Sentences with phrase «meaning good human beings»

Not exact matches

For me it means showing people you are human, you make mistakes, you are vulnerable, you try to do your best and that sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't.

That doesn't mean there won't be new developments, Boeing's Ferguson said, but that it's possible to get a pretty good look at the future of human space transportation — even space transportation to places far beyond what technology is currently capable of — by looking at the various technologies already under development today and imagining how they'll complement each other in the future.

Drawing on his life story, as well as conversations with ordinary and extraordinary people he has met along the way, Dr. Bob presents a compelling framework that will define and dramatically enhance your experience of what it means to be human.»

The periodic replacement of companies means the Dow operates like an actively managed mutual fund, in which humans pick companies that are expected to do well in the future.

I mean... even the best companies out there are human... they make mistakes, they learn and grow from them.

The discussion about the meaning of human dignity is really a conversation about the meaning of being a human being and about the best way to shape a society.

That struck a chord with me when I realized that it might mean that creationists are a better adaptation to modern human life.

God using evolution to create shows way more time and dedication to the emergence of humans, but of course the fundamentalists know best and claim to KNOW that genesis was meant to be 100 % literal despite gaps and missing pieces translating from a very simplistic language into English.

Misery, sorrow, poverty, loneliness, helplessness, and guilt mean something different in the eyes of God than according to human judgment; that God turns toward the very places from which humans turn away; that Christ was born in a stable because there was no room for him in the inn — a prisoner grasps this better than others.

«Positive» is just a word in this case, it does not mean «good» or «progressive» or anything we would associate with the word «positive» in human social interactions or human perceptions.

That would, of course, mean the creation solely for purposes of research of human embryos» human subjects who are not really best described as preimplantation embryos.

They are found to be a very Rich & Powerful Groups and Mother of Groups that control lives of Millions... Now Finding Peace means that we should think on how to get those Master Keys or Super Master Keys of Super Powerful Groups that are to be gathered all in one Ring lock that works to getting them to work towards One Purpose only and that is on how to make Human Life better Globally and that by investing in them human populations worldwide not minding their Race or Faith or Political interests such will work towards Building Bridges between all Nations holding and calling one Message of Love and Sharing in some form of Brotherhood that works towards a Greener Planet EaHuman Life better Globally and that by investing in them human populations worldwide not minding their Race or Faith or Political interests such will work towards Building Bridges between all Nations holding and calling one Message of Love and Sharing in some form of Brotherhood that works towards a Greener Planet Eahuman populations worldwide not minding their Race or Faith or Political interests such will work towards Building Bridges between all Nations holding and calling one Message of Love and Sharing in some form of Brotherhood that works towards a Greener Planet Earth!?

When we use contraception, we orient ourselves against the good of life itself ¯ and, in the same way, when we use IVF to create a new human being, we treat that being solely as a means to our own purposes.

It would be better, we think, to use the new means at hand to reduce human suffering as much as we can while protecting human freedom and dignity.

Well, seriously, I think God can cure anything... but it doesn't mean that God never give the KNOWLEDGE to the human being to treat sickness by himself.

People who think that a candidate being some particular religion means that a candidates is somehow good as a person, a human, are not thinking too straight.

Each of the three will denote the good for a human individual.1 Because of its long association with the liberal tradition, «interest» is so often used to mean an individual's private happiness that the phrase «private view of interest» may seem redundant.

But it does mean we should be more than defensive, and should always be careful to highlight the nature and the appeal of what we are defending, and so of what we are offering — the larger human good in the service of which some constraints on our individual will and power are required.

Human beings will survive better when we love ourselves better, doesn't mean we need a false god to do it.

On the other hand, the fact that God created other creatures and saw that they were good quite independently of their relation to human beings does not mean that each creature is of equal value with every other.

Greg: Charles Taylor believes humans are naturally ordered toward the good, which means they will always feel a religious impulse.

The means by which we produce such abundance are good: Who would argue against making human toil easier by means of machines?

That was all I said and meant but you are trying to frame me with word not said by me and I know why it is about shutting me up for good never mind may God make your curses blessings for me since he alone knows what's in my heart for all humans in love of God only.?!

Well if we use SCIENCE and assume Jesus was a real human being then he was a hebrew of the time period which means he most probably had tan olive skin, dark brown eyes, a black beard and black curly hair.

What availed as the common wisdom of mankind until the day before yesterday — for example, that man, woman, mother, and father name natural realities as well as social roles, that children issue naturally from their union, that the marital union of man and woman is the foundation of human society and provides the optimal home for the flourishing of children — all this is now regarded by many as obsolete and even hopelessly bigoted, as court after court, demonstrating that this revolution has profoundly transformed even the meaning of reason itself, has declared that this bygone wisdom now fails even to pass the minimum legal threshold of rational cogency.

