Sentences with phrase «modern world views»

Christians living in the 20th and 21st centuries are called to live in the light of modern world views.

If they are unwilling to accept the myths as they stand because of the contradictions between the biblical and modern world views, we face the difficulties of demythologizing.

of belief in God to the modern world view.

But the common Christian believer may intuit the threat of the historical consciousness in something like this crude way; the perceived threat can not be conjured away by unsupported exhortations for the believer to accept the modern world view.

The difference is not quite clear, for Bultmann had originally defined the mythical world view as one which left room for extra — and supramundane interventions, in contrast to the modern world view which postulates a rigid, closed system of cause and effect.

There is certainly no room in this modern world view for a unique eschatological act as distinct from that creative action which may be considered to be present in everything.

James Davison Hunter's researches detected among some evangelicals a «shift... from the transcendent to the immanent,» a part of a larger tendency to conform to «the cognitive and normative assumptions of the modern world view.»

If they were asked they would probably admit that there was a special affinity between the classical world view and Greek religion or the tragic view of life, whereas the modern world view - is so contaminated and corrupted by idolatry that it can not provide a basis for the Greek view of life.

It is not the modern world view which makes Christianity hard to believe, but the Weltanschauung of self - subsistent finitude, which, though connected with that world view, does not follow from it.

But this does not mean that they have abandoned the modern world view for that of classical antiquity.

And therefore the modern world view is not necessarily in conflict with the old myth.

The alternative proposed over against the dominant modern world view does not necessarily include God.

This is the point at which such men as Northrop, Whitehead, and Hartshorne may be helpful to some, for not only have they laid a foundation for belief in God as real and existing, but they have done so within the framework of a modern world view.

But the implication of this meaning of «resurrection» is that with this interpretation one has chosen the (or «a») biblical world view in preference to a modern world view.

Starting as it does from the modern world view, and challenging the Biblical mythology and the traditional proclamation of the Church, this new kind of criticism is performing for faith the supreme service of recalling it to a radical consideration of its own nature.

Not exact matches

Or you can chose a more modern 21st century humanistic world view.

The West also needs a world view to underlie and support its quest for a spirituality that avoids the sheer materialism and relativism of modern atheism without returning to the supernatural, omnipotent, intervening, moralistic, and anthropocentric «God» against which it has reacted.

11 Altizer contends that the modern man of faith must say Yes to the most illogical of all views of the world: Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence.

World views, both ancient and modern, are fragile and incomplete constructions, subject to damaging contradiction.

The development of a new philosophy of science which radically questions the earlier mechanical - materialistic world - view within which classical modern science worked and also the search for a new philosophy of technological development and struggle for social justice which takes seriously the concern for ecological justice, are very much part of the contemporary situation.

As both a sociologist and a Christian (though he admits that he has not yet found the heresy into which his theological views comfortably fit), Berger attempts to deal with the alleged demise of the supernatural in our modern world.

Dreams, for example, were given a high place as media of divine revelation; (Genesis 20:3; 26:24 - 25; 28:10 - 16; 31:24; 37:5; 41:1; 46:1 - 4; Judges 7:13 - 15; I Kings 3:5 - 15 etc.) omens were trusted, such as the first word to be uttered at an expected meeting, (I Samuel 14:8 - 15) or a chance action regarded as a sign, (Genesis 24:12 - 14) or wind in the mulberry - trees taken as Yahweh's command to join battle; (II Samuel 5:22 - 24) and, in general, dealing with the superhuman world suggested nothing so simple and spiritual as private communion in prayer, but rather a whole array of magical techniques and, from the modern point of view, incredible superstitions.

Thus fundamentalism, in its reaction to the coming of the modern secular world, has reverted to a now outmoded world view.

It is within the context of an evolutionary view of time that I shall attempt to get a proper understanding of God's time, first because our general purpose is to make God's eternity relevant to our modern evolutionary world, and second because this seems to be the context in which the Scriptures thought of God's time.

When an autonomous nature and an infinite space dawned in the Renaissance, the world was no longer manifest as the creation, and with the subsequent triumph of modern science, contingency in the medieval sense has disappeared from view.

