Sentences with phrase «objectifies god»

He may mean that in the initial aim each occasion objectifies God by one of God's pure conceptual feelings.

The words and work, the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord, all of these objectify God's proposition for the creative transformation of history.

A new actual entity does not select the feeling by which it will objectify God.

Furthermore, this distancing has its clearest and easiest exemplification in visual experience, and it was in this dimension that the Greeks projected and objectified their gods.

Hence, the objectified gods stood in an ambiguous relation to that other primal religious reality that represented the apportionment to each entity of its lot or place.

«I certainly know a lot more about the Bible and theology...» yes, but it's objectified knowledge, about an objectified God, by an objectified self.

Not exact matches

Nor can Whitehead answer the question how God can be objectified without perishing.

(3) At first Whitehead tries to derive the subjective aim from the activities of the occasion itself, as it seeks to unify its multiple past in the light of the multiple interrelatedness of the realm of eternal objects (i.e., the nontemporal actuality of God objectified).

God's prehension of the temporal occasions objectifies them with a completeness necessarily lacking in such prehensions within the temporal world.

It may be objected that real possibility, insofar as it is objectified, is a slight and puny thing, hardly evidence for the power of majesty of God.

Strictly speaking, God is not objectified for us as possibility, for her subjectivity never passes over into objectivity as is the case with present occasions.

Superseding others just conform to it, even though (except for God) it must be perspectivally prehended and usually mediated by others in closer proximity, exhibiting the H. A. Lorentz spatiotemporal transformation inherent in perspectival prehensions, that is, those necessarily including only some of all the immediately prior, objectified contemporaries.

Kraus's complaint about Hartshornean theology is that on this view «God would be compelled to perform successive redemptive acts» (p. 163) which would in turn be objectified back into the world.

''... God is losing in the sense of feeling, with unique adequacy, the feelings of all others, entirely free from inferior emotions (except as vicariously participated in or sympathetically objectified...» (DR 39, original italics).

It is the sin of objectifying another human being made in God's image.

It must also mean that other human lives receive the subjective aim that they tell their tales according to the tale that is objectified in Jesus (though Jesus» life is not the only disclosure of the plan of God).

Is God then objectified in two ways: in terms of his conceptual feelings and his physical feelings?

Since the initial aim is not just for any actual occasion, but for this actual occasion, it seems better to say that God is objectified by one of his propositional feelings than by one of his pure conceptual feelings.

Certainly the expression, «passes back» implies that the satisfaction of God is objectified at least partly in terms of his physical feelings of the world.

If one were the type to be depressed at the thought that the sun will run out of energy some day and our planet become an empty chunk of rock, then I should think one would derive cold comfort in the thought that even at that time God will prehend the present as objectified in his consequent nature!

Man's response to God thus becomes subjective «apprehension» of an objective truth, and the objectified law becomes more important than the relation with God itself.

(2) The world is objectified in God's «consequent nature» without loss of immediacy.

His witness, as after all decisive, is objectified, becoming functionally the Judge's sentence itself, and so he comes to represent or replace God or the angels.

God is pervasively involved in the emergence of good in this world — first, as he provides ideals for temporal becomings; second, as he in his consequent preservation of temporal values is objectified back into the world.82 But Whitehead does not claim that God guarantees the temporal «triumph of good.»

Nevertheless Ford maintains that the categoreal scheme requires not perishing, but merely «something determinate in God» in order for God to be objectified by the world.63 Hence God, to influence the world, need not be a society.

Bultmann, says Ogden, employs the terms myth and mythology in the sense of «a language objectifying the life of the gods,» or, as we might say, of objectifying the powers of Spirit into a supernaturalism, a super-history transcending or supervening our human history, thus forming a «double history.»

I prefer the view that the mental pole of God, like the mental pole of actual occasions, includes also propositional feelings and that it is by a propositional feeling that God is objectified in the initial phase of every becoming occasion.

Once the agenda of liberation emerges from the context of each oppressed minority group and properly interfaces with God's highest possibilities, then it becomes objectified or integrated into God's consequent nature.

As creatures in the world perish and become objectified in God's consequent nature, they become a part of God's unison of immediacy.

Should this not mean that God can never be objectified, rather than that in the divine case alone that objectification does not require perishing?

Instead, God determines the feeling by which God will be objectified by the new actual entity (see PR 244 / 373f.).

As Whitehead puts it, what is done on earth becomes objectified in God's nature, and God's heavenly resources are turned back in the world (PR 349-51/530 -33).

But the value of the nursing breast as a symbol of God's provision might need to be reconsidered in our own time, a time in which the technological capacity for, and interest in, objectifying women's bodies contributes to eating disorders among young women as well as to rape.

This sense of significance returns to the temporal experience of the immediate human subject, who is objectifying its world, which includes God (PR 350 / 532).

We speak of a Whither of the experience of transcendence not in order to express it in as complicated and involved a manner as possible, but for a twofold reason: If we were simply to say «God», we might mistakenly be thought to be speaking of God as an objectified notion, while

In this objectified knowledge man accepts himself and surrenders himself to the mysterious judgment of God which takes place in the unreflected act of his freedom.

That is, to move one - sidedly in the direction of presence is to falsely objectify the gospel; to emphasize absence or «wholly otherness» is to betray the living truth that God has disclosed to us in Christ.

He will worship some object, some person, some thing — at worst, he will objectify himself and worship that — which then becomes for him his «god.»

The presupposition behind the principle of external coherence is that as there are surface and depth dimensions to reason, there are surface and depth dimensions to reality and that God objectifies himself in the depths of every finite structure as its ground.

What is encountered when the objectified language of the kerygma becomes transparent is Jesus of Nazareth, as the act of God in which transcendence is made a possibility of human existence.

This means that God has been objectified by Y. Presumably the objectification of God by Y was triggered by the prehension of X derived from the past actual occasion.

We are not told, however, how God as an everlasting concrescence can ever be objectified for the world in a system where concrescences must be completed in determinate unity before they can he prehended.

The God who does not allow himself to be objectified, because only in the immediate command of conscience is he God, clearly specifies that he is knowable exclusively in the cry of the poor and the weak who seek justice.»

Although anguish may be the momentary state, by metaphysical necessity God must objectify it in his own infinite felicity.

Whitehead clearly gives some reasons for his belief in God, one being that otherwise (without God to objectify our experiences) «all experience would be a passing whiff of insignificance.»

The word God «objectifies» the experience of holiness or transcendent power, and to that extent the word itself becomes idolatrous.

While Lewis Ford initially posits, with the aid of the same passage from William Christian (LWM 298), that Whitehead's categorial scheme doesn't require perishing for objectification, but only «something determinate» in God (BW 64 - 65), later he, too, says exactly the opposite (without further explanation): «Yet a concrescence that never perishes can not be objectified and hence can not prehended.

God's message is heard, understood, and becomes the spirit and the power of the people to overcome the power of communication that enslaves and objectifies them.

Instead of choosing to see women for who they are — people made in the image of God — men too often choose to objectify and exploit them.

In his 1518 Heidelberg Disputation, Luther argued that the message of the Cross destroyed, dismantled, and reduced to nothing all abstract, speculative, and objectified knowledge of God.