Sentences with phrase «good they claim humans»

Yep, the same company that makes those delicious, healthy salad dressings, also makes cat food so good they claim humans will be jealous of it.

Not exact matches

LENSAR claims that its VR technology helps surgeons study 3D images of the human eye, which can help doctors better remove cataracts.

Automation, robotics, algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) in recent times have shown they can do equal or sometimes even better work than humans who are dermatologists, insurance claims adjusters, lawyers, seismic testers in oil fields, sports journalists and financial reporters, crew members on guided - missile destroyers, hiring managers, psychological testers, retail salespeople, and border patrol agents.

The best anybody can claim is that there was HUMAN MAN who started a cult following that later Paul exploited to create Paulism.

God using evolution to create shows way more time and dedication to the emergence of humans, but of course the fundamentalists know best and claim to KNOW that genesis was meant to be 100 % literal despite gaps and missing pieces translating from a very simplistic language into English.

Religions incorporated and codified these basic social values and skills, and quickly learned to take credit for them — as if, without the religion, we would be doomed to not have them — although we see them in every human society, including hunter - gather tribes with no sense of gods as we understand them After many centuries of religious domination, enforced through pain of death, ostracization or other social sanctions, allowing religion to take credit, as well as failing to question other religious claims — has become a cultural habit.

Well, you claimed the sum of all human knowledge.

Its easier to related to Muhammad than to Jesus or Buddha because he never claimed that he was of divine origin, he was as shocked at his revelation as anybody else, he frequently said many times «I'm a man amongst men,» he frequently said «all the good that happens comes from Allah and everything that is not good is my fault,» he's very human and that is what makes him relatable.

The central claim is made that moral evil... occurs because God — even though he is all - good and all - powerful — out of goodness decided to give freedom to human beings.

He makes some surprising claims in the chapter on human beings, arguing for a strong Cartesian dualism of soul and body for humans, but claiming that dogs and cats have immaterial souls as well.

Yeah, well, humans who make up stuff, and claim a deity says it, need medication.

The facet of that theory that is of special interest here is the claim that temporality is essential to experience as such and therefore to divine as well as to human experience.

We are simply not claiming to know what god is, what god wants or to think that humans are moral and good because they follow some ancient scripture — or not.

But we maintain, on the contrary, that we know the Jesus of history very well, even if we do not have a precise and photographic account of his day - by - day activities; and the unique claim of Christianity is that in and by those events in the actual realm of historical happenedness, God is revealed — revealed, of course, in and under the conditions of history and human life, but revealed nonetheless.

This claim — that through the incarnation the invisible Divine became both visible and human — marked a critical break with traditional Judaism as well as with Greco - Roman philosophy.

When claims to rights are severed from the just requirements of morality and the common good, the inevitable result is a distorted understanding of human rights that all too often leads to the violation of the rights of others.

While we do not claim that human beings are enslaved by sin, we are aware of the great capacity that humans have for evil as well as for good.

In dealing with sub-atomic particles Heisenberg claimed that human science at best attains probabilities.

Whether or not one thinks it best to start where the Shorter Catechism starts (and I do not), its claim is easy to understand, and yet it is also a profound summary claim of the goal of human life.

The great issues of our time are moral: the uses of power; wealth and poverty; human rights; the moral quality and character of society; loss of the sense of the common good in tandem with the pampering of private interests; domestic violence; outrageous legal and medical costs in a system of maldistributed services; unprecedented developments in biotechnologies which portend good but risk evil; the violation of public trust by high elected officials and their appointees; the growing militarization of many societies; continued racism; the persistence of hunger and malnutrition; a still exploding population in societies hard put to increase jobs and resources; abortion; euthanasia; care for the environment; the claims of future generations.

John Warwick Montgomery, a lawyer and philosopher as well as theologian, provides perhaps the most comprehensive argument by a conservative in his recent book Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Apologetic for the Transcendent Perspective (Zondervan, 1986) He concludes that rights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significant ways.

There can not be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth.»

With more and more attention necessarily riveted on matters of morality and ethics, it is hardly a surprise that we ask about moral content as a measure of the meaning of any God - talk, and test the potency of faith claims by the difference they make for human well - being and the well - being of the wider creation.

They do this by elevating these biases to not being merely human biases but God's biases and then claiming that anything that God thinks is good by definition so the biases must be good and correct.

rhetoric worked a lot better, and by better I mean worked well at forcing the majority of humans to falsely claim the Emperor has clothes on.

Can we reconceive theological education in such a way that (1) it clearly pertains to the totality of human life, in the public sphere as well as the private, because it bears on all of our powers; (2) it is adequate to genuine pluralism, both of the «Christian thing» and of the worlds in which the «Christian thing» is lived, by avoiding naiveté about historical and cultural conditioning without lapsing into relativism; (3) it can be the unifying overarching goal of theological education without requiring the tacit assumption that there is a universal structure or essence to education in general, or theological inquiry in particular, which inescapably denies genuine pluralism by claiming to be the universal common denominator to which everything may be reduced as variations on a theme; and (4) it can retrieve the strengths of both the «Athens» and the «Berlin» types of excellent schooling, without unintentionally subordinating one to the other?

Hence, a fundamental religious virtue is humility, born of the persuasion that no man and no human institution can rightly claim the authority of God himself, but that all are under an authority toward which each may at best help to direct his fellow seekers after truth.

i wonder whih god will be more pleased with its slave — the one who murdered a man for his beliefs or the one who allowed his follower to die for his faith either way — god is a man made belief system that is only a few thousand years old — and in that time, no one single thing has killed more humans, than a man claiming to know the will of some kind of god Faith is good thing, faith in one's self.

