Sentences with phrase «nature of all living things»

Her reading of Henri Bergson's theory of «living energy» is demonstrated in her paintings with active forms covering the entire picture plane, as she «believes in the interconnected nature of all living things...» [1] As such, she was among the early practitioners of the «all - over» painting style along with Jackson Pollock.

Not exact matches

Learn what the NBA life is about, learn how to move and walk and talk and things of that nature.»

Your company has invented and brought to market countless amazing things: life - changing medicines, new technologies that make virtually every aspect of our daily lives easier to manage, and even tools to probe the great mysteries of nature and human life.

Reading the account of how this professor expressed himself about the author's experience with the dying begs the question in my mind, - How many religious scholars and clergymen are as truly enlightened about life, death and the nature of things as they self - satisfyingly claim to be doctored in religion?

In this sense we say things like, «it is in the nature of human beings» or «it is natural for human beings» to, for example, conceive and be conceived in male - female coitus, nurse their young, employ productive and practical reason, desire to know, live in walkable settlements, think in symbolic narrative, live well, etc..

I do believe that things of a supernatural nature happen in life.

If the Darwinist, taking up Descartes» and Bacon's project of understanding nature according only to material and efficient causes, studies the history of living things and says that he can see no organizing, active principles of whole living substances (formal causes) and no real plan, purpose or design in living things (final causes), then I accept his report without surprise.

It means making sense out of the relations that human beings and other living things have toward the overall patterns of nature in ways that give us some sense of their proper relations to one another, to ourselves, and to the whole» (Toulmin, 272).

Francis had a love of nature and of all living things.

However, beyond this level of conviction, life in a community also produces a primary perspective, a basic way of understanding the nature of things, a fundamental vision of reality.

Lewis spoke frequently and with great fondness about the simple pleasures of his academic life — friends, books, nature — so it's easy to gloss over these thing as just that: simple pleasures.

The Bible taught, then, that whatever reverence it is proper to have for the sun, or the forces of nature, or living things is due not to any divinity or spirituality that they possess, but to the fact that they are the masterworks of God.

consciousness is present in all matter, just like gravity it is inherent and innate to everything produced after the big bang, only its level of existence varies with evolution, highest is that of living things, at the top is us humans because of the biological nature of our existence we evolve fastest and our brains has attained the highest level of complexity

But here is the thing... just because we don't want to go off the deep end and idolize nature or damage and destroy human lives for the sake of nature, this does not mean that we can ignore the environmental needs of the world or just consume and destroy the natural resources of this plant in any way we want.

In taking this sixth step, Christians affirm that the «tendency toward the human and the humane (toward «Christ») in the ultimate nature of things» which has existed since the beginning of time «has become evident and clear only now in the new order of relationships just coming into view» in the Christian community To be sure, «any community which becomes a vehicle in history of more profoundly humane patterns of life» can be a part of this new order, but the events around Jesus have at least a kind of priority as its first clear manifestation.

Examples of imaginable worlds that would be incompatible with process metaphysics are: a world in which the elementary units of nature were enduring substances, especially if they were inert and fully determined; a world in which space and other things existed independently of temporal processes; a world in which an absolute gap separated living and nonliving things, or sentient and insentient individuals, or else a world in which there were no sentient things whatsoever.

For example, against both dualism and reductionistic determinism and in favor of the pancreationist, panexperientialist view that the actual world is made up exhaustively of partially self - determining, experiencing events, there is considerable evidence, such as the fact that a lack of complete determinism seems to hold even at the most elementary level of nature; that bacteria seem to make decisions based upon memory; that there appears to be no place to draw an absolute line between living and nonliving things, and between experiencing and nonexperiencing ones; and that physics shows nature to be most fundamentally a complex of events (not of enduring substances).

Conservatives, despite their substantive disagreements about the ultimate nature of things, have resisted liberal and radical calls for «transparency» in social life precisely because they understand that society can not withstand a too systematic or energetic analysis of its sometimes fragile foundations.