For they are expressions of the divine purpose as well as the means of developing the human spirit.

The joy of the gospel of marriage springs from charity: 2 the same charity that compels bishops3 to faithfully proclaim the good news of marriage revealed in Christ; the same charity that is inseparable from the Truth, who frees the human person and reveals to him what it means to be human.4 Only in Jesus does every human being discover what it means to be truly human, to be made for God and to live in relationship with God, to have true happiness.

If this means that a normal, sane, rational, loving human being would NOT accept any god that relishes babies being ripped out from their mothers» wombs, who orders his chosen guys to eat barley cake and dung sandwiches, who slaughters infants because their country's king is being a dick, and all the rest of the vile pornographic bloody primitive B.S. in the «Good Book,» but that nevertheless it's the «truth... welcome to it.

Second, most importantly, there is a theology of «common grace» — that means that human beings are able to do good because of God's mercy, working through and in human hearts.

«We wanted to feature a woman's voice,» a well - meaning conference planner will inform me with excitement, as if mine is sufficient to capture the experiences of 3.5 billion human beings.

Whether by «perfect» we mean simply sinless, or whether we mean perfect in knowledge and love and judgment and other aspects as well, it is simply impossible for anyone who is human to be this.

Well sure... it means we are HUMAN, and function in the way God designed.

(Can't give you the details as I'm writing a memoir and don't wish to give the good bits away in case it gets published) Even though I have doubted all the other stuff along the years — promises etc that didn't come to pass, despite my diligent prayer and obedience, I still cry out to «something out there» because I am spirit in a human body, and know that I am on a journey that has to mean more than simply this earthly plain.

If the sought - after victory simply means a full participation in the best and worst of human accomplishments, that battle will be won.

But these were largely asides, and were clearly distinguished from the discussions about what really grasped Wieman's own soul — the urgent demand that men and women commit themselves without reservation to the process of creative interchange which creates human good through the increase of qualitative meaning.

For as well as theoretical reflection on the moral significance of a decision, there are other ways and means by which a human being can either become clear about the rightness and conformity to God's will of a decision, or at least improve the conditions for its correct formation: the general cultivation of courage, unselfishness, self - denial, the practice of the art of making vital particular decisions which can not be deduced by purely theoretical consideration as this art is taught by the masters of the spiritual life.

It was not until the twentieth century that the equality the Declaration promised to all human beings — for that is what «men» meant in the fundamental phrase — began to be fully extended to females as well as males.

A good city clearly is part of an ecological order — it is a means by which humans live over an extended period in the natural landscape.

This means that trivial human pleasures and comforts must indeed be sacrificed for the sake of another animal's well - being, or for that of a group of animals.

More appropriately, what is good, appropriate and right about desire, about passion as a means of talking about the God - human relationship?

With more and more attention necessarily riveted on matters of morality and ethics, it is hardly a surprise that we ask about moral content as a measure of the meaning of any God - talk, and test the potency of faith claims by the difference they make for human well - being and the well - being of the wider creation.

I mean the burning passion of lived awareness that we occupy a precarious existence on this planet together with the soil and its flowers, the water and its fishes, the air and its birds, the fire and energy sources; that our fellow human beings are truly brothers and sisters with whom it is better always to make love - justice than war; and that gentleness lasts longer and touches more deeply than other kinds of power.

Humans have developed powerful brains which they use to threaten their own survival, to desire meaning where there is none, to speak of destiny when we can't define an ultimate good.

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.»

Stapledon thus brings together his basic concerns for a viable community and a metaphysic as his narrator questions the ultimate meaning of the only good he is able to perceive — the symbiotic love of two human beings.

Third, the context has shifted: in contrast to the traditional Catholic conception of the political community, and politics within such communities, as the means of achieving real if limited justice for human life in the world, and a corresponding theory of international relations, recent Catholic thought on war often treats the state as a locus of injustice and the goals of particular states as inherently at odds with the achievement of common human goals, while an internationalism defined in terms of the United Nations system is proposed as the best means to those common goals.

Although they held strongly to the inspiration of the Bible, they believed that the best way to arrive at their true meaning was to treat them as human documents.

If we were to empty the term «Father» of human experience, it could not create meaning at all, and we might as well call God some nonsense term and fill it with any meaning we choose.

Rush dosen't know the meaning of being a good human being let alone a good Christian / Jew / Muslim person.

Getting back to children and humans — yes, I agree while religion is a way towards spirituality and helps in moral development, does this automatically mean that non-religion will lead to absence of spirituality and morality??? I can be good even if I do nt pray.