Sentences with phrase «human nature while»

Use the essay as a canvas on which you can paint your observations of human nature while objectively assessing the relationship you have with money and riches.

This film is playing a delicate game, offering observations about human nature while it undercuts our expectations about how we watch movies.

He lets his cast do the heavy lifting as they explore the dualities of human nature while taking the audience on a compelling and horrifying ride.

Writer - director Kenneth Lonergan (You Can Count on Me, 2000) and (Margaret 2011) is no stranger to crafting stories that are chock full of everyday dialog that succeeds in magnifying human nature while finding humor in the smallest of nuances.

A human can reason because he has human nature while an apple tree can grow apples because it has the nature of an apple tree.

Not exact matches

While I think that part of human nature frequently makes us foolish investors (who love chasing returns), I must admit that gold returns have been fairly impressive of late, meriting the attention it's been receiving lately.

When it comes to human nature, some consider me wildly optimistic while others revile me as morbidly pessimistic.

Hume was a prodigy and published his system of philosophy while in his mid-twenties in the form of A Treatise of Human Nature.

Luke tells us that as a boy he «grew in his wisdom» (Lk 2:52), but the Church has taught that this means «his human nature was instructed by his own divinity» (Jerome) or that while remaining divine «he made his own the progress of humans in wisdom and grace» (John of Damascus).

While it's human nature for us to stay in groups of like - minded folks, it's always important to strive beyond our instincts for comfort and security.

And while it's an overstatement to narrate conversion in terms of a change in nature — Abram's becoming Abraham doesn't imperil the integrity of his human nature; nor still Sarai's becoming Sarah, or Jacob's Israel, Saul's Paul, and so ever on — equally slippery is gross understatement, or intimating that nothing of metaphysical interest happens upon conversion.

The latter is a subtle, supremist dogmatic domineering movement dressed in religious garb while the amazing former is the recognition and practice of Spirit, Love, heavenliness, harmony, Principle, human rights and the positive healing reform of finite human nature and its suffering experience by establishing the fact that «now are we the sons of God.»

Yes — and I think there is something in our human nature that is about survival that while a good and necessary thing to have can when mixed with none of us being perfect lead us to perceptions and magical thinking which may or may not be in touch with reality.

But if, as the doctrine of the Catholic Church has it, human nature is wounded but not totally corrupt, then these human realities of reason, affection and sexuality, while they are affected by the wound in our nature and so must be redeemed, remain essentially good.

While economics as a descriptive study is not concerned with moral issues, the facts of economic life inescapably point to the moral element in human nature.

Rather than yielding to relativistic morality, Newman's conception of real assent fortifies objective standards while embracing human nature.

That's a problem, and while I don't think that revelation diminishes anything in the New Testament, it speaks to the very human nature of The Bible.

While the Resurrection was a fact, attested to by those who experienced it in so far as it could be described in human language, it is not possible to say precisely what the nature of these experiences were.

While any knowledge of God must indeed be conditioned by human experience, Ashbrook and Albright actually claim much more than this: that the brain not only patterns our experience of God, but its very structure can inform us of God's nature.

While neither is overly occupied with the policy concerns of the larger environmental movement ¯ global climate, carbon capture, alternative energy, the future of nuclear power, and so on ¯ they help illuminate a common narrative that places nature above human need.

«Can human nature which has been so long conditioned by the stimuli of capitalism,» asked the CENTURY, «discipline itself while still subject to the same stimuli, to the point of curtailing its greed for profits when profits are to be had?»

I would note that while «the poor will always be with you», since we acknowledge that the number of people «caught in the bear trap» goes up and down over time with the business cycle, and human nature is largely consistent in aggregate, that human nature alone can not explain why people end up in poverty.

While the Alexandrians wanted to safeguard the divine nature of Christ, the Antiocheans wanted to stress the human nature of Christ.

Suffice it to say that it reached its culmination, so far as scriptural witness is concerned, in the affirmation that in Christ the Word (the self - expressive creative Activity which is divine in nature) «became flesh and dwelt among us,» while in formal theological statement the climax was the declaration that in him there is a genuine union of divine Activity («true God») and human activity like our own («true human being»).

While classification freed directors to use explicit language in marvelous films like Platoon and Something Wild and has allowed films like Out of Africa and Children of a Lesser God to explore the complex nature of human sexuality, it has also given us a series of slasher films — Friday the 13th, with its many parts; The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, parts one and two — and films like Brian DePalma's artistically significant but deplorably explicit Body Double.

«9 Hence, while Whitehead and Bergson share a suspicion about the over-intellectualization of reality Whitehead thinks Bergson is committed to some sort of necessity about this «built - in» to the nature of the human intellect.

I would point out, however, that billions of other human beings, in every time and place, have had similar experiences â $ «but they had them while thinking about Krishna, or Allah, or the Buddha, while making art or music, or while contemplating the sheer beauty of nature.

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.