More must now be said about why, conceptually, it is important to see that religious commitment involves making serious claims as to the nature of things, what the setting of human life is like, as well as serious claims as to how human persons should behave in that setting.

Nothing gets «proven» as it does in the hard sciences (and there is good reason to say that science doesn't actually «prove» nor does it claim to), but in more complicated systems, such as social, human ones, proof is very difficult (why should we not expect it to be so in theology also?).

(To avoid misunderstanding it may be well to point out that the general synthesis outlined in these pages makes no claim to replace or to exclude the theological account of human destiny.

-- Even though it's only a week and a half old, in this experiment, those who are deeply religious and claim to be «Good people of God» who should love all their fellow humans have removed the income from this man's life with complete disregard for the well - being of his family members as well.

This forgiving, reconciling initiative enables us to meet the intrinsic claim that others — the good and the wicked — have upon us — the claim as God's creatures, to be re-accepted into the human community.

Sexual difference, he claims, and not inclination or desire, is foundational for the «existence and well - being of the human race.»

Because, it is claimed, evaluation presupposes valuation as a condition of its possibility, any merely «disinterested» or «value - free» understanding of human reflection is of necessity excluded.20 Any consideration of the evidence of experience could only in the nature of the case ever illustrate, but logically could not falsify what must always necessarily be the case, even if such a consideration could well force a limited reconstrual of the hermeneutical analysis always itself presupposed in the strictly conceptual presuppositional analysis which uncovers the necessity of such elemental valuing.21

At the same time, claiming to know what God is like and how he would react to topical issues like gay marriage is ludicrous as well... by definition, if he is God, he doesn't think along the lines of a human brain, so we will never be able to understand him.

Screwtape and Wormwood plot and scheme together lay claim to yet another soul for Hell's population and in doing so reveal both their knowledge of human ways as well as the vast array of techniques employed for manipulating earthlings to diabolical ends.

For example, I don't know what sort of evidence or criticism could be brought to bear on Mr. Farrow's claim that only sexual difference, and not sexual orientation, is fundamental to human well - being.

But no observant Jew, either in antiquity or modern times, has ever claimed that eating pork is an evil in and of itself or that resting on the Sabbath is so inherently good that it is enjoined on the whole human race.

In such education scientific knowledge and engineering skill will be taught not as means of making good the claims of the autonomous human will against nature, but as resources for the informed pursuit of the good.

Mirosal... you are not doing great with any answers... as a matter of fact you arent answering any questions... you are asking them... and why is it so important to claim that you are atheist... this is false pride... something that is evident in any unatural and foolish human group... its almost as if people hide behind this false pride to make them feel better for things they know in their own heart are foolish... and what need is there for order if there is no GOD... because if no one cared about their soul... then this might become the dog eat dog world that you people are hoping for

If you would like to claim that human life has some unproven magical quality that only those with certain other unproven magical qualities can end, then good luck proving those claims that you must first prove before even putting forth your argument.

In «Make Hell Hot Again» (August / September), Marc Barnes claims that I argue the following in a recent article for the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly: «A world populated in the end by saints and sinners is a better cosmic whole than a world that contains only saints, because in the former world, where God brings at least some human beings to glory, and eternally as well as justly punishes the rest, God is able to manifest his goodness the most clearly and fully.»

Without casting Enlightenment rationalism as categorically evil, Wright details some of the problematic consequences of Enlightenment assumptions regarding the biblical text: false claims to absolute objectivity, the elevation of «reason» («not as an insistence that exegesis must make sense with an overall view of God and the wider world,» Wright notes, «but as a separate «source» in its own right»), reductive and skeptical readings of scripture that cast Christianity as out - of - date and irrelevant, a human - based eschatology that fosters a «we - know - better - now» attitude toward the text, a reframing of the problem of evil as a mere failure to be rational, the reduction of the act of God in Jesus Christ to a mere moral teacher, etc..

They were no gods, they were humans with different characters and personalities, but both claimed spiritual powers, however they must have been good speakers.

Human intellectual and imaginative activities, Mill claims, are intrinsically superior to mere sensual pleasure — «It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied» (UHuman intellectual and imaginative activities, Mill claims, are intrinsically superior to mere sensual pleasure — «It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied» (Uhuman dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied» (U 14).

It is, therefore, high time for Christianity to retire from the stage and yield the floor to a new religion which claims to have a better understanding of human nature, and believes for that reason that it can produce results where Christianity has nothing more substantial to its credit than a scrap - heap of unfulfilled and unfulfillable ideals.

Another claim made by Hasker is that if God were «routinely to intervene to prevent evil from being done, there would be far less incentive to form effective human communities, a large part of whose function is to encourage good behavior and to restrain evil.»

Human rule violated the prohibition and claimed the place of God, who knows good and evil.

Because this is the sole ideal that has the solidity once owned by Catholicism and the flexibility that this was never able to have, the only one that can always face the future and does not claim to determine it in any particular and contingent form, the only one that can resist criticism and represent for human society the point around which, in its frequent upheavals, in its continual oscillations, equilibrium is perpetually restored, so that when the question is heard whether liberty will enjoy what is known as the future, the answer must be that it has something better still: it has eternity.29