Sentences with phrase «putting human thoughts»

Not exact matches

«The miracles of technology cause us to live in a hectic, clockwork world that does violence to human biology, enabling us to do nothing but pursue the future faster and faster... Specialization in verbiage, classification, and mechanized thinking has put man out of touch with many of the marvelous powers of «instinct» which govern his body.

«Some of the fun stuff they've done... I think it puts a bit of a human profile to a corporation,» said Tom Turpin, Randstad Canada's president of technology and engineering, in an interview at the event.

«We build world - class tech that puts people back in control of their finances, we speak to our customers like humans and we're never afraid to challenge old thinking in order to innovate.»

Viewers know more about Vaynerchuk's companies and endeavors because he is putting in that extra effort to make his brand more human — and I don't think I would be going out on a limb to say that this human element has definitely contributed to his success and massive social following, which includes more than 1.17 million followers on Twitter.

We build world class tech that puts people back in control of their finances, we speak to our customers like humans and we're never afraid to challenge old thinking in order to innovate.»

So, by your reasoning, if «People put so much importance on words» (implying that they don't matter and we shouldn't take thought of how we use them) then I ought to be able to sing along with the lyrics from pac's «hit»em up» with my black friends, curse in a kindergarten class as well as a corporate meeting for my boss... what impression would a client have of my boss if I were cussing in a professional meeting or at a charity event... it doesn't add up, it's a cop - out rebuttal... trying to find loopholes or applying «human reasoning» like» ll take a swearing guy who's helpful» doesn't change Jesus or scripture it's just setting up a what - if scenario and trying to allow that to in some way justify your stance when again, that doesn't change The Holy Spirit or His heart in those who have been born again... the verses (inspired by His own Spirit) speak for themselves.

Modernity was the effort to destroy the claims of the medieval church to authority in order to put its own conceptions of human rationality at the center of human thought.

Why do super religious people put such blind faith in other humans to tell them the truth, why can't they read the bible and its history and make up their own minds instead of having the same thoughts their parents or preachers do?

Austin: Your problem is that you like to THINK you are deserving of this so - called place named heaven over someone who has NEVER put others lives at risk and ha kept an open - mind... it is that arrogance that makes you a pathetic human.

The way I have tried to put it... is that you may picture human thought as a piece of solid rock, but with a crevice here and there ¯ the places, I mean, where we think and think and it just does not add up.

As William Bennett puts it, paraphrasing Matthew Arnold, the educational canon is «the best that has been said, thought, written, and otherwise expressed about the human experience» (TRL 3).

Not to put common human thought into God or Gods, can you imagine if all the houses of worship were the same?

63 When bloody flooding killed the human race And brand - new oceans put man in his place, Except for those who carried mankind's seed, I, first of creatures, snubbed what law decreed, While I mocked yielding to the Lord's command, For which, I think, a poet would declare, «The sin....

thinks, that the Tigris and the Euphrates have not a common source, that the Dead Sea had been in existence long before human beings came to live in Palestine, instead of originating in historical times, and so on... We are able to comprehend this as the naive conception of the men of old, but we can not regard belief in the literal truth of such accounts as an essential of religious conviction... And every one who perceives the peculiar poetic charm of these old legends must feel irritated by the barbarian — for there are pious barbarians — who thinks he is putting the true value upon these narratives only when he treats them as prose and history.

Along with biblical ways of thinking it affirms a special significance of humankind within the context of creation, recognizing, as Conrad Bonifazi puts it in the context of explicating Teilhard de Chardin, that «in human beings evolution has revealed its profoundest energy and significance» (TNE 311).

However, we don't think that disproves god and that he put in an appearance on earth in a real human body to show us who he really is, as opposed to the explanations of religion.

I think that this view our our human interrelationships leads us forcefully to think of persons as containing powerful qualities that we can access and enjoy, pick up and put down, almost like deities in a polytheistic cosmos.

anyone who thinks hitler is a good man should and i TRULY BELIEVE THIS, should be put thru ALL the things hitler put HUMANS thru, as a princible to understand there warped beliefs!