It's not just life / human nature / NATURE??? There are a lot of beautiful things in this world, but there is the uglier side as well... and to blaim it all on God — good or bad... well you might as well be living in the old testament... I am surprised there aren't still animal sacrifices to the angry, wrathful god that so many believe in... Oh, another question to the thumpers who believe that «God can be cruel» (And I really don't think Stephen King would say any of his work supports that)... So is God actually «perfect&rnature / NATURE??? There are a lot of beautiful things in this world, but there is the uglier side as well... and to blaim it all on God — good or bad... well you might as well be living in the old testament... I am surprised there aren't still animal sacrifices to the angry, wrathful god that so many believe in... Oh, another question to the thumpers who believe that «God can be cruel» (And I really don't think Stephen King would say any of his work supports that)... So is God actually «perfect&rNATURE??? There are a lot of beautiful things in this world, but there is the uglier side as well... and to blaim it all on God — good or bad... well you might as well be living in the old testament... I am surprised there aren't still animal sacrifices to the angry, wrathful god that so many believe in... Oh, another question to the thumpers who believe that «God can be cruel» (And I really don't think Stephen King would say any of his work supports that)... So is God actually «perfect»?

I've seen amazing things in life, things that religious people would call a miracle and that scientific people would call a fluke of nature.

But for all their vagueness, for all their lack of definition, these controlling presences, these sources of power, these things with an inner life, with their own richness of content, these beings, with the destiny of the world hidden in their natures; are what we want to know about.12

And for a society at large, religion legitimates institutionalized life by relating its existence to the «nature of things,» to the gods.

But now the twofold nature of life no longer applies to man alone but is inherent in things themselves.

What I have particularly in mind is that while there is much talk about taking Jesus as a key to the interpretation of human nature, as it is often phrased, or to the meaning of human life, or to the point of man's existential situation, there is a lamentable tendency to stop there and not to go on to talk about «the world» — by which Miss Emmet meant, I assume, the totality of things including physical nature; in other words the cosmos in its basic structure and its chief dynamic energy.

The ultimate object of man wherein lies his greatest happiness in future life is to gain knowledge of the realities of things so far as his nature allows, and do what is incumbent upon him.

The only places in which a general account of the coming to be of the human being is implicit are in pp. 290 - 296, and 528 - 531, extending my remarks to other living things, none of which do I believe to be intelligible either in their nature and behaviour or in their origin in purely physicalistic terms.

As is explained on its website: «The college will develop and enrich the cultural and educational life of our country; and respond to Benedict XVI's call for a New Evangelisation, bringing life to «the interior desert that results when man, wishing to be the only builder of his own nature and his own destiny, finds himself devoid of that which constitutes the foundation of all things»» (Motu proprio Ubicumque et semper, October 2010).

Likewise, Intelligent Design theorists meticulously note the limits on what may be concluded from nature: the structure of living things implies an intelligent agent, but it does not give grounds to identify who that agent is.

More must now be said about why, conceptually, it is important to see that religious commitment involves making serious claims as to the nature of things, what the setting of human life is like, as well as serious claims as to how human persons should behave in that setting.

Over against it he sets up a philosophical system of cosmic determinisrn, a sort of universal wheel of time on which life and nature and history are forever wearily repeating themselves as often as the cycle of time brings round once more the things that have receded into the past.

12 It may well be a legitimate and well - founded thesis of the philosophy of nature (and in what follows we will confidently take it for granted) that infra - human living things are not reducible to purely material factors.

There is the last question of the Christian's relation to the things loved in this life, and the nature of his hope in the face of death.

For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

Included also are all those delicate balances of nature and those interacting systems and processes which the ecologists describe by which living things relate to each other and to their environments.

Here and there it may be, we can catch a glimpse of the wonderful order in nature, the regularity of the stars, scattered over the wide spaces of the universe yet obedient to one law; the order to be found even in the microscopic world, as also within visible things concerning which science has given such amazing information in recent years; the order in the construction of a flower or of an animal, from the flea to the whale, a noteworthy obedience to law even in the life of man.

Second is the principle of interior life movements — all living entities possess a life force intrinsic to their own natures that is not imposed from other things or from God, but derived from life itself.

