According to the scientists, these results show that although the gene variants — which
make individual humans different from each other — in general have a small impact on disease development, the gene switches in which they reside can play a major role.
Not exact matches
Plus, all three firms rely, at least in part, on self - reporting by
individuals —
making human error a factor.
The most effective leaders inspire people by clearly articulating how the work they do together is helping other
human beings and how each person's
individual role on the team
makes a difference.
The Institute of
Human - Centered Design has a full list here, but some of the most important include
making sure the design of the site is easy to understand and accommodates a wide range of
individual preferences and abilities.
Thanks to this new technology it is the first time in
human history we have had the opportunity to
make this choice as
individuals.
The proper course, it seems to me, is for church leaders and people of good will to
make every effort to connect the
human - rights project to an affirmation of the essential interplay between
individual rights and democratic values.
Importance for others refers to the contributions
made to occasions beyond the
individual in question, occasions sometimes within other
human individuals.
Rather, specifically
human existence is, in Whitehead's term, a «personal society,» i.e., a temporal sequence of occasions which share, by virtue of inheritance from the earlier to the later, a defining characteristic that
makes the man or woman in question just this
individual and not some other.
We are
made male and female, man and woman, and attempts to blur distinctions under the seemingly innocuous term «gender» are really attempts to assert that sex should be seen as an autonomous
human activity, something which has noother meaning than what the
individual wishes to bestow upon it.
If one considers, however briefly, what conditions will
make possible the flowering in the
human heart of this new universal love, so often vainly dreamed of but now at last leaving the realm of the utopian and declaring itself as both possible and necessary, one notices this: that if men on earth, all over the earth, are ever to love one another it is not enough for them to recognize in one another the elements of a single something; they must also, by developing a «planetary» consciousness, become aware of the fact that without loss of their
individual identities they are becoming a single somebody.
Islam, in placing the responsibility on each
individual,
makes no distinction between
human beings; each is given the same rights and responsibilities regardless of his sex, race, color, or other differences.
When we are
made to feel guilty for something as integral to
human nature as s @x then the squelching of those urges is harmful to
individuals and couples alike.
If something so important for each
individual is dependent upon accepting / rejecting a supposed scriptural «truth» (as you define it) then
make the case for how it
makes any sense at all that
humans would be judged negatively for rejecting something they have no idea exists!!
This is my vision but I have to stress that it
makes more sense when viewed through the lens of panentheism rather than through creation ex-nihilo with God specially creating
individual souls for each
human being.
They had inculcated a deep sense of sin and a conscious need of personal salvation; they had overpassed national and racial lines and had
made religious faith a matter of
individual conviction; they had emphasized faith in immortality and the need of assurance concerning it; they had bound their devotees together in mystical societies of brethren fired with propagandist zeal; and they had accentuated the interior nature of religious experience in terms of an, indwelling Presence, through whom
human life could be «deicized.»
However, such an approach does not adequately take into account
human wisdom: although one may argue that an
individual of superior wisdom may engender respect and thus attain reproductive success, says Deane - Drummond, the fact that many of those who were thought to have wisdom were celibate
makes this explanation unlikely.
To the extent that the man -
made setting of man's life and the setting which was naturally antecedent to
human freedom are specifically different, the latter being characteristic of earlier times and the former of the present, we are now living in a setting which almost in its very essence is more complicated and intractable and inaccessible to the understanding of the
individual than was ever the case before.
Salvation is a free gift from God to the
human race, but each
individual human has to
make the decision to accept Jesus as their Savior.
Prior to the development of a fully functioning nervous system, and the activation of said system, a
human embryo is «alive» in the same sense a tumor is «alive»: the
individual cells that
make it up are alive, but there is no higher - level functionality.
In
making a decision regarding research into
human cloning, we must pay close attention to the benefits it would provide for those who suffer the worst genetic disorders; we must look closely at the possibility of some groups or
individuals being exploited or neglected through
human cloning; and we must keep before us the welfare of the children who would enter the world through cloning.
He shows us that our sense of the alternatives — that we must choose between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, between prophet and institution, between catastrophic kingdom and inner kingdom between being political and being sectarian, between the
individual and the social — derives not from categories intrinsic to the
human condition but from a depoliticization of salvation that has
made Christianity a faithful servant of the status quo.
it not only presupposes the truth of faith and pure doctrine, but also calls for that truth to be situated in the
human consciousness and calls for a definition of the attitude, or rather the many attitudes, that go to
make the
individual a believing member of the Church.
: An Essay in Whitehead's Metaphysics,» does not bring the Whiteheadian account of deity into direct contact with particular, concrete historical or
individual experience.1 Williams affirms that the specific metaphysical functions ascribed to God by Whitehead «involve the assertion that God
makes a specific and observable difference in the behavior of things» (page 178) and goes on to remark that «Verification [of God's specific causality] must take the form of observable results in cosmic history, in
human history, and in personal experience» (page 179).
