Sentences with phrase «human way because»

When it comes down to choosing a veterinarian, or staying loyal to a clinic, pet owners will be drawn to the practices that are transparent in a raw, human way because it gives them peace of mind.

Not exact matches

We replace writing with talking in the book writing process because talking is the natural way to communicate ideas and information between humans.

So, back to doing things the way everybody else does — or more accurately, with far more workers than the typical assembly line, because Tesla did things wrong to begin with and now has to ramp up the humans to avoid a catastrophe.

And I would say that was because — this is just one example — the field of economics, for many years, did not incorporate the fact that humans don't make decisions generally on a one - to - one level the way that their models would predict.

These tools are most useful for traders because they allow us to look at price activity in an objective way (without the human error that is associated with other types of forecasts).

if the first pair would nothave sinned they would still be here and all human kind would know is the ways of almighty God and existing on a paradise earth — wich still is comming.the reason he didn't destroy Satan immediately is because he posed a Question as to almighty Gods right to sovereignty..

Unfortunately in my case, I've probably gone to excess the other way... after 43 years of being (in my view) threatened with hellfire for every cotton - picking thing (including the «sinfulness» of being born in the first place because it's a well - known scriptural fact that every human is born sinful and separated from G - d, with a heart that does nothing but desire evil and no way to please G - d even when righteous), threatened with being «left behind» in the rapture (should I fail on some doctrinal (belief) point at the crucial moment)... I refuse to consider ANY possibility of hell at all.

Either way — I'll let you in on a secret — business ethics / morality = zero — the only ethics that actually exist in a business model exist because humans bring it with them — unless greed and stepping over people are values now?

He is vengeful because humans are vengeful and humans created god in their own image — Not the other way around.

Bill, why do you need to be made to feel you are bad because you're human to live your life that way?

Gadamer singles out human dialogue only by way of analogy» because that is the paradigm we know best, the model that will teach us our proper relation to the world.

in some ways memory is a better key to the nature of experience than perception, not only because, by the time we have used a datum of perception, it will already have been taken over by memory, but for the additional reasons: (a,) in memory there is less mystery concerning what we are trying to know than there is in perception [i.e., «our own past human experiences»]; also (all) the temporal structure of memory is more obvious.

People burned as witches, blacks lynched by Christians in this county, people killed in human sacrifices, servants killed to accompany pharaohs on their journeys to the afterlife, untold numbers of people killed in various cultures because they were deemed to have offended God in some way, and so on.

Oh, by the way, some animals act «human» because we evolved from them.

it seems that many of us want to create a God in our image, we seem to say, «if I was god, I would do it this way» well, we are not God and just because our human nature doesn't like some of Gods attributes.

He denied he was a universalist, but it was a difficult line for him to hold because he had such a strong view of Christ's death for our sins that he could not find a way to understand how it could not cover all humans.

So there had to be a way for God the Son to truly take human nature as his own but without being created as a new human person, because he is God in Person.

People often can not understand the question of human nature because their way of understanding it is framed (whether they know it or not) by the ideas of positivist empiricism.

Because body, mind, and spirit are an indissoluble triad in the human personality, man deals with his physical needs in characteristically mental and spiritual ways, ordering his economic life according to rational canons and multiplying his demands beyond all limits in obedience to the infinite yearnings of the self - transcending spirit.

They are not «bourgeois industrialists» in the way Dawson defines bourgeois precisely because their religious commitments prompt them to view humans differently.

But as for human, nature didn't want us that way because we don't need that to survive.

yes Maddy...:) I personally understand the way of atheist thinking, because normally, we human since we are kids have no faith concept al all.

He belongs to our race, sharing our propensities and temptations, bearing our human responsibilities and enduring our human weakness; yet in him the sin of Everyman, the inward - looking self - centeredness which bars the way to communion with God because it tries to establish and justify itself over against God, is overcome.

Why imply that Kurt isn't trying to live good... But human idea of «good» falls short... People need Jesus as a savior because we can not work our way there... Believing and trusting Jesus is all that is required.

