Sentences with phrase «as modern human beings»

Never, as modern human beings, can we experience the one - possibility consciousness of a primitive or archaic culture in which myth quite simply is the received construction of the world.

As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia.

Not exact matches

Paleoanthropologists have disproven the basic premise that the modern human digestive system is the same as that of early humans, but research also suggests that a diet of unprocessed, hormone - free meat sources coupled with fresh fruits and vegetables has clear benefits.

Of the people identified as victims of modern slavery in Britain last year, 139 were Polish nationals brought over for labor exploitation with West Midlands Police currently investigating 70 claims of human trafficking from Poland.

«We all have modern human resource management systems, but as a CEO are you willing to step up and say I pay men and women the same?»

Could it have been god telling us how to protect ourselves from disease, germs, and bacteria?Couldn't you see a scientist from today's time, going back to the bible days, and trying to explain, the things we as the human race didn't know till modern times?

I agree with your post, Mr. Stephens — insofar as I believe that a cobbled - together patchwork of Bronze Age myths that sanction slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, and child murder should not be arbitrarily invoked as the sole determinate for notions of morality in the modern world.

By extension, evolving from less advanced life forms is distasteful to those same individuals, as that necessitates a point in evolution at which humans are not really humans at all in the modern sense, which then brings up problems such as «do slugs go to heaven?»

Ancient religions should welcome the political achievements of modernity while calling modernity to open its windows and doors to a world of transcendent truth and love: ``... the great achievements of the modern age» the recognition and guarantee of freedom of conscience, of human rights, of the freedom of science and hence of a free society» should be confirmed and developed while keeping reason and freedom open to their transcendent foundation, so as to ensure that these achievements are not undone....

It does not describe said individuals and their posterity, ancient or modern, as of less worth, or value as human beings than any other group.

It's more important because, as Hart rightly diagnoses, the modern mind is trapped in various false dichotomies — like thinking one has to be a personal theist or an anti-theist, or that the human person is either a ghost in a machine or a machine - generating ghost — and these false dichotomies themselves make it impossible for us to think rationally about topics such as natural law.

One understanding of human nature common to the modern era sees man as standing both above and outside nature (after Descartes, as a sort disembodied rational being), and nature itself as raw material — sometimes more pliable, sometimes less — for furthering human ambition (an instrumentalist post — Francis Bacon view of nature as a reality not simply to be understood but to be «conquered» and used to satisfy human desires).

Looking at society from a modern perspective, there seems to be very little reason not to maximize human happiness, as long as it hurts no one.

Indeed, one could argue, following the historian Christopher Shannon, that the agenda of modern cultural criticism, relentlessly intent as it has been upon «the destabilization of received social meanings,» has served only to further the social trends it deplores, including the reduction of an ever - widening range of human activities and relations to the status of commodities and instruments, rather than ends in themselves.

While a definition of faith as subjectivity — i.e., authentic human existence culminates in faith — could be real in Kierkegaard's time, it can no longer be so at a time when the death of God has become so fully incarnate in the modern consciousness.

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

I see humans read the Bible as if it were written originally by modern day americans using modern day English... one has to remember that the Bible was written from a Jewish culture of 2000 plus years ago..

But where God plays no vital role in human experience and vision, he is either nonexistent, as for the Buddhist, or dead, as for the modern Christian.

The real content of many so - called modern difficulties are as old as the eternal hills, as old as human pride, as hoary as the «non serviam» which was uttered by the first man and has been re-echoed since down the centuries.

(R. M. MacIver: The Modern State, pp. 103 - 104) It was the glory of Roman jurists in the early centuries A.D. that they first conceived the jus gentium, the natural law of all peoples, as incorporating the duties and rights which belonged to human beings everywhere.

Just as Karol Wojtyla undertook a phenomenologically saturated analysis of modern human experience, so must we try to dig deep for an understanding of what is happening under the surface of the events of our own time.

Heidegger's presentation of the possibilities of human existence suggests that they are applicable to man as such, and not, say, only to modern European man.

If you hold that no human death came before sinfulness, then it depends on what you call human (there is a gradation of forms leading up to the modern human skeleton in the fossil record, as well as the overwhelming genetic evidence that we arose through an evolutionary process) and what you consider sin (i.e. when did we become accountable to God for our actions?).

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.

Still, such theorists also continue, as did Kant himself, the modern natural law tradition, at least in the following way: The duties prescribed by nonteleological liberalism are defined in terms of rights that are prior to any inclusive good; that is, these rights are separated from, and respect for them overrides, any inclusive telos humans might pursue.

The comprehensive purpose exiled from modern moral and political thought is reasserted as the purpose of human rights.

Jenkins, on the other hand, describes appreciatively theological schools, from the Orthodox doctrine of theosis to Teilhard de Chardin to the modern «creation spirituality» movement, which one way or another allow humans to share with God in the evolution of the world to a glorious transformation ¯ although, as Jenkins points out, there's a danger that that could veer off into anthropocentric management.

