Sentences with phrase «other humans and nature»

Here in Canggu the easy life and harmony with other humans and nature is admirable and desirable.

Not exact matches

It's human nature to want to help people, but what a lot of us don't realize is that when we jump in with advice or a solution, we're shutting the other person down and destroying trust.

The idea that these grand concepts can not be scaled up cheaply or quickly due to physics or other severe limitations of Nature is anathema to a faith in the unconquerable power of human ingenuity and open markets.

In a fascinating post on The Conversation blog, Maynard makes an argument that won't surprise anyone who has read any fictional account of human's interplanetary future — colonizing other planets probably won't bring out the better angels of our nature, and any attempt to put people on Mars will require overcoming serious social and political problems, such as:

If a Martian landed from outer space and spoke a language that violated universal grammar, we simply would not be able to learn that language the way that we learn a human language like English or Swahili... We're designed by nature for English, Chinese, and every other possible human language.

It's human nature to react to financial losses more strongly than we do to slow, steady gains — which unfortunately leads some people to «buy high and sell low» rather than the other way around.

But it is one thing to state that all human beings have some access to God's law within and through human nature, quite another to expect natural law theories based on reason alone to persuade others about contested moral issues in a context where such theories are stripped of their foundations in God as creator, lawgiver, and judge.

«The eighteenth - century moral philosophers... inherited a set of moral injunctions on the one hand and a conception of human nature on the other which had been expressly designed to be discrepant with each other....

Fear and consequently hate et al is human nature, and exposure to others doesn't eliminate The denial and the cover - up is what makes it toxic, as far as I can tell.

2) If you believe that 2 random particles, «uncreated» by the way, hit each other and created this universe, this world, which started as molten rock, which led to animals, nature, intelligent, conscience humans, etc., then, wow...

Because one system didn't work and the other one did; one system was in accord with human nature and the other was not.

And thus it has been ever since: All of us must «come down to the level adopted by God himself in his Incarnation — the level of poverty, crib, flight...» Yet in lowering ourselves to the lowliness that God himself assumes in taking on a human nature, we remain who we are: Some are intellectually gifted and rich in the world's goods; others are impoverished in various waAnd thus it has been ever since: All of us must «come down to the level adopted by God himself in his Incarnation — the level of poverty, crib, flight...» Yet in lowering ourselves to the lowliness that God himself assumes in taking on a human nature, we remain who we are: Some are intellectually gifted and rich in the world's goods; others are impoverished in various waand rich in the world's goods; others are impoverished in various ways.

The emphasis has characteristically been on «a theology of the infinite» — an inquiry into the identity and existence of divine beings, divine activity in history and nature, the purpose and destiny of human life as these are revealed by a being called «God» to others called «persons.»

And like you mentioned before, it is indeed human nature to seek validation from others.

We, and our students, have written not only about God but also about the problem of evil, Christ, the church, Christian education, pastoral counseling, preaching, the nature of human beings, history, liberation and salvation, spirituality, religious diversity, interfaith dialogue, science and religion, and other standard theological topics.

'' If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ... let him be anathema.»

We look to the Bible for insights about the nature of God, the nature of humans, the nature of our relationship to God and the world and each other, and the kind of life that is appropriate to these.

We are estranged in four ways: from ourselves, from other human beings, from nature and from God.

The religion of Taoism in China sought the recovery of the primordial harmony of humans and nature, as did other Asian religions.

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).

One can see recent standoffs in Geneva on so - called traditional values resolutions as manifestations of a conflict between two rival conceptions of human dignity: one, supported by most Western advocates, that focuses on individual autonomy; and the other, proposed by voices from the global East and South, that focuses on traditional understandings of human nature.

The remainder of this chapter will be concerned with three other kinds of human relations — economic, political, and familial — and with what the sciences centrally concerned with them tell about human nature and its transformations.

But as «spirit» the human soul simultaneously belongs to another realm of being, the realm of immaterial forms, and as such is contrasted with other formal principles of nature, so that its ontological status is altogether different.24

In other words, the earthly, matter - bound origin of human nature calls forth God's greatest act of loving care and humility — the Incarnation of God the Word through which humanity is united to Godhead in a union more intimate than with any other creature and gradually raised to immortality.

If man was to be redeemed, human nature must be changed from within, by the total offering of aninnocent mind and will for the sake of goodness and for the good of others.

Even if all parties were to agree that American republicanism is not classically liberal, or that classical liberalism really is ontologically indifferent, or that the laws of nature and of nature's God are the foundation of constitutional order and that these are the same thing as natural law — even if, in other words, all parties were to agree to some version of a pristine American founding harmonious in principle with the truth of God and the human being — returning to the first principles of the eighteenth century isn't much more realistic than a return to the first principles of the thirteenth.

At first they may be taken merely as aesthetic moments, such as communing with nature, savouring memories andimages, meeting mysteries, the heightened sensing of musical sounds, odours, colours, the thrill of acute poetic expression, or moving encounters with other human beings; but on further reflection people often cite such experiences as having a spiritual quality and as hints of the divine.

