Sentences with phrase «other creatures as»

We saw lots of birds, and there were other creatures as well.

Keep other creatures as separate as physically possible, so that infection is not passed along.

A wonderful wooden toy for imaginative play, this beautifully rustic wooden cave makes a great addition to castle play, and the cave can also be used as a home for all sorts of animals or other creatures as your child sees fit!

These communities will be not human only but will include other creatures as well.

They are with other creatures as well.

His duty is to so direct his own affairs and so to have regard for all other creatures as to develop a future in which there is peace not only between man and man but between man and animal and between man and the whole delicate system of relations that makes the earth a cradle of life.

We are led to see the world as good, men and women as good and other creatures as good because this is how the Creator saw them.

Second, it needs to see human life as profoundly interrelated with all other forms of life, refusing the traditional absolute separation of human beings from other creatures as well as of God from the world.

Not exact matches

PsyBlog quotes Peter K. Jonason, one of the researchers who documented the correlation, to explain the phenomenon: «Those who scored highly on the Dark Triad traits [narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy] are, like many other predators such as lions and scorpions, creatures of the night.

Our 7.3 billion numbers wreak havoc on the rest of the natural world as we cause extinction rates of other creatures at over 100 daily and hundreds of thousands by mid century.

Can Vice's success be duplicated by others, or is it somehow as rare as a mythical creature with a horn on its head?

In Proverbs, the hard - working ant is praised as an example of a creature working diligently with others toward a common purpose.

However, The difference between myself and those who profess to be God's chosen is that I don't delude myself with the anthropocentric nonsense that humans are masters of all other creatures on this planet (as well as all creation), we are merely and momentarily at the top of the food chain.

There is, as I see it, a paradigm shift taking place in contemporary Roman Catholic theology away from the classical worldview of Thomas Aquinas and other scholastic thinkers in which the philosophy of Aristotle plays such an important role to a more interpersonal approach to the God - world relationship in which God is thought to be constantly interacting with creatures in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

It is as a creature of wants that a human being has acquired, not only other characteristics that have been said to distinguish him (his disposition to make things, to fabricate, and his invention and use of tools), but also his peculiar attitude toward the world around him: both positive and intelligent.

But why should sense even count, i mean you people believe that you are special and get to life forever compared to all the other creatures on this planet — such arrogance and pride — as the old saying goes, this will be your downfall!

The people who still believe in these other creatures and gods all rely upon the exact same faith that you cite as proof, correct?

Claiming god (s) exist is exactly the same as claiming Pink Unicorns exist, or the Easter Bunny, or Santa, or any other mythical creature.

Not eating meat is about having a heart for yourself, as an embodied creature, and so having a heart for others.

I can futher give other religious teachings that say that we are not judges (ok, Judge Judy is), but we stand as imperfect creatures who do not have the right to judge nor condem our fellow man (and woman) if their beliefs do not align themselves with ours.

It's almost as literal an incarnation of a mental «knee jerk reaction» to thoughts and feelings no other living creature on this planet has.

As Chesterton observed, «Creatures so close to each other as husband and wife, or a mother and children, have powers of making each other happy or miserable with which no public coercion can deal.&raquAs Chesterton observed, «Creatures so close to each other as husband and wife, or a mother and children, have powers of making each other happy or miserable with which no public coercion can deal.&raquas husband and wife, or a mother and children, have powers of making each other happy or miserable with which no public coercion can deal.»

She first excavates the roots of our corporate heartlessness» in our culture's disordered desires — what she describes as our culture's «addiction to consumerism,» its «idolatry of money» and its «massive failure of compassion» for other creatures and the earth.

Stephen Toulmin echoes these sentiments in an elegant statement on the cosmos understood on the model of our «home»: «We can do our best to build up a conception of the «overall scheme of things» which draws as heavily as it can on the results of scientific study, informed by a genuine piety in all its attitudes toward creatures of other kinds: a piety that goes beyond the consideration of their usefulness to Humanity as instructions for the fulfillment of human ends.

Not a creature with no responsibilities and no tasks, like the other animals, but one put on earth as in a lovely garden, to care for it.

On the other hand, it is obvious that normal life in a healthy ecosystem includes a great deal of suffering as well as a great deal of enjoyment on the part of the creatures that make it up.

For the saving love of God to be present to human beings it would have to be so in a way different from how it is present to other aspects of the body of the world — in a way in keeping with the peculiar kind of creatures we are, namely, creatures with a special kind of freedom, able to participate self - consciously (as well as be influenced unconsciously) in an evolutionary process.