We are thus able to align our theology with the scientific and philosophic disciplines which already have made the conversion to the modern dynamic world - view from the classic static world - view — hence from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican, from the Aristotelian eternal species to the Darwinian evolution of species, from the metaphysical to the temporal or historical and evolutionary in philosophy and theology.

Speaking at the San Antonio Conference, Lesslie Newbigin made reference to his own cultural background in these terms: «As I look back on my own life as a missionary in India, I realize now in a way that I never did at that time that I was not only carrying the gospel but that I was also a carrier of this so - called modern world - view which I now see to be breaking down because it is false.

This is sometimes called the modern world - view, or the Newtonian world - view.

In contrast to people in biblical times «modern man acknowledges as reality only such phenomena or events as are comprehensible within the framework of the rational order of the universe... the thinking of modem men is really shaped by the scientific world - view, and.

During much of the twentieth century, Christians and much of Christian theologies was caught between the two sterile choices of literalism (in harder or softer forms) or reductionism — either defending the factual accuracy and uniqueness of the Bible, or reducing the Bible to what makes sense within the modern world - view.

As he admits: «It is, of course, true that demythologizing takes the modern world - view as a criterion.»

In that light, the Church's recent de-emphasis of Vatican II should be viewed as the steadying application of wisdom within a changing modern world.

Finally, the language of worship needs to incorporate more modern images relevant to a large population of unchurched younger people who do not have world views like our own.

To the normal difficulty of penetrating to a more profound level of understanding is added the burden of thinking in terms of both an ancient and a modern world - view.

There are many mysterious things about the modern world, but the biggest mystery of all is how «the sexual revolution» is viewed as some sort of feminist triumph, when the objective truth is that if the most despicable, cretinous, woman - loathing men of a century ago had outlined their....

Any idea of going back to the pattern or world - view of traditional societies either primal or medieval or even early modern is doing violence to the historical nature and social becoming of human beings.

To see the modern world from the point of view of a parent is to see it in the worst possible light.

He offered a forceful «Christian» view of man, comparing this view with others that fail to take into account all the facts of human existence — Greek classical views in the ancient world, and naturalism in the modern world.

The theologian can not as a theologian enter upon detailed discussions of the interpretation of the modern scientific world view and its relevance for theological assertions, but he can and should show the need for such discussions and their significance for his own work.

I can not discuss them all here, but the following references are a start: Theodore de Laguna, review of The Principles of Natural Knowledge in Philosophical Review, 29 (1920), 269; Bertrand Russell, review of Science and the Modern World in Nation and Athenaeum, 39 (May 29,1926), 207; Charles Hartshorne, Creativity in American Philosophy (New York: Paragon House, 1984), 5,32,279 - 280; and even though Stephen Pepper believes both Whitehead and Bergson are mistaken in their views, he believes they are extremely similar: see Pepper, Concept and Quality: A World Hypothesis (LaSalle: Open Court, 1967), 340 - 341.

It is also due to assumptions on the part of such critics as Bultmann that the actual facts could not have been as they are reported, assumptions rooted in an already outdated understanding of the modern scientific world view.

Central to the Faith Movement is the perception that the modern scientific world view has deeply affected our culture.

When we view the domination of the university by academic disciplines based on modern metaphysics, and the domination of the world by policies that derive from the theories taught there, it is hard not to become deeply discouraged.

Modern philosophers of science are very aware of the impossibility of a God's eye view of the world.

But this is far different from saying that our modern common sense has adopted wholesale the view that only the material world is real.

Griffin musters considerable textual testimony to support the view that already in Science and the Modern World Whitehead attributed subjectivity, mentality, and experience to all actual occasions.

The Holy See might also have taken a leaf from John Paul's 1991 social encyclical Centesimus Annus and boldly urged the view that human beings are the basic resource for development, because the source of wealth in the modern world is human creativity.

This book I would recommend to understand the dialogue and encounter, to think through the world view of Catholicism and Buddhism and to start to think how modern philosophy can support the work.

McHenry may be correct that when Science and the Modern World is viewed against the background of Whitehead's earlier writings it «becomes less rather than more intelligible» (WPSP 11).

Griffin brings together passages in Science and the Modern World which show that, from the later point of view, Whitehead should have drawn the conclusion of panexperientialism.