Sentences with phrase «modern understanding by»

The Reformation, seeking to restore something of the prophetic emphasis, provided the basis of modern understanding by conflating four modes of ministry — priestly, kingly, prophetic, and pastoral — into one problematic, always ambiguous, but powerful model of ordained ministry.

Not exact matches

«The gig economy is typified by irregularity, meaning there is no job security and instead of having a boss who trains you and helps you improve, your performance is rated on a scale of 1 - 5 stars by strangers who have no understanding of your growth as a professional,» explains Scot Wingo, founder and CEO of Spiffy, a modern on - demand company.

Most outsiders don't understand the principles of modern policing, nor the challenges presented by life «on the street.»

Since our modern - day world is ruled by digital social tools, we understand the rules of the game.

Russian officials failed to understand the State Theory of money that is the basis of Modern Monetary Theory: States can create their own money, giving it value by accepting it in payment of taxes.

And by doing that, we'll be able to help push the conversation towards a new, more modern understanding of America's middle class challenges — and spur fresh ideas for a new era.

Understanding that by nature, humans will often walk away from a system that is overly complex, modern brokers do an excellent job of supplying interfaces that are straightforward and user - friendly.

By combining our deep insurance knowledge, understanding, and experience with modern technologies like machine learning and artificial intelligence, we have created an entirely new and more effective way do distribute an essential business service to the deeply neglected small business market.

Christianity, particularly that flagrantly practiced and grossly over-preached by evangelists, is also anti-science and is therefore putting our young people and our future workforce at a disadvantage relative to competing nations that now have better science education without religious bias and without the ancient supersti - tions that block modern understanding and technological and medical progress.

One might paraphrase the version of the summary of the law as actually understood by many representatives of modern Western theology as «Thou shalt love thy neighbor with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength.

With adept recourse to an impressive (but never name - dropping) array of anthropologists and literary theorists, folklorists and linguists, philosophers and theologians, she shows that these Catholic writers engage modern and even postmodern culture by way of a revolutionary understanding of the imagination.

To understand why Behe's argument is so uncontested in the realm of fact, and yet why so many scientists find the concept of irreducible complexity not only difficult to accept but even impossible to consider, we should start by summarizing the modern understanding of Darwinism, as set out by Richard Dawkins.

A very convincing case can be made that what we have translated as homosexuality in our modern translations in no way speaks of what was understood by the original audience.

While employing the Hegelian categories of the «universal» and the «objective» as a means of understanding the new reality created by modern man, Kierkegaard came to understand the modern consciousness as the product of a Faustian choice.

One of the unintentional cruelties sometimes practiced by the United States Government in dealing with American Indians has sprung from failure to understand this contrast between primitive and modern culture.

Too many «modern» atheists fail to understand this concept or try to sidestep this issue by creating terms such as «strong» and «weak» atheism.

In defining the complex notion of wisdom, Deane - Drummond introduces the concept of wisdom as an understanding of different facets of reality, a contemplative «way of knowing» lost by modern science with its focus on specific discoveries.

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).

However debased Hawking's understanding of basic philosophy, it has been encouraged by the lack of real engagement with modern science by Catholic theologians.

While monasticism in modern times has been deeply influenced by Dom Paul Delatte's rather rigorous interpretation of the Holy Rule (he was Abbot of Solesmes from 1890 to 1921) we find in Hugh Gilbert's firm but gentle hands a rather more humane understanding of the contemporary mind, particularly in his substantial treatment of the concept of obedience (a minefield for any Christian apologist) which stands at the centre of this present work.

Better to understand Chesterton's idea that Jews were not naturally a part of English culture without the inevitably determinative intervening lens of the Nazi holocaust, we might compare it with modern English perceptions of the problem of multiculturalism as it applies particularly to the Moslem community, still widely seen as being impossible to assimilate: thus, there is understood by many decent and tolerant people to be what might be termed a «Moslem problem» (just as many decent and tolerant gentiles in Chesterton's day thought there was a «Jewish problem»).

If that is the problem, it will not be solved by a more precise understanding of the forms of reason and authority that have validity for the modern mind.

Given the choice between the canon of scripture and modern principles of interpretation, I have no question where to camp, but I am, to a large degree, challenged by what looks like a major disconnect between modern scholarly discipline and the understanding of our ancestors in the faith.

The Catholic understands this concept of the solitary conscience very well, provided it is not contaminated by modern individualism which diminishes man's stature and is, indeed, no longer regarded as his permanent inheritance.

Christian worship, properly understood, is of God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ and in the power of the Spirit; it is not worship of Jesus by himself, although this might be the impression given by a number of modern hymns.

The whole animistic approach to man, which in both religious thought and philosophical analysis can be traced back to man's earliest attempts to understand himself, has been destroyed by the modern sciences most closely related to the study of man.

