Hook never understood that bit of data as Maritain did, or accepted the interpretation of human life that went with it, but his experience of the movement of human intellect to utter thanks remains a phenomenon to be explained.

I suppose if we could revisit ourselves in a thousand years, look at the historical recordings of ourselves, we will see there are factual basis, but sprinkled with human interpretation of our present time now by those who have appointed themselves as the keepers of what we do, just as the recordings of the Bible were done by those appointees trying to capture there presnt now... yet sprinkled with their best interpretation of what they new then.

She writes that «while many modernists saw scriptural discrepancies as evidence that the Bible was not «true,» postmodernists would attribute discrepancies to the pluralistic situatedness of interpretation,» making the Bible a more true - to - life and authentic account of human interaction with the divine.

Now the interpretation of the perfecting of the human / word process, leading to a threshold of radical change, is both in keeping with the pattern of evolutionary change evidenced in the natural world, and the biblical concept of the eschaton as the threshold of the new aeon, and the total transformation of humanity and cosmos.

In September, Time magazine organized a debate between Collins and Dawkins which touched on all the crucial issues: the false idea that science and faith should be held as not overlapping; the place of Darwinian evolution in the plan of God; the fine - tuning of the physical constants of nature; the literal interpretation of Genesis; the place of miracles including the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus; and the origin of the moral law within the human heart.

Vast numbers of people think that the fact of a relatively settled order of nature, along with the scientific interpretation of change and the description of the inner dynamics of human personality (and much else as well), has ruled out once and for all genuine novelty and made change nothing more than the reshuffling of bits of matter - in - motion.

A brilliant school of interpretation of Greek mythology would have it that in their origin the Greek gods were only half - metaphoric personifications of those great spheres of abstract law and order into which the natural world falls apart — the sky — sphere, the ocean - sphere, the earth - sphere, and the like; just as even now we may speak of the smile of the morning, the kiss of the breeze, or the bite of the cold, without really meaning that these phenomena of nature actually wear a human face.

We live in a time in which there are many different realms of hermeneutical discourse isolated from each other, a «conflict of interpretations» of human expression no one of which can grasp the human condition as a whole.

I see the Bible as a combination of divine inspiration and human interpretation.

«Listener to the Christian message, «2 occasional preacher, 3 dialoguer with biblical scholars, theologians, and specialists in the history of religions, 4 Ricoeur is above all a philosopher committed to constructing as comprehensive a theory as possible of the interpretation of texts.5 A thoroughly modern man (if not, indeed, a neo-Enlightenment figure) in his determination to think «within the autonomy of responsible thought, «6 Ricoeur finds it nonetheless consistent to maintain that reflection which seeks, beyond mere calculation, to «situate [us] better in being, «7 must arise from the mythical, narrative, prophetic, poetic, apocalyptic, and other sorts of texts in which human beings have avowed their encounter both with evil and with the gracious grounds of hope.

For those who accept a religious interpretation of the world and human life, as we are doing in this book, there is another and related point.

Sure, scholarly thought has advanced leaps and bounds in the past 200 years but, like you, there are still camps that treat the Torah as divine and growing on its own rather than its being a human document that has matured as we matured our own skills of reasoning and interpretation.