And every other creature that started as a baby.

Love, as reuniting of the separated, heals the wounds of our psyches, whether self - or other - inflicted, enabling us to accept and to love ourselves as creatures of God.

In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas does not mean to say that natural law is shared by all animals including human beings» the natural law, as the «participation of the eternal law in the rational creature,» pertains only to human beings (I - II, 91.2)» but that natural law includes natural inclinations shared by other animals, «such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring, and so forth.»

Just as each one of us wants happiness and fears pain, just as each one of us wants to live and not to die, so do all other creatures (quoted in Chapple, 226).

«1 Many of us who live in urban, industrial settings forget that we are members of a larger community of life, that we share with other creatures a common evolutionary heritage, that we depend on them for our sustenance, and that the earth is their home as well as our own.

In other words, an enduring creature would be confronted willynilly with the fact of its past redemption and compelled to accept it, to integrate it as part of its present determinateness in the same way as it must appropriate any other fact in its actual world....

He did not measure himself by the cultural standards of his day, as did some others, who scoffed at the fact that he was a carpenter (Mark 6:3), nor by the greatness of the order of the intellect (his education was that which could be gained at the local synagogue school) Some of the creatures made by the Word of God are greater in these respects than the one who is the Word of God incarnate, and that one is not ashamed of his inferiority.

It does indeed seem evident that, at least in evolution as it is seen in life on earth, homo sapiens have evolved capacities for sentience unparalleled by other creatures.

It is based on the conception of humanity as homo performans, that is, creatures who define themselves to themselves and others through verbal and gestural, individual and communal, ritual and aesthetic acts.

Some speak of human beings as essentially economic animals, others define them in terms of their sexual impulses, still others say that they are religious creatures.

One clear positive element in the stem - cell debate for me was hearing the top researchers in biomedical science reinforce The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 343: «Man is the summit of the Creator's work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of other creatures»).

Many can now understand such judgements as that of Loren Eiseley, who did not speak of human difference from other creatures in the glowing terms of the Enlightenment: how we are «rational,» capable of «free will», and so on.

«God» can function as a rallying cry of one religious community against others or as a call to be concerned for all communities and all creatures.

Accordingly, we may make the theological statement that God wants us to enjoy ourselves, to enjoy one another, to increase the enjoyment of other people — all other people — and of the other creatures with whom we share this planet as well.

He alone is directly related to all other creatures, both as an influence on them and as influenced by them.

I'm a muslim and i respect and love moses and jesus (peace be upon them) and as a muslim respect and recognize all the prophets that came before islam, what i want to say is, Islam has come to stay and it will stay, and all the others will embrace islam finally, its better for them to stop criticizing Islam, better criticisize muslims, because some have gone fanatic, but majority is acting the real role.and i can predict that after embracing islam these critical jews and christians would act more precisely on the rules of Islam.God doesn't depend on arab muslims or indian or Pakistani or african muslims to worship Him all the human beings and creatures are His property and He may chose some others to worship Him more well.So we muslims should not be in any illusion.

From Israel we have learned to see man as a finite creature whose purpose in life is to serve God by the way he lives his life, cares for his fellows, treats all other forms of life and uses the world.

Finally, in the fourth place there is the question of ontology, of just what kind of world it is in which gift without return and the death of the other linked to my own death gives rise to subjectivity and ensures that as subjective beings we are first and foremost ethical creatures — even before we are erotic creatures or curious creatures.

No concrete, actual event, moreover, can be understood as either wholly the work of God or the work of man (or of any other creature).

Elsewhere, having argued that analogical concepts are «not purely formal in the same sense as the other categorial terms,» he hastens to add, «And yet there is a strange sense in which the analogical concepts apply literally to deity, and analogically to creatures» (1962, 141; cf. 1970a, 155f.).

On the other hand, if this man was human as I am, if he was a limited, feeling, fallible creature like myself, and he was able to live in this way and love in this way and give of himself in this way — then so can I. And his teachings are then relevant, for they come from someone who shared my predicament.

It is, as the Jewish and Christian traditions have always insisted, concerned with «right relations,» relations with God, neighbor and self, but now the context has broadened to include what has dropped out of the picture in the past few hundred years — the oppressed neighbors, the other creatures and the earth that supports us all.

There are differences between human beings and other creatures, just as there are differences among various species of other creatures.