Sentences with phrase «for radical thinking»

After 23 years of United Nations summits on climate change, the time has come for radical thinking and radical action — a social movement with the power to demand a better future.

Just weeks before the announcement, as pressure ramped up in the corridors of Whitehall, one senior Conservative adviser cut his losses, quit and moved to America after growing disheartened at the lack of support for his radical thinking.

Is this not a situation that calls for radical thinking and vision, and certainly for radical theological thinking and vision, and if this can now only occur subterraneously, is it possible that genuine theological thinking can only be a subterranean thinking?

Those moments can be used to turn the middle into an incubator for radical thought.»

School for radical thought by day, nightclub into the wee hours, this multifarious undertaking will offer classes with the likes of the Rikers Island Debate Project, one - on - one counseling for those affected by incarceration, and a dance club, with Creative Time turning over the keys to nightlife stalwarts like House of Vogue.

Not exact matches

You'd think that even in these crazy times of radical change most people would have learned to stick with what has worked for them — at least until it doesn't work any longer — and also to hang on to the advisors, the tools and the techniques that got them to where they are.

The results of this radical experiment are now in — Roberts has written about his experience in a long, thought - provoking piece for Outside magazine.

«And in example after example, radical notion after radical notion, Jay and Shel don't just make the assertion about something that challenges everything we thought we knew about marketing — they give readers chapter - and - verse examples that make the case for one simple concept after another that... well, could just revolutionize everything.

Fonstad had long been thinking about the radical changes taking place in the workplace, and was «looking for companies that could take advantage of the extensive disruption.»

So what Singapore is doing, which I think is so interesting and is a reminder that there are much more radical fusions of left wing and right wing ideas than people give credit for, is the government is overwhelmingly regulating both supply and prices to keep costs down.

Ray Dalio makes the business case for using radical transparency and algorithmic decision - making to create an idea meritocracy where people can speak up and say what they really think — even calling out the boss is fair game.

I think the volume makes a case for quite radical revisions in thinking about debt management policy.

Jacoby's occasion for recycling this tired truism is David Gelernter's new book, America - Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats), which he thinks is short on arguments and full of shrill right - wing clichés about tenured radicals and rootless intellectuals.

So until we do, you cant blame people for thinking that either the moderate Muslim does nt care about the radicals that much... or they kinda agree wtih them.

However, there are good reasons for thinking that few were really prepared for the radical events of the sixteenth century, which are generally referred to collectively as «the Reformation.»

Theological thinking that folds in the face of imperial interests and supports actions that are destructive of people and of hopes for peace in the world — one definition of demonic religion — is in need of radical challenge.

And here's a radical thought: if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else.

The philosophical discussions of justice after Plato have not been the most fruitful bases for radical social thought.

suffering, true sociality, as qualities of the divine, along with radical differences (as we shall see) in the meanings ascribed to creation, the universe, human freedom, and in the arguments for the existence of God, those inclined to think that any view that is intimately connected with theological traditions must have been disposed of by this time should also beware lest they commit a non sequitur.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the radical Catholic thinks it necessary to engage liberal order in a fundamental, ontological critique, while the neoconservative Catholic settles for a moral, sociological, legal, or political approach.

Do you think that being an «ordinary radical» is to stay in this situation and try making small strides in opening students» eyes about issues such as - why do they just accept that Christians should be for war, etc?

For example, what has come about in the shift of imagery exemplified in the new physics and in emergent thinking generally represents not so much a reaction as a radical reconception of fundamental notions, altering the modern consciousness itself.

Further, I question the adequacy of thinking of any present state as only present, for the present moment is never a mere mathematical point but (as the radical empiricists and phenomenologists have argued) is rather «thick» with past and future.

But probably the biggest reason for her marginal status is that she is a truly radical and original thinker whose thought does not immediately factor with academic theology or indeed with any field of study.

Actually Brehvik does not consider himself a christian in his words, «in the strictest sense», so the first part of your point is moot... Secondly I think a fairer statement would be that not «all» muslims are violent extremists, as many who don't live in western countries are, as their book does instruct them to kill any and all who do not procalim allah as the one god and mohammed as his prophet... As far as having extreme passion for one's beliefs, if someone was truly to be an «extreme» christian that person would be completely loving as this was Jesus» command to love both God and everyone... to take that to the extreme would mean «extreme» loving, like the radical kind of love that caused Jesus to endure the cross for the sins of us all... includinig the man who committed this atrocity and yes any and all of the muslim's who have committed similar things.