Carl Henry, for example, was able to respond to Jim Wallis's characterization of the communal, over against the individual, nature of the gospel by saying that he agreed with Wallis's communal definition.67» But Henry's individualistic view of people within human society, while allowing for the community of the church, the importance of the family, and a limited function for the state, remains largely atomistic.

While those images that relate to human experience in the domestic, economic and social spheres have been given prominence, Jesus» use of agricultural imageries3 and analogies derived from nature or divine action in nature have not received adequate attention.4 This too, despite divine interaction with humanity taking place in the context of the creation.

It could be said that almost all of human nature is here, yet the writer tackles her subject with charity, attempting to be fair to everybody, while being honest about the problems.

It is one of the great merits of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought that while he regards the doctrine of «original sin» as a myth which is absurd to reason and necessary to faith, he has given us one of the most astute analyses of the source of sin in human nature which Christian thought has ever achieved.12 His account is this.

While Paul's thought is by no means always clear, and perhaps from letter to letter not always exactly the same, it is nevertheless certain that his concept of resurrection can be clearly distinguished from that of the traditional «bodily resurrection».27 Paul does not speak in terms of the «same body» but rather in terms of a new body, whether it be a «spiritual body», 28 «the likeness of the heavenly man», 29 «a house not made by human hands, eternal and in heaven», 30 or, a «new body put on» over the old.31 In using various figures of speech to distinguish between the present body of flesh and blood and the future resurrection body, he seems to be thinking of both bodies as the externals which clothe the spirit and without which we should «find ourselves naked».32 But he freely confesses that the «earthly frame that houses us today ’33 may, like the seed, and man of dust, be destroyed, but the «heavenly habitation», which the believer longs to put on, is already waiting in the heavenly realm, for it is eternal by nature.

I may refer here, perhaps immodestly, to the book which I just mentioned, where I have sought to show how this comes to be, while in still another book, The Christian Understanding of Human Nature (Westminster, Philadelphia, and Nisbet, London, 1964), I tried to relate the theme to Christian theology in a wider sense.

We may pause to ponder, that while these royal morons disported themselves in beastly passion in Antioch and Alexandria, a petty hill town of their domains, age - old Jerusalem, followed its Temple services that went their quiet way, day after day, year in and year out; and there, groups of thoughtful men reflected upon the nature of human life, reasoning that «The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,» that «The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul,» or fervently ejaculated, «Oh, how I love thy law!

While Maritain sadly failed to go all the way with de Lubac in refusing pure nature, he still opposed Maurras, not only in the name of «the primacy of the spiritual» but also of an «integral humanism» for which the free and natural spheres of politics and culture must be oriented toward supernatural grace if they are to be fully human, just, and legitimate.

And thus, far from favoring the system of an absolute decree, the words would lead to the opposite conclusion, that the Creator, while «binding nature fast in fate, left free the human will» (Bloomfield, The Green Testament, ad loc.).

Nevertheless, the disturbance arises from an essentially Christian vision of human nature and the human condition that, while affirming their reconciliation in God, acknowledges the tension between justice and mercy in this world.

While Barth freely makes use of Kantian epistemological concepts, he is never dependent on them for his own theological epistemology, which is rooted not in secular axioms regarding human reason but in theological claims regarding the nature of God and divine action.

While modern society has drastically changed in recent centuries, fundamental human nature and divine revelation are unchanging and never obsolete in anytime or culture.

While our actions (gender reassignment and contraception) exhibit an antagonism between the human will and nature, our speech often romanticizes the physical.

This example shows clearly that it is proper to human nature to enjoy that life, while the illness of ignorance prevails in those who live according to the flesh.

But, in the midst of a gentle rain, while these thoughts prevailed, I was suddenly sensible of such sweet and beneficent society in Nature, in the very pattering of the drops, and in every sight and sound around my house, an infinite and unaccountable friendliness all at once, like an atmosphere, sustaining me, as made the fancied advantages of human neighborhood insignificant, and I have never thought of them since.

Are there two classes of human beings, even among the apparently regenerate, of which the one class really partakes of Christ's nature while the other merely seems to do so?

For Whitehead, writing is an artificial and modern development while speech is the embodiment of human nature (MT 37).

While interesting and suggestive, such views also involve considerable problems in both clarifying and justifying the idea of «respect for nature (and the related notions of the «rights» of nature or the need for nature's liberation from human intervention and the imposition of human purposes).

That includes an appreciation of the continuity between humanity and the rest of nature while at the same time emphasizing the distinctiveness of the human.

Human existence transcends non-human nature even while being continuous with it and constrained by it.

Only in human beings, indeed only in connoisseurs, is there a highly developed capacity to integrate prehended things into one's own subjective experience while acknowledging the objective natures and values of those things.

For all its power, however, Voltaire's poem is a very feeble thing compared to the case for «rebellion» against «the will of God» in human suffering placed in the mouth of Ivan Karamazov by that fervently Christian novelist Dostoevsky; for, while the evils Ivan recounts to his brother Alexey are acts not of impersonal nature but of men, Dostoevsky's treatment of innocent suffering possesses a profundity of which Voltaire was never even remotely capable.