Kierkegaard defends himself against the apparently Pelagian implications of this thought by stressing that even though each
individual sins through his own disobedience (sin is not a category of necessity), nevertheless, in this act of disobedience he reveals his solidarity with Adam and Eve and all other persons in history, who together
make up the collective
human race which, in Adam, stands guilty before God.
Now, however, two of the
individuals who
made the videos are facing criminal charges, including tampering with government records and one related to soliciting the illegal sale of
human organs.
Decisions are
made and carried out by
individual human beings, acting alone or in groups.
We are being
made for fulfillment in God, but we are also creatures who seek fulfillment in community with other
human beings; we are social, not
individual, in makeup.
When all allowance has been
made for these limiting factors — the chances of oral transmission, the effect of translation, the interest of teachers in
making the sayings «contemporary,» and simple
human fallibility — it remains that the first three gospels offer a body of sayings on the whole so consistent, so coherent, and withal so distinctive in manner, style content, that no reasonable critic should doubt, whatever reservations he may have about
individual sayings, that we find reflected here the thought of a single, unique teacher.
Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of
human reason coupled with the rejection of claims
made by
individuals and organized religions of having received special divine intervention.
But based on the commandment of the Word of God, the
human word enables an
individual to choose and to
make his personal decision, faced with the demands placed on him.
No one lives without some sort of political - cultural identity, and all political - cultural groups are
made up of
individual human members — but persons are not a people, and a people is not a person.
If it
makes sense to say, as it obviously does, that this
human being could have had a somewhat different career up until the present, then this
individual is a partly indefinite entity.
Over 600,000 violent deaths in a population estimated in 2006 at 26.8 million — that is, one in every 45
individuals — amounts to a
made - in - America
human catastrophe.
Or, to put it in other terms, the boundary between the ancient world and the modern is to be traced, not in the Aegean or the middle Mediterranean, but in the pages of the Old Testament, where we find revealed attainments in the realms of thought, facility in literary expression, profound religious insights, and standards of
individual and social ethics, all of which are intimately of the modern world because, indeed, they have been of the vital motivating forces which
made our world of the
human spirit.
His effort to transform
human life to
make it consistently individualistic can't be simply based on the thought that we are, by nature, solitary
individuals.
For precisely all that has been said can also be objected to the doctrine of the immediate creation of every
human soul in the course of history, if this creation
makes of God's action in a special manner a member of the chain of created causes, even if only in regard to a particular finite being, which in contrast to others and by its special
individual and temporal features has no intra - mundane ground and basis.
It is this aspect of living which allots a very special field to religion and
makes it appear as a special and
individual phenomenon in
human life.
The three characteristics which
make the
human individual a truly unique object in the eyes of Science, once we have
made up our minds to regard Man not merely as a chance arrival but as an integral element of the physical world, are as follows:
Drawing from the Islamic imperative that «God is one» and from the Qur» an's teaching about Adam and Eve, Rauf arrives at two essential principles: that all
humans are equal «because we are born of one man and woman,» and that «because we are equal... we have certain inalienable liberties,» such as the freedom to accept or reject God, to think for ourselves (ijtihad) and to
make individual choices without coercion.
What is destroyed in the loss of the ecosystem, therefore, is not only the intrinsic value of myriads of
individuals making up the forest community but also very important additional contributions of the forest to the intrinsic value of
human experiences.
The bottom line here is that the Republicans» fascination with an unfettered free market and their lack of faith in the government's ability to provide any benefits to our common life (except to assist business in
making money) is no more consistent with Catholic teaching than the Democrats» emphasis on
individual freedom in social questions and their faith in
human perfectibility through government action.
Either
human beings are
made subject to the State or they are typically cast as «
individuals» — with little meaningful or intrinsic relationship to each other or any agreed notion on what it means to be a
human being.
The congregation by its household narrative can mediate the entry of the
individual into the fullness of the world,
making manifest how the biography of a member is woven into the story of all
human society.
«This goes back to the point i was trying to
make that humanism and belief in
individual human rights are irrational»
This goes back to the point i was trying to
make that humanism and belief in
individual human rights are irrational, and are a form of faith.
(An
individual can
make a claim only for
human remains, and must be able to prove a familial relationship.)
This
individual is not a messenger from God, just your normal everyday
human being
making a truckload of mistakes in everyday life.
Such language
makes sense only if we assume that «the original principles in
human nature» are seen to be good, that traces of a «common humanity» remain, that
humans have genuine free will, and that intentional deviation by
individuals from what is natural is culpable.
It seems to me that vision caters to the pastor's ego and
makes all of his «followers» regress to being «functionaries» for the «mission» or «goal» or «vision» rather than helping them grow into virtue, and community, and humanity (the good part of our
human - ness, you know, the unique
individuals that God specifically designed?).
They believe that not only is
human difference a healthy fact of life, but that
individuals should understand the past and present dynamics of ethnic identity, relationships and groups, not only because it will
make them more sure of themselves, but also because it will strengthen the democratic nature of tire total society.