Sentences with phrase «in historical understanding»

She found that young people can feel connected to the past and demonstrate critical historical thinking skills and also that differences in their historical understanding are related to differences in how they talk about themselves and the past.

Against the background of these shifts in historical understanding, an avalanche of biographies of Luther and histories of the religious revolution he launched has begun ahead of next year's quincentenary.

This is not to say that Bornkamm has moved to the position of «realized eschatology» (91); rather he sees (with Bultmann) the tension between future and present as inherent in the involvement of the imperative in the indicative, i.e. inherent in the historical understanding of the self.

Not exact matches

It becomes harder to stand back and see the world in a historical perspective or to understand broader trends.

The Innovators by Walter Isaacson is a detailed look at historical innovation, but with an understanding that advancements in one industry often impacts progress in another.

The company has provided these non-GAAP financial measures in addition to GAAP financial results because it believes that these non-GAAP adjusted financial measures provide investors with a better understanding of the company's historical results from its core business operations.

Among other things this confusion made China's nearly four decades of growth seem far more exceptional than it was, and so created the very lazy belief among analysts that there are no historical precedents that can guide us in understanding the strengths and the vulnerabilities of China's economic trajectory.

In my view, it is very important to understand that the rally we've seen in stocks was a momentum rally from a deeply oversold low, starting from a very high historical level of valuation, and never generating the favorable trend uniformity which has always appeared prior to past recession lowIn my view, it is very important to understand that the rally we've seen in stocks was a momentum rally from a deeply oversold low, starting from a very high historical level of valuation, and never generating the favorable trend uniformity which has always appeared prior to past recession lowin stocks was a momentum rally from a deeply oversold low, starting from a very high historical level of valuation, and never generating the favorable trend uniformity which has always appeared prior to past recession lows.

Let's examine the past to broaden our understanding of the range of historical trends in market performance.

In our view, the current market environment begs for investors to honestly assess their tolerance for loss, to align the duration of their investment portfolio with the horizon over which they expect to spend their assets; to consider their tolerance for missing returns should even this obscenely overvalued market continue to advance for a while; to understand historical precedents; to consider whether they care about such precedents; and to decide the extent to which they truly believe this time is different.

Understanding margins in a historical context and investigating the opportunity for mean reversion is also very important.

Heading into an earnings event, the toughest and most time - consuming part is researching historical price action and volatility surrounding previous events, understanding how the earnings were estimated in the eyes of Wall Street, then gauging the significance of any beat or miss.

With such rapid change, it's becoming harder for investors to understand which historical rules they should follow and which ones were simply useful in an earlier version of the world.

But I think we understand things in stages and that both a literal understanding and a historical understanding are sometimes necessary before we can fully understand it metaphorically, simply because we do have such a tremendous cultural bias.

Dashboard Jesus (Let it also be known that in my understanding of the Historical Jesus, He actually knew where He was going.

A reality beyond our experience — the embrace of mystery that is postmodernism rightly understood — is revealed in historical and limited circumstances.

all things were created by nothing with nothing and for nothing... that takes more faith than i have... i prefer to believe in Jesus Christ — the one and only who rose from the dead — the most astounding historical fact ever recorded; Christians don't have all the answers but as the author Don Miller noted: «I can no more understand the complexity of God than the pancakes I made for breakfast can understand the complexity of me»

Fifi doesn't understand ANY historical event that is depicted in the Bible, despite vast archaeological evidence — ergo, it must be all fiction.

Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been different for the biblical authors.

As Evangelicals and Catholics fully committed to our respective heritages, we affirm together the coinherence of Scripture and tradition: tradition is not a second source of revelation alongside the Bible but must ever be corrected and informed by it, and Scripture itself is not understood in a vacuum apart from the historical existence and life of the community of faith.

In this he was in full agreement with Heidegger, who disparaged «those who understand something only when they have situated it among historical influences, the pseudo-understanding of officious curiosity, that is, the avoidance of what is decisively important.&raquIn this he was in full agreement with Heidegger, who disparaged «those who understand something only when they have situated it among historical influences, the pseudo-understanding of officious curiosity, that is, the avoidance of what is decisively important.&raquin full agreement with Heidegger, who disparaged «those who understand something only when they have situated it among historical influences, the pseudo-understanding of officious curiosity, that is, the avoidance of what is decisively important.»

Churchill had the global and historical understanding to grasp this fact, and enough American in him to reckon that America's chilly mercy would be better than Germany's smiling triumph.

Knust shows absolutely no awareness of Biblical exegesis, hermeneutics, genre, social and historical context, or even a rudimentary understanding of what's prescriptive or descriptive text in some of the historical Biblical narratives.

