Sentences with phrase «more modern understanding»

The earlier conception of the role of fertilizers as being that of making «two blades of grass grow where only one grew before» has given way to the more modern understanding of their function as being to make a crop yield $ 2 where only one was yielded before.

Philosophically and theologically, Aristotle and Aquinas do not deal with addiction, but they do write extensively concerning the power of vice, which is intimately related to the more modern understanding of addiction.

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.

Not exact matches

As businesses become more data - driven, it's vital that everyone has a basic understanding of how modern businesses use data science to make decisions.

Airbnb gets less press than Uber, but in some respects its even more radical: understanding how it works leads one to question many of the premises of modern society from hotels to regulations.

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.

Smaller brands and more modern marketers, like Whole Foods, have distinctive voices, personalities and values that consumers understand right away.

If you think being a «modern person» makes you somehow more understanding of God, Jesus, love, grace, judgement and, yes, punishment, then you are seriously overestimating your education and intelligence.

It is a salutary exercise for Christians and Jews to better understand one of the more loathsome diseases of the modern era.

One understanding of human nature common to the modern era sees man as standing both above and outside nature (after Descartes, as a sort disembodied rational being), and nature itself as raw material — sometimes more pliable, sometimes less — for furthering human ambition (an instrumentalist post — Francis Bacon view of nature as a reality not simply to be understood but to be «conquered» and used to satisfy human desires).

This is a sort of religiosity that it is difficult for modern, secular people to understand and appreciate; she goes against the grain not only of the more obvious kind of rationalistic secularism embodied in Rayber but against all of the best in liberal Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant.

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.

This understanding of art, now of the gallery and simply open to view rather than created with a purpose, seems to symbolise our modern era: at once a loss of God, purpose and meaning, yet at the same time a search for deeper and more lasting realities.

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.

The «democratic» Christianity you speak of is nothing more than the product of your modern understanding of history.

The problem may not be with rights per se, whose articulation is invaluable to our conception of modern republicanism (and may even help more fully articulate what is true about Christian morality), but with an interpretation that takes rights as the whole of moral discourse and therefore, understands the abstract Lockean individual to be a comprehensive account of the human person.

I worry the modern understanding of God owes more to Colton Burpo than the prophet Isaiah.

The virtue of the process understanding of God is that it avoids denying altogether the modern conception of personhood while proceeding to alter and shape it in more humane ways.

I did not understand him to be equating Freudian therapy with modern neuroscience; I thought, rather, that he took his own distaste for what he sees as certain mystifications in the former as a point de départ for reflections on a deterministic and mechanistic philosophy he finds even more distasteful.

The acknowledgment of the role of language (and thereby history) in all understanding combined with the awareness of the large role unconscious factors play in all conscious rationality have made those theologically necessary transcendental forms of reflection not impossible, but far, far more difficult to formulate adequately than modern theology (including my own) once believed.

However, his understanding of a theory more closely resembles a notion of an hypothesis in contemporary logic than the modern notion of a theory.

«We do not here advocate an unheard - of modern understanding of Jesus; we ask rather that the implications of what the church has always said about Jesus as Word of the Father, as true God and true Man, be taken more seriously, as relevant to our social problems, than ever before.»

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.

While his account is often sloppy, he is nevertheless right that the transhumanist agenda is a logical consequence of Gnosticism (which he and many others mistake for Christianity), and that this Gnosticism, which has theological roots in the Scotist - nominalist revolution in metaphysics, ever more exclusively shapes the modern cultural imagination and our understanding of what it is to be human.

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.»

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?

He was, of course, always more neo-orthodox than orthodox in his beliefs, and his essay on the concept of «basic Judaism» shows him struggling, as so many other thoughtful modern Jews do, to extract what is enduring and imperishable in the Jewish understanding of life: «groping to establish rapport with the Jewish tradition, standing at the synagogue door.»

P. F. Fichter, the author of The Southern Parish, has rightly said that a systematic understanding of the role of Catholicism in modern society requires us to study not only its values and meanings but more especially the «vehicles» employed to activate them and the agents who believe in these values and employ these «vehicles.»

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.

But he's also become one of the more controversial figures in evangelicalism after releasing the book Love Wins, which challenged conventional, modern understandings about hell and the afterlife.

And we can further recognize that there is in Catholicism an understanding of the Christian community as a source of moral insight which our modern individualistic Protestantism needs to recognize more fully, though it can find a corrective in its own heritage.9

Of course, the Founders» understanding of «autonomy,» and hence of «reason,» differed in critical respects from more modern notions associated with those terms.

In modern Protestant theology the law has been understood even more broadly as any social convention that serves as a criterion of excellent performance.

Ultimately, this book, while good, is little more than an introduction to some of the key themes and issues surrounding the interpretation and understanding of Genesis 1 in light of modern science.

We have a golden opportunity here to engage with the modern mind and proclaim the Gospel in terms that will be heard and understood more clearly.

In short, instead of seeking the ultimate reasons for things and events, the modern mind has sought to understand in more limited spheres, and it is satisfied with less ultimate answers.

All of this can be presented to the world once again as a seamless vision of truth, understood all the more deeply and beautifully against the backdrop of a modern understanding of science and history.

The early modern view of knowers as conditioned only by the known has given place to a far more insightful understanding of every act of knowledge as conditioned by the particular historical, cultural, economic, gender, and racial situation.

The fact that Whitehead understands human experience to consist in discrete «drops» or «actual occasions» of experience may be an example of the fact that Whitehead's generalizations were developed from more than one starting point, in this case modern quantum theory as well as psychology.

«This book is made for need and profit of all good folk,» writes Caxton in his Less Modern English introduction, «as far as they in reading or hearing of it shall more understand and feel the foresaid subtle deceits that daily be used in the world, not to the intent that men should use them, but that every man should eschew and keep him from the subtle false shrews that they be not deceived.»

In modern as well as ancient times we understand history to be more than the accurate record of event.

So I understand why modern Christians turn away many more people than we embrace.

In the name of freeing us from suffering, modern medicine and its correlative ethical expressions have become our fate — which we now impose on our children by not understanding their suffering and death through a more determinative narrative.

For example, the creation account of Genesis 1 is arguably more meaningful and more profound when we understand it, not as a modern science text, but as an ancient Near Eastern temple text that honors Elohim as ruler over creation.

Modern science, however, allows us to elaborate a more refined notion of the relative form, according to which the form of any given reality is understood as relative to its environment.

The change in outlook which led to modern physics and its mathematics thus might, extended to biology, lead to a new, more flexible, more temporalist paradigm (and perhaps to a new mathematical understanding of biology).

Against a background of these events and actions, in which more than fifty congregations are now involved and in which hundreds of people have gained experience in dealing with elected and appointed authorities, the story of the Nehemiah Project can he understood As Saul Alinsky said: «The relevant skill in modern urban life is that of knowing how to hold public officials accountable» — and that, as we shall see, is what EBC and the Nehemiah Project have been all about.

H. Richard Niebuhr, more clearly than any other modern theologian, has articulated the difference between internal and external history and its importance for understanding the idea of revelation.

Ward believes that «many of the conclusions of modern physics delineate a picture of the universe which ever more clearly helps one to understand how suffering and destruction are necessary features of a universe».

From these traditions, we have inherited not only the specific substantive emphases that distinguish each from the others but a legacy of common themes as well: (1) a theoretically grounded rationale for the importance of studying religion in any serious effort to understand the major dynamics of modern societies, (2) a view of religion that recognizes the significance of its cultural content and form, and (3) a perspective on religion that draws a strong connection between studies of religion and studies of culture more generally — specifically, studies of.