The highest cause may be (1) in every sense or aspect «uncaused,» in no sense or aspect the effect of anything else; or it may be (2) in some aspects uncaused, and in others causally influenced, but its manner of both acting and receiving influences may be the highest conceivable, hence absolutely «perfect,» although even so its whole being may not in every sense be perfect, because the influences as coming from other causes, say human beings, may be less admirable than they might be; or the supreme cause may be (3) in no sense or aspect uncaused, independent of other powers, hence in no way wholly exempt from the imperfections of the latter...

He has communicated himself to us.7 And he does this in human ways, because we are human, and if we are to get to know God, we need to get to know him in a human way.

It will eventually destroy innocent human lives (such as unborn children and religious minorities) and bring strifes among people one way or another because of the shedding of innocent blood.

In Christ's teaching enormous stress is laid upon the way in which men and women treat one another, and the whole concept of a human being is raised in value because he is declared to be a loved and valued son of God.

I believe that this is indeed true, but only if the counselor actually sees the other person as fully human and not in some way a lesser or «not OK» person because of the difference.

We live in an age whose chief moral value has been determined, by overwhelming consensus, to be the absolute liberty of personal volition, the power of each of us to choose what he or she believes, wants, needs, or must possess; our culturally most persuasive models of human freedom are unambiguously voluntarist and, in a rather debased and degraded way, Promethean; the will, we believe, is sovereign because unpremised, free because spontaneous, and this is the highest good.

Because God respects the choices of humans, God can not force anybody to love Him or believe in Him, and so if a person decides once and for all to separate themselves from God, God must allow them to go their own way.

Ogden's own view is to look upon God as Process, as a social reality that interacts with human persons in a relational way, and who is temporal and historical because he grows, matures, evolves and becomes, while at the same time being God because he is likewise infinite, eternal, unchanging and immutable.

For Kierkegaard, humor is an important avenue for human growth, precisely because it is able to communicate something of the human condition that can not be communicated adequately in other ways.

The article is describing how people are finally waking up and realizing that yes natural disasters MIGHT be caused by a celestial being but that again does not mean in ANY way that it is because the human race has sinned or committed some specific act that warrented a natural disaster as punishment.

But here is the thing... just because we don't want to go off the deep end and idolize nature or damage and destroy human lives for the sake of nature, this does not mean that we can ignore the environmental needs of the world or just consume and destroy the natural resources of this plant in any way we want.

The basis of your belief system appears to be that, you will go to a place of eternal fire and torture, unless you accept that 2000 years ago god sent a piece of himself to Earth in human form (Jesus) knowing in advance that this Jesus would live, be crucified, died, then come alive again, then ascend to heaven to rejoin himself, and that this was the only way that humans could be cleansed of the evil that is inherent in them because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple.

We as humans either know anger... gentleness / love or hate... peace or anxiety... we as humans can not understand that God is all of those things at the same time because to us it is not possbile... His emotions are way beyond are ability to understand... and when we don't understand we decide to discredit it... we decide if we can't apply the «scientic method» to God then He can't be real.

The human mind is constantly finding ways of disproving truth, because it lacks the attention to understand it can be just that sometimes.

Yet because God created a world where people have genuine freedom and can behave in ways that are contrary to His will, God can not take away human freedom when they try to use it in ways that He doesn't like.

We prefer it merely out of habit, and because human relations work more smoothly when everybody talks the same way.

Religions make guesses based on human invented concepts like the soul and spirits and any guess is as valid as the next guess because there is no way to prove any of those guesses.

Way to many humans have suffered and died because they have been told about some boggy man in the sky.

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?

human life exists the way it does because of its environment, not the other way round.

Sometimes it's wrong because of the ways human beings have acted in the name of God.

The pragmatist refuses to settle for any definitive way of describing ourselves and our fellow human beings because the world is still in the making.

Ought not because there is no right way, no fittingly human way, to do so.

Just because evil is always relative does not mean we as humans can not see ourselves in others and share that with them, letting them know we can relate, that we feel the relative evil as well and attempt to support those in harms way by saying «I am you too, i'm on your side.»

All the same, you'll excuse me if I prefer to think that the goose actively sought human intervention for her gosling, and the little finch was brave, because both were nudged in some small way by an intruding Edenic scene, one that we humans still share however slightly with the animals.

I believe the bombing to be evil because it is relative and I am related to the victims, not in a direct family way but in a larger human family way.