In our historical freedom we are able to transcend that natural fact, and we certainly need not let it be determinative for our understanding of what motherhood means.

Or would the new, evidence - based historical - critical approach to understanding America's war in Vietnam shape your thinking about American responsibilities in the twenty - first - century world?

«The Autonomy of Historical Understanding,» in Philosophical Analysis and History, ed.

The AAC monograph, for instance, identifies nine «methods and processes, modes of access to understanding and judgment» (ICC 15) that it thinks are essential to know: logical analysis, verbal literacy, numerical understanding, historical awareness, scientific method, informed and responsible moral choice, art appreciation and experience, international and multicultural experiences, and study of one field in depth.

3 The concept of synoptic judgment was developed by Louis O. Mink, «The Autonomy of Historical Understanding,» in Philosophical Analysis and History, ed.

When properly understood in it's historical, cultural, grammatical, and contextual contexts, Ephesians 2 is a chapter which does not defend the Calvinistic system of theology, but disproves it at every turn.

It rested upon a true, if in some respects limited, understanding of the two testaments in their historical relations.

But it would mean that one would understand other historical figures and also contemporary people and ideas basically in Freudian terms and evaluate and respond to them accordingly.

«David Wells of the World Pentecostal Fellowship confessed that too often evangelicals did not understand or appreciate historical churches, their centuries - old stand for Christ, and their presence in countries in which their witness and pastoral ministry has been dominant,» Stiller wrote.

If one holds that during the course of human history a process of development and refinement in the Church's understanding of Christ has taken place, this does not mean that one is rushing headlong into a position of historical relativism that is ultimately corrosive of the objectivity of our faith.

Now this would be a valid argument if one understood the self in terms of individual autonomy, so that one's understanding of one's self as subject would be quite distinct from ones understanding of the cosmic or historical situation one confronted as object.

Now since Paul understands the kerygma as calling for basically the same decision as did the historical Jesus, it would seem that faith in the heavenly Lord not only coincides with commitment to the selfhood of the historical Jesus, but also involves a positive response to his message.

Furthermore, precisely because the gospel has to do with historical event, and because it understands that event in the light of faith in the unseen divine reality whom we call God, there is no other language available for us.

Contemporary methodology consists precisely in the combination and interaction of objective analysis and existential openness, i.e it seeks historical understanding precisely in the simultaneous interaction of phenomenological objectivity and existential «objectivity»

This history of the proclamation is the object of historical research in the New Testament which we seek, and which is the only legitimate object of such historical research according to the New Testament's understanding of itself.»

On this point, he placed himself in alliance with Arthur Holmes and quoted approvingly of Holmes» criticisms that Clark had not properly understood the purpose of philosophy to elaborate a vision of life through a number of sources, including the philosopher's own historical context.

Hence there arises what I think is one of the major reasons why the miraculous birth recorded in Matthew and Luke should not be regarded as a historical fact but as a midrashic or mythical way of expressing the truth that the person of Christ can not be understood exclusively within the dimension of humanity, but belongs also to the divine dimension.

Some may wish to use it as an historical book; after all, it is a collection of writings bound up together in one volume, telling us of the way in which the Jewish people came by God's self - disclosure to a deeper understanding of the God they worshipped and a more adequate conception of his purpose for his «chosen» race.

If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large - scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case.

This means that we shall understand the death of God as an historical event: God has died in our time, in our history, in our existence.

For although it can not lead to a suspension of that method, it does draw our attention to the basic problem which it presents: «According to our historical method employed thus far, we have before us apparently authentic material about Jesus in the tradition of the sayings of the Lord, only when the material can be understood neither [as derived] from primitive Christian preaching nor from Judaism.

Sölle's real self - understanding could gain better expression in the forms offered by the socio - historical school.

And scripture's witnesses are properly understood only in the context of the social, cultural and historical circumstances from which they come.

I also believe that the idea of evolution or development is an essential key to a nonscholastic doctrine of analogy, if only because it is the modern understanding of organic and historical evolution that brought to an end the scholastic idea of Being (as is so brilliantly demonstrated by Arthur O. Lovejoy in The Great Chain of Being).

I say this because I realize that in what I have written it is not simply a matter of a dogmatic theologian commenting on the work of a disciplined historical critic; there are issues involved here which are neither purely theological nor historical; they touch the manner in which we understand our existence and our need, an existence and an understanding that we allow it possible that Christ has redefined for us.

Where the understanding of Christ's Passion is concerned we are, as always, involved inextricably in historical questions of great difficulty.

In short, Culture and Abortion is addressed to the committed pro-lifer who seeks to understand more about the social, historical, political and literary influences on the «barbarity of abortion».