Second, in the community of churches in mission called the Council for World Mission (CWM), there have been radical changes in the thinking and practice of mission.

I count myself lucky that I am where I am today, and that even though I am with my deepest regards sorry for what has happened to 9/11 and other radical Muslim attacks, I am also sorry for those poor boys in Afghanistan, who believe they have no life in this world, the boys who will never get a good education, the boys who will never be thought of boys, but terrorists, murderers, and worthy of nothing but dirt by people, never to truly lead a good life.

The rank and file conference member was thinking of the church caring for its children while the campus minister understood clearly the radical nature of the revolution going on.

So Muslims want days off from school for their religious holidays???, when the moderate Muslims start to profess their outrage at the radical Muslims then we'll think about it.

What is his value for theology in this age of radical thinking?

An «offensive», radical Jesus who encourages deep love and care for the poor is only one of the several NT Jesuses, I think.

«I thought I was kind of prepared for that,» he said of witnessing the transformation first hand, but «actually going and over the course of the year seeing what happens to people... there are people who you wouldn't recognized their facial structure, it's such a radical difference.»

I don't think «radicals» is the word we're looking for here.

Since the church and the world exist for each other in the Gospel, radical thinking is necessary in the concept and form of world evangelism.

For him, progressive means good, and mildly socialist but not too radical, and conservative means perhaps rooted in classic traditions, but not fully in tune with current liberal thought.

The crucial significance of religious humanism for new turns in religious thought consists in its illumination of radical freedom / autonomy as the essence of human reality and its program to construct a systematic theology / philosophy on the exclusively anthropological foundation of the functional ultimacy of humankind as the theological singular.

The radicals, following the Barthian disdain for an exclusive use of the historical - critical method, think that it is the overwhelming acceptance of this method as a valid means of investigating reality that is indicative of the death of God in our time.

It is, however, a more radical departure from the conventional three - source hypothesis, for it is seen as totally at variance in form and thought with J and as betraying a vigorous hostility to Israel and its religion.

What he terms «radical imagination» roughly corresponds to an idea introduced twenty — three centuries ago by Aristotle, who discussed two completely different meanings for phantasia — one of which (prime or primary imagination) is, says Castoriadis, that «without which there can be no thought and which possibly precedes any thought» (RI 136 - 137).

When the writings of Wallis and other evangelicals long associated with the Christian left (yes, there was an organization called «Evangelicals for McGovern») are offered up as a «radical biblical way that transcends the highly politicized agendas» of the Christian right and the PC left, one can't help but think that the whole thing is more than a little disingenuous.

I came into this article thinking it was going to be too radical for me, but I found it engaging and thought - provoking.

For in the face of what appeared at the time (1929) to be the radical nature of Russell's views about sex and marriage, some of his most important arguments were, I think, misinterpreted and overlooked.

The theology connected with most process thought asserts that God is finite and does not create in a radical sense; because God is said to be bound by the categoreal obligations, he can not account for why they are normative.

I think the idea of Christian unity is too radical for some people.

But it may be asked, is not this demand of radical obedience contradicted by the thought of reward, which Jesus uses quite simply as the basis for the requirement, as threat or promise?

I take religion to mean not man's arrogant grasping for God (Barth) and not assorted Sabbath activities usually performed by ordained males (the moderate radicals), but any system of thought or action in which God or the gods serve as fulfiller of needs or solver of problems.

Above all, it is convinced that there is need for radical mending and healing all round — healing of the church and its traditions and thinking, healing of society and its centers of vitality and of suffering, and healing of the university and its pursuit of education, knowledge and understanding.

Then the confident words: «For those of you that think that gospel music has gone too far, you think we've gotten too radical with our message, well I've got news for you: you ain't heard nothing yet.&raqFor those of you that think that gospel music has gone too far, you think we've gotten too radical with our message, well I've got news for you: you ain't heard nothing yet.&raqfor you: you ain't heard nothing yet.»

This paper will attempt an assessment of Leclerc's radical position, using as a foil the thought of the baroque scholastic, Francis Suarez.5 The latter was picked to fulfill such a function both because he represents the most complete summation of the older Aristotelian theory of substance Leclerc attempts to appropriate and reinterpret, and because he was the most important scholastic figure for the age that Leclerc sees as both the turning point in the history of the philosophy of nature, and as the golden age of such a philosophy, namely, the modern age (PN 194 - 95).

One can find historical precedent for today's ventures in «second thoughts» in the disillusioned soul - searchings of an earlier generation of leftist radicals — the former Communists and fellow - travelers of the Stalin era.