Sentences with phrase «making human and animal»

At the same time, her almost decorative technique of making human and animal figures components of formal composition, through the arrangement, or insertion, of color fields within the pictorial space, credits Kudo as an aspiring successor of the modernist formal painting championed by Matisse»

We've been making human and animal matches since our doors first opened in 1952 and we hope to continue to do so for a very long time.

The more heat the device senses, the brighter it shows up on the screen, making humans and animals easiest to see.

In their spare time, the two began creating sculptures from leftover bottle caps, making humans and animals and windmills and architectural forms of various sizes, some referencing fairy tales and nursery rhymes.

Not exact matches

There Friedberg observed that most farmers plant corn and soybeans because they make can make the most money through those crops, in large part because of their role as animal feed that supports humans» massive appetite for meat.

Yet we are still human beings, and one of the things that separates us from other animals is that we make moral judgments.

believerfred «Thor and the like are man made from known matter and energy with most having human or other animal physiology»

Animals are not made in God's image and do not live according to any moral code — only humans.

that what makes us human and not animals

All of nature, his entire creation, vegetable, animal, and human will be made whole in heaven.

And the sons of God (the fallen) came down took human wives made hybrids (see men of old, men of renown) and created abominations with animals and peoAnd the sons of God (the fallen) came down took human wives made hybrids (see men of old, men of renown) and created abominations with animals and peoand created abominations with animals and peoand people

Our natural capacities and tendencies must actually be realized or expressed, and a culture - making animal like the human being realizes and expresses them in all kinds of different ways.

Singer was more responsible than anyone else for making the term «speciesism» known, beginning in 1975 with his highly influential book Animal Liberation and continuing with his widely professed proposal that so - called human non-persons can be killed (infanticide or non-voluntary euthanasia) because of their «lower» moral status.

The same God who created this universe, life, and humans, saved Noah's family and the animals, brought his people out of slavery in Egypt, parted the red sea, fed them for 40 years in the wilderness, gave them the land he promised, and made them a great people.

Also human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, we can know and love, through the power of our spiritual soul - we are very different from animals, not in our physical bodies but in our souls.

In the end, animal sacrifice was altogether substituted for human sacrifice, and this provision, represented as a merciful evidence of Yahweh's grace, was made picturesque in the legendary story of Abraham and Isaac.

Yet, the verse begins, «Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...» Human rule of the animal creation and the natural world should mirror what I believe to be God's loving care for all life.

Study of Scripture through the filter of man's biases results in the type of man - centered ideas proferred by Baden, like «God learns to accept their inherently evil nature», and humans «are the only species that can give him what he wants — which, in the view of Genesis, is bloody, burned animal sacrifices», and «it is, rather, our job to make ourselves uncomfortable that he might be appeased.»

So the LORD said, «I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created — and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground — for I regret that I have made them.»

Saving the animals only to enjoy the smell of a mass barbecue and choosing mass genocide because imperfectly made humans aren't pleasing enough... leaves us empty and perplexed, if we care at all.

For example, we should stop «hunting for sport or furs; farming minks, foxes and other animals for their fur; capturing wild animals (often after shooting their mothers) and imprisoning them in small cages for humans to stare at; tormenting animals to make them learn tricks for circuses, and tormenting them to make them entertain the folks at rodeos; slaughtering whales with explosive harpoons; and generally ignoring the interests of wild animals as we extend our empire of concrete and pollution over the surface of the globe» (ALNE 23).

In one (Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 a), God made all the land animals on day 6, then said «and now we will make human beings» (1:26), and God made male and female at the same time.

As we know from mythology, it was the habit of Jupiter to wander the earth in the form of man, animal, or bird and thereby make contact with human beings.

These previous points once again are believed by many religions, but there are also many religions that don't make this clear distinction as with some forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and others which believe in the transmigration of the soul through reincarnation from humans to animals and vice versa.

its like when my city made a law saying all animals need to be on a leash, and i called the cops on every human, squirrel, and bird i seen.