«Scattered throughout these essays are self - affixed labels such as «we anti-representationists,» «we Western liberal intellectuals,» «we partisans of solidarity,» «we pragmatists,» «we new fuzzies,» «us shepherds of Being,» «we enlightened post-Kuhnians,» «we anti-essentialists,» «we moderns,» «we humans,» «we bourgeois liberals,» «we Deweyans,» «we pragmatic Wittgensteinean therapists.»

The particularity of the American regime is counterpoised by its foundation in universal human rights, the modern articulation of our equality as beings created in the image of God.

Just as ridiculous is the post modern response of «they cant change» - which if true would mean that any addiction or sin would be unchangeable despite the facts humans change all the time and I am NOT speaking of through Christ.

In other words, while demon possession may be the best description for some human suffering, and exorcism may be the appropriate cure, the New Testament writers, as well as some modern writers and theologians, urge caution: we should pay as little attention to the demonic as is pastorally possible.

For example, modern economics are now able to indulge their tastes (as economists put it in their cold way) for environmental change, social justice, human rights.

The Bible is replete with dreadful cities like Rameses, as is human history, ancient and modern.

The failures and vast human costs of modern «salvation myths» are now well known, as is the capacity of democratic capitalism to raise up the poor, protect human rights, and allow for unprecedented freedom of thought and action.

I don't consider myself «postmodern» or «emerging» but most of the postmodern / emerging philosophy and theology I have read is a reaction against a modern philosophy and theology which overemphasized «the many» (the human ability to figure things out on our own), and as a result, is not too humanistic, but is almost excessively spiritual.

The first effect of the modern view of history and human existence upon New Testament study was, as we have seen, to focus attention upon the kerygma as the New Testament statement of Jesus» history and selfhood.

This situation is nowhere more clearly described in modern literature than in the novels of Franz Kafka: «His unexpressed, ever - present theme,» writes Buber, «is the remoteness of the judge, the remoteness of the lord of the castle, the hiddenness, the eclipse...» Kafka describes the human world as given over to the meaningless government of a slovenly bureaucracy without possibility of appeal: «From the hopelessly strange Being who gave this world into their impure hands, no message of comfort or promise penetrates to us.

When modern theorists envisage man as a being who knows what he wants, or who at least possesses an «unconscious» that knows for him, they may simply have failed to perceive the domain in which human uncertainty is most extreme.

There is as yet no power able to deal with the major structural changes that are required for justice in the world, so that all persons may have what they need for decent human existence, existence that the modern world has ample means to provide.

In our generation there is danger and hope — danger that these noncognitive accouterments will lose their aesthetic harmony and hypnotic power when integrated with the basic prehensions of science, and be reverted into impotent and empty symbols, jarring, ugly, and without force in final satisfactions: hope that the power of Jesus as lure will reassert itself in an aesthetic context devoid of supernaturalism, a context such that (the language now picks up echoes of van Buren) the vision of Jesus, the free man, free from authority, free from fear, «free to give himself to others, whoever they were «1 — such that this vision in its earthly, human purity will lure our aims to a harmonious concrescence, integrating scientific insight and moral vision and producing a modern, intensely fulfilling human satisfaction.

Fundamentalism rejects the human freedoms which have opened up in the aftermath of the western Enlightenment, and is committed to combat secular humanism and all other aspects of the modern world which it regards as injurious to the spiritual condition of humankind.

To him, this Kingdom was not located in another place called heaven or in a future millennium, but could best be described in modern terms as a level of consciousness in which one recognized the immanence of God in human life and the interconnected, interacting, interdependent nature of the entire human species.

The default options of modern anthropocentrism are to interpret human moral experience as the constructions either of the self or society.

Ancient literature, like modern fairy tales, is full of narratives in which gods and other supernatural beings disguise themselves as human beings, sometimes as the lowest of the low, and roam throughout the world to see how people will treat them.

If «nature» is taken as the modern word for creation, then human beings are part of nature, not outside it.

Darwin's theory of evolution, as understood by most of the modern scientific community, has nothing to say about the «gap» between humans and «lower» animals, because no such gap is recognized.

The problem with the original post is that it drips with all the uncertainty of modern textual criticism without any expressed regard for the active work of the Holy Spirit in the preservation and transmission of God's Word, nor His role as teacher and enlightener of the scriptures to the human heart.

The Confession of Christ as the meaning of the upthrust of human history and the crown of its scientific and cultural progress is contradicted by the modern division of history into Ancient, Medieval, and Modern pemodern division of history into Ancient, Medieval, and Modern peModern periods.

Gaudium et Spes chose to confront modern - day atheism by referring to Christ, not only as the centre, but as the fulfilment of what it means to be human.

Indeed, most cultures in human history have generated no such marvel as the modern scientific movement, and even in our own culture, scientifically oriented as it is supposed to be, most people accept the benefits of technology and use the vocabulary of science but do not in fact choose to abide by the disciplines that alone make scientific productivity possible.