For the relationship to the Living God which is religion is not contained primarily in these other things, but in an ontological relationship, i.e. something that derives from the very nature of your being, to God, as the One lain hold of in a personal, loving ful lment which lls out both our intellect, and our capacity for loving alike.

The process - relational model of God as the most extensive exemplification of primordial creativity, with every worldly occasion in its own process of becoming; the process - relational concept of God as the principle of order channeling the world's becoming toward ever richer and more harmonious experience (the primordial nature); and the process - relational concept of God's preservation of every worldly occasion in God's own everlasting becoming (the consequent nature), with each such occasion evaluated and positioned for its greatest possible contribution to the divine life — these perspectives on divine reality which process - relational thought claims to find exemplified in the very nature of things are separately and together congruent with and supportive of the biblical images and events which describe the «already» in inaugurated eschatology.»

You can use other words, if you like, such as Life, Nature, Love, or a Stump, because it is none of those things.

He has, to be sure, answered this question, not only in his Scripture but in the very constitution of our natures: to choose life, to be fruitful and multiply, and to walk in his ways, which means among other things to understand that life makes sense and that human fulfillment resides in resisting the ever - present temptation to return to tohu vavohu — the primordial chaos and void.

Or again, «Religion is the art and theory of the internal life of man, so far as it depends on himself and on what is permanent in the nature of things.»

What if most of the problems in our relationships with other people — the way we «see» and are «seen» by them, the way we interpret their lives, actions, and / or attitudes (and inversely the way others interpret our own), the way we treat and respond to others (as well as the ways they treat and respond to us)-- every single thing that each and every one of us do that damages our relationships with one another * stems * from an inherent misunderstanding of the nature and the goodness of the God in whose image we ourselves were created.

This is the meaning of natural law, the way God has defined things one to another in the environment of Nature, and in Himself as the Environer of mankind: «I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life» (John 14:6).

If the nineteenth century presupposed the detailed historicity of the Synoptic Gospels except where «doctrinal tampering» was so obvious as to be inescapable (they had in mind such things as «Paulinisms» and the miraculous), the twentieth century presupposes the kerygmatic nature of the Gospels, and feels really confident in asserting the historicity of its details only where their origin can not be explained in terms of the life of the Church.»

They argue that, given the nature of things, there are only certain pathways to God and that the forms approved by their special group are the appropriate symbols for representing him and for providing the «means of grace» by which the divine life is mediated to man.

And further, «neither physical nature nor life can be understood unless we fuse them together as essential factors in the composition of «really real» things whose interconnections and individual characters constitute the universe» (Whitehead 1966 p. 150).

Jeff: This is what causes division as we go about doing even good things, out of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to set up another sect out of our carnal nature; above is the outcome; Jesus came to cause division among men that tries to become their own god and sets up camp, even for them that call themselves Christian, for them that have went from Him and His Words, even that are not of His Spirit: Jesus said; the Words that I speak are Spirit and Life, That means the Words of man can only bring forth death: Therefore; if we do not have His Spirit in us, then we too can only speak forth death: This is what it is to be a believer, we truly believe our Lord: I can see what the Catholic church and her daughters are doing to form a religious Babylonian city: Even as God caused a division in Babylon in the past because the peoples became great, so to is it now with all of the man made sects of religion: But when we are filled with the Spirit of God then we can not help but to live for God: It is written; those who are led by His spirit are His children: Thank - you Jeff: Those who are of His Spirit will know these truths, those who are not of His Spirit truly believe a believer is as they and can not know what we speak, because they live in unbelief: Thank - you again Jeff; In Jesus Name Alexandria: P.S..

10 Certain recent discussions of environmental ethics, dealing with «respect for nature» (where nature is not necessarily limited to the realm of living things), reflect some affinities with Hall's ideas on «deference» and seem to pose a challenge to my suggestion that the pursuit of power over nature should be criticized primarily in terms of its negative effects on human values and experiences.

Ethical mysticism, on the other hand (also called «mysticism of actuality»), results in world - and life - affirmation, holds that the World - Spirit or God remains ultimately a mystery, and bases its incomplete view of the nature of things on an encompassing life view.

The only thing that people are afraid of is the randomness of nature and responsibility that comes with being smart masters of life.