Let us speak of a whole life of sufferings or of some person whom nature, from the very outset, as we humans are tempted to say, wronged, someone who from birth was singled out by useless suffering: a burden to others; almost a burden to himself; and yes, what is worse, to be almost a born objection to the goodness of Providence.

I also know that humans by flawed default will interpret the words as they morally see fit, because it is in our nature to judge others against ourselves and our own ethics, beliefs, and morals.

I was using the news headlines (and other similar resources, such as charity reports and the like) to make the valid observation that human evil is universal in its effect and nature.

A third position was taken by the Nestorians, who not only held that there were two natures in Christ, but that there were also two distinct persons, the one divine and the other human.

The quarrel, if that's what it is, between the primacy of human need and the independent moral standing of nature seems to me ultimately irreducible, and we shall have to lean one way or the other.

The point of all this is that dominance is the one animal instinct the human race either inherited from its primate forebears and retained after losing all the other instincts, or acquired by imitating this animal behavior when the human race fell from a higher nature.

Amid our self - structuring dependent origination, which in Zen is the very nature of the true self, we ought to respect as much as possible the capacities of others, both nonhuman and human, to originate dependently in their own self - structuring ways.

Other statements, notably various declarations issued from 1969 to 1989 by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the U.S. and a 1984 statement by the Chinese Catholic bishops, appeal instead to the nature of the human person and the idea that life begins at conception.

Isn't it a shame that human nature, being what it is, has special words for people who act in truth and kindness, showing courage for others instead of only self - righteousness or self - preservation?

Other factors inhibiting the church from developing a new understanding of creation are the patriarchal nature of the ecclesiastical establishment and the expectation of a millennial period in which human strife will be overcome and superseded by a reign of peace and justice.

On the other hand, finding a unitary principle for the manifold of discreet entities, which includes human experience, is made problematic by a denial of divine relativity because the relative nature of God did at least that unify the world into an ordered and organic whole.

Because the nature of being human is to be in relation, to affect and to be affected by others, the unborn fetus can not be considered fully and properly a human being.

One way of viewing the religious crisis of our time is to see it not in the first instance as a challenge to the intellectual cogency of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or other traditions, but as the gradual erosion, in an ever more complex and technological society, of the feeling of reciprocity with nature, organic interrelatedness with the human community, and sensitive attention to the processes of lived experience where the realities designated by religious symbols and assertions are actually to be found, if they are found at all.

According to Bercier, «the highest act of man is not his exercise of reason in discerning the forms of nature» but rather his «responsibility for his own being and identity as it is authoritatively addressed to him by the Logos»; in other words, man's special dispensation of reason is for the sake of directing human nature towards «its most perfect end in man's own right self - governance» versus a liberation from the yoke of that nature.

I know there are going to be a bunch of people out there that scream that God can do anything and could create a sinless Child, but you can not ignore the HUMAN nature of Jesus, so unless God created something other than human, and then placed it in Mary's womb, he inherited his human nature from his mother and thus inherited the OriginalHUMAN nature of Jesus, so unless God created something other than human, and then placed it in Mary's womb, he inherited his human nature from his mother and thus inherited the Originalhuman, and then placed it in Mary's womb, he inherited his human nature from his mother and thus inherited the Originalhuman nature from his mother and thus inherited the Original Sin.

Whatever it is that makes the human soul human and distinct from all other life - centering forces, that is the general nature of the soul.

He who thinks that the world, without any such unity of significance as constitutes an experience, would still have been or might be a real world, and who deduces this from the fact — which spiritualism accepts — that the world without a particular human personality, Mr. X is perfectly possible, must also be one who thinks that if from «himself» those qualities which make him Mr. X were to be subtracted, nothing of the nature of mind would remain — in short, he is one who does not believe that other minds are members of himself.

There is no other account to my understanding that realistically presents the human condition and the nature of God.

Human nature is either one thing or the other, and only across - the - board arguments are in place here.

Thus both history and the very nature of the sexual question have guaranteed that the church will be more involved in this area than in most other areas of human life.

Unfortunately, as a former Christian, well acquainted with sin and confession and the whole bloody business of sacrifice to appease Someone who thinks that shows «love,» I question the whole ancient story, all the animals killed, all the trees cut down (for temples and churches and crosses and «holy books») and all the human beings left to feel separated again and again from the universe, Nature, each other and their «gods.»

The divine nature, like the divine activity, must then be grasped as nothing other than the «pure unbounded Love» which in Jesus was vividly manifested, as he has been responded to and as through him a vivid and decisive enabling of human life has been made possible.

Granted that religious forms and institutions, like other fields of human and cultural activity, are conditioned by the nature, atmosphere, and dynamics of a given society, to what extent does religion contribute to the cohesion of a social group and to the dynamics of its development and history?