His good creation was not intended to function this way, but since He gave humans, angels, and even animals (to a degree) the freedom to make genuine choices, we sometimes use this freedom in ways that are contrary to the will and desire of God, and when we do this, the forces of nature suffer the consequences, and chaos rages over the face of earth, wreaking havoc, destroying lives, and bringing destruction in its wake.

To make such a leap of logic is to commit the other glaring error often made by proponents of animal rights and environmental ethics: they fail to see that the rights endowed to animals are not identical with the rights of human beings.

There are many things in the animal kingdom, including humans, Douglas, where things don't appear to make biological sense, and yet they just «are».

He therefore makes a much clearer and consistent distinction between animals and humans than Ward.

Animals live out of instinct and aren't bound by some imaginary god, making them far more superior than humans.

The term moderate evolution might therefore be applied to a theory which simply inquires into the biological reality of man in accordance with the formal object of the biological sciences as defined by their methods and which affirms a real genetic connection between that human biological reality and the animal kingdom, but which also in accordance with the fundamental methodological principles of those sciences, can not and does not attempt to assert that it has made a statement adequate to the whole reality of man and to the origin of this whole reality.

I present urban form to my students in the long and large western humanist tradition that sees cities as communal artifacts that human animals by our nature make in order to live well (with all the teleological and virtue ethics implications of that tradition's notion of living well).

Unlike humans, who can and often do set out to make others suffer, animals are primarily concerned to «protect their territory,» as students of their behavior tell us, or to save their young from attack, or to secure necessary supplies of food for their survival.

Biopolitics seeks, minimally, to bring about those elementary conditions which must be met if life — human, animal, and plant — is to survive at all and, maximally, to make possible the optimum enjoyment of existence.

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

At that time human beings were distinguished from «lower» animals by virtue of the human capacity to think and make moral choices.

sad you compare animals and plants to human... again showing your true colors of what makes a human have worth and dignity

The point Jesus is making is that the Pharisees and Scribes cared far more about literally lost sheep — literal lost animals, than they cared about human souls that were lost.

First I had better say something about what makes our human way of experiencing and thinking different from that of other animals.

The human male is the strongest, smartest animal there is on the planet, he's definitely stronger and smarter than the female of the species... so if man is like a god on this planet, then that must mean that God must have made man in HIS image.

Robin Fox is an English anthropologist who has authored, with the equally delightfully named Lionel Tiger, The Imperial Animal and many other works making the case for the «nature» side of the interminable nature / nurture controversy over how best to understand why human beings do what they do.

It is our ability to think and reason that makes us human and distinguishes us from all other animals, a piece of tissue, and a baby from an embryo with no measurable brain waves.

Gay people don't worship «images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles» at all.

The amazing advances in molecular biology blur the traditional hierarchical distinctions between man, animal, plant and mineral; and the neurophysiological «explanation» of human consciousness in terms of the components and machinations of the brain even more dramatically illustrates how pure «matter» has assumed dominance in any attempt to make sense of our universe and its manifestations.

6:7 So the Lord said, «I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created — people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.»

The increased awareness and control made possible by symbolic thought enriches human experience to such an extent that it can be said to represent a difference not merely in degree, but rather in kind, from the experience of other animals (BSI 212 - 13).

If, for instance, you were to condemn a religion of human or animal sacrifices by virtue of your subjective sentiments, and if all the while a deity were really there demanding such sacrifices, you would be making a theoretical mistake by tacitly assuming that the deity must be non-existent; you would be setting up a theology of your own as much as if you were a scholastic philosopher.

And only humans have souls and that's what makes us special and different from the animaAnd only humans have souls and that's what makes us special and different from the animaand that's what makes us special and different from the animaand different from the animals.

Our technology makes pregnancy more and more a matter of human decision; more and more our choices are influencing the weal and woe of the animals on this earth.

What I don't get, Jeremy: You seem to make a difference between animal death and human death.