Even the modern Unitarian, insofar as he or she would make claim to the Christian name whatever may be thought about theological definitions of Jesus Christ's significance, will say that his or her religion is toward God as God is defined by Jesus Christ — which is to say that the specifically Christian understanding of God must be in terms of what Whitehead styled «the Galilean vision.

He sees Whitehead as a scientific realist striving after some sort of correspondence between the world as understood by modern physics and the world of direct experience (PW 214/236) Whitehead represents the opposite of Bertrand Russell in his phenomenalist period.

Yet liberalism as a political theory, understood as a cooperative enterprise for mutual advantage among free and equal persons, is considered by friend and foe alike the essential expression of what it means to he a political animal in the modern West.

Though Lutherans aren't entirely estranged from the modern world, we most certainly depart from its modus vivendi by trying to understand the world before changing it, to put a turn on Marx's famous line.

That means, it seems to me, rejecting the ancient vs. modern distinction as the key to understanding the West and even reason vs. revelation the way it is understood by many Great Books teachers.

If so, then human minds, created in the image and likeness of God, should be able to understand the world in which we find ourselves; much of the skepticism of modern society needs then to be rethought by Christians.

The fact that these languages are generally not understood by modern people is a problem quickly remedied by a competent linguistics scholar.

Under modern conditions, with changes occurring so rapidly that most specific occupational preparation becomes quickly out of date, it even appears that a fundamental liberal education is the best vocational education, for it develops the powers of imagination needed to meet new situations and the understanding of interrelationships required by life in an increasingly interdependent civilization.

Isn't that like someone who doesn't understand rocket science assuming that rockets fly by magic, or people ignorant of modern medicine believing that illnesses come from demonic possession rather than germs?

By «modern common sense» we mean the basic understanding that in order to explain the events and circumstances of this natural world we must look to other events and circumstances within this natural world.

Kuyper argued that, when we understand Christianity also as a worldview, we «might be enabled once more to take our stand by the side of Romanism in opposition to modern pantheism.»

We can not share in this mythological picture, continues Bultmann, because we live and think within «the world - picture formed by modern natural science» and within «the understanding man has of himself in accordance with which he understands himself to be a closed inner unity that does not stand open to the incursion of supernatural powers.

These insights should be the basis, the Pope indicated, of a «self - critique of the modern age» which should be matched by «a self - critique of modern Christianity, which must constantly renew its self - understanding settingout from its roots...» (n. 22).

When one appeals to «the world - picture formed by modern natural science» as the common basis for understanding man and his world, do we not have to be more definitive and discriminating within scientific imagery itself than either Bultmann or Ogden appear to be?

Darwin's theory of evolution, as understood by most of the modern scientific community, has nothing to say about the «gap» between humans and «lower» animals, because no such gap is recognized.

He offers his work as a «first step toward reclaiming natural - law doctrine as an exegetical, and not solely philosophical, project» that is, «natural law» as understood by the Christian tradition prior to the modern reconfiguration of natural law.»

According to Bultmann, any attempt at the present time to understand and express the Christian message must realize that the theological propositions of the New Testament are not understood by modern man because they reflect a mythological picture of the world that we today can not share.1

The transition is tragic because the moderns failed to understand, just as the originators of classical cultures had, how the liberative potential of reason as the human ability to raise ever further relevant questions is alienated and frustrated in authoritarian societies deeply marked by classism, sexism, racism, technocentrism, and militarism.

Modern evangelicals do need to «bridge the gap» and speak more plainly about their faith in terms that everyone can understand rather than assume that what they understand among themselves will be automatically understood by those who are not of their community when they speak to others about their faith.

That world can be understood as a new apocalyptic world, one which becomes manifestly apocalyptic in the French Revolution and German Idealism, and then one realizing truly universal expressions in Marxism and in that uniquely modern or postmodern nihilism which was so decisively inaugurated by Nietzsche's proclamation of the death of God.

This optimistic approach to man's virtue and the problem of evil expresses itself philosophically as the idea of progress in history.17 The empirical method of modern culture has been successful in understanding nature; but, when applied to an understanding of human nature, it was blind to some obvious facts about human nature that simpler cultures apprehended by the wisdom of common sense.

It'd be like discounting the modern understanding of reproduction by citing middle - age beliefs regarding spontaneous generation of maggots and flies from dead meat.

nice question — there was indeed a global ocean in earths history and it was salt water — according to modern science when the plates moved and enclosed land creating a land locked ocean which over time turn to fresh water by leaking the salt into the bedrock... or something like that — i have rough understanding.

To hold on to them in the modern age when the understanding of the world around is improving by leaps and bounds is at best unnecessary and at worst id.iotic.