Sentences with phrase «divine relations to human»

In this case we will use the simile of divine relations to human connections.

Not exact matches

Our anthropocentrism can, he believes, be overcome only by a profound acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God, a consent to divine governance that sets limits to human life and in which we «relate to all things in a manner appropriate to their relations to God» (p. 113).

Thus the relation between a democratic constitution and the preconditions of its positive law would be analogous to that between the human and variable canon law and the divine structures of the Church.

Church laws on the plane of positive human law very definitely stand in closer or remoter relation to the precepts of divine law.

Now, Gudorf contends, present inroads on this tradition insist that: «1) bodily experience can reveal the divine, 2) affectivity is as essential as rationality to true Christian love, 3) Christian love exists not to bind autonomous selves, but as the proper form of connection between beings who become human persons in relation, and 4) the experience of bodily pleasure is important in creating the ability to trust and love others, including God.»

Yet the capacity to split genes and atoms, and to effect the environment on a new scale and in grave ways, is only one reason human power — and its relation to divine power — has become a theological preoccupation.

Appraisal, he tells us, involves discerning (1) the ontological features of the human, especially in its relation to the divine, (2) what is «enduring, true and real» about the tradition, (3) what this truth implies for concrete «choices, styles, patterns and obligations» of life, and (4) the connection between these different levels of truth in the tradition and concrete situations that we confront in our everyday life.

More importantly, the image of divine control presents insuperable problems for theodicy, and this not only in relation to human history but also in relation to the history of nature.

The Basingers believe «that most influential classical theists — e.g., Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin — have affirmed I - omnipotence»; they go on to say that «unfortunately, Plantinga, himself, has not explicitly acknowledged the fact that his analysis of the relation between divine sovereignty and human freedom is basically an attack upon, not a defense of, the view of omnipotence that most classical theists seem to hold.»

In this context a relation between human person and divine creativity, although complex, becomes a meaningful question to consider.

Another point about the common tradition that requires note if we are to make progress toward sorting out the relation between authority and office is that, within it, authority is a term that is applied in a proper sense only to persons, either the divine Persons of the Trinity or human persons who act on God's behalf.

Comprehension is conterminous with man's relation to the human, but faith is man's relation to the divine.

In dealing with the relation of human to divine activity Sölle has written, «At this point process theology is very helpful in understanding the concept of liberation.»

«The fundamental convictions as to relations between the human and the divine are sometimes different [from the American religion] among Catholics, Lutherans, and Jews in America, but nearly all else who are believers are American Religionists, whether they are capable of knowing it or not.»

But religious love is only man's natural emotion of love directed to a religious object; religious fear is only the ordinary fear of commerce, so to speak, the common quaking of the human breast, in so far as the notion of divine retribution may arouse it; religious awe is the same organic thrill which we feel in a forest at twilight, or in a mountain gorge; only this time it comes over us at the thought of our supernatural relations; and similarly of all the various sentiments which may be called into play in the lives of religious persons.

The enjoyment of being occurs when man responds in gratitude and trust to God and by reproducing in his relations with his human companions the quality and intention of the divine love.

With their understanding of the divine - human nature of Jesus Christ and of the ubiquity of Christ in all compassionate and needy companions, Christians are led to see that as the neighbor can not exist or be known or be valued without the existence, knowledge and love of God, so also God does not exist as God - for - us or become known or loved as God except in his and our relation to the neighbor.

What seems important is the distinction of the Church from the realm and rule of God; the recognition of the primacy and independence of the divine reality which can and does act without, beyond and often despite the Church; and the acceptance of the relativity yet indispensability of the Church in human relations to that reality.

These earliest believers solved the problem of the relation of the human and divine in Jesus in precisely the way one would expect — by resort to a view which, in a later form, came to be known as «adoptionism.»

Put in nontemporal terms, there is neither textual evidence nor sensible reason for thinking that a human being would have knowledge of or a relationship to the divine if he had no relations with other human beings.

The primacy of practical reason and of the summu bonum or supreme aim or purpose, has some validity, but should not be allowed to belittle theoretical reason, nor should the relations between human and divine values be allowed to reduce God to a mere means for the production of human good.

(3) There may be a real difference between us in our views of the relation of human to divine action.

Moreover, since it can be applied to divine and angelic individuals as well as human, it defines the human being not only as he is knowable in his relation to the rest of created reality — as one biological species among others, i.e. as a rational animal — but also as he is knowable in his relation to other personal beings, angelic and divine.

It does not belong to any human to «divine» (interesting word choice of yours in relation to Christianity) who «god feels are his followers».

But this gets the relation between human and divine precisely backwards: God does not adapt himself, nor does he alter divine revelation, in order to suit our individual needs.

Similarly, when Socinus and his followers gave their defense of human freedom, even in relation to divine power, and rejected the timelessness of deity to make room for human freedom, who took them seriously?

Among the many issues we follow one clue to the relation of the divine and the human loves.