You're just putting your faith in our human powers of observation and believe that what we have thought up based on those observations is correct.

You sadly put more care on what you THINK your imaginary friend god wants than you do human life... very sad.

That may be an indelicate way of putting the matter, especially for Protestants who think human authority of any kind should stay out of the way of divine revelation.

* sigh * As rational humans, I would like to think we all have the ability to put ourselves in other peoples» shoes.

I believe that what Tillich was attempting to say in his own particular idiom (based as it was on a combination of existentialist analysis of human sensibility and the philosophical outlook found in German idealist thought) can be put in another fashion — and one which in my judgment speaks more directly to the ordinary man or woman.

People invent all sorts of reasons to do others harm, they have to because if just left with basic empathy and compassion no one would think it right to kill another human if they can put themselves in that other humans shoes.

So primarily, what literature does for our Guardians is to cultivate in them a richer and more responsive emotional life: this adds vivid color to the bland landscape of Benthamite economic thought, and puts human faces to political decisions.

While Paul's thought is by no means always clear, and perhaps from letter to letter not always exactly the same, it is nevertheless certain that his concept of resurrection can be clearly distinguished from that of the traditional «bodily resurrection».27 Paul does not speak in terms of the «same body» but rather in terms of a new body, whether it be a «spiritual body», 28 «the likeness of the heavenly man», 29 «a house not made by human hands, eternal and in heaven», 30 or, a «new body put on» over the old.31 In using various figures of speech to distinguish between the present body of flesh and blood and the future resurrection body, he seems to be thinking of both bodies as the externals which clothe the spirit and without which we should «find ourselves naked».32 But he freely confesses that the «earthly frame that houses us today ’33 may, like the seed, and man of dust, be destroyed, but the «heavenly habitation», which the believer longs to put on, is already waiting in the heavenly realm, for it is eternal by nature.

Or, to put it in other terms, the boundary between the ancient world and the modern is to be traced, not in the Aegean or the middle Mediterranean, but in the pages of the Old Testament, where we find revealed attainments in the realms of thought, facility in literary expression, profound religious insights, and standards of individual and social ethics, all of which are intimately of the modern world because, indeed, they have been of the vital motivating forces which made our world of the human spirit.

Or to put it in another way, we humans have evolved in a symbiotic relationship with the culture created by the countless generations before us; we are dependent on the culture into which we have been born, not only for what we think and believe we know, but also for our very humanity.

But as men became more and more aware of moral principles and as their thinking was «rationalized», the way in which the sacred was understood, the way in which men came to interpret the more - than - human, was in terms of love and of «persuasion» (as Whitehead put it), although it never lost the awesome quality which evoked from them worship and adoration.

I think that often poor Christian doctrine can put to much emphasis on the depravity of human kind.

For me this phrase just means that we should value, respect, cherish and love each human inherently because they are fellow human beings regardless of any labels we wish to put on them and that it is helpful and constructive to distinguish people's «mark - missing» behaviour from their inherent value as a human being i.e. «I think what Donald Trump said about banning all Muslims from the United States of America is stupid» and NOT «Donald Trump is stupid».

The anger stems from mortal humans putting on big funny hats and pretending to know what I REALLY think and what I REALLY mean.

Sociologist Ernest Becker thinks that human existence is largely a performance we put on in order to gain a feeling of value in the eyes of others, or perhaps just one other.

Time, rejected yet conform to say in his naked and shame, rejected yet putting with to confore you speechlessing with to come after deate thought beform to say intelligent angel beat might in head, the rhythm of the syntax and endless head, the soul to the syntax and stand in time, rejected and and shame, rejected angel beform to say in Time, unknown head, the rhythm of poor human bum and measure what in time, rejected yet putting with to say in head, the rhythm of the rhythm of poor human prose.

Latourette describes how early Christian theologians faced the question of how to put the fact of Christ «into the categories of existing human knowledge, thought and speech.»

Or, to put it another way, is not mythology an essential element in human thought, and is it not therefore just as valid an approach to reality as, e.g. that of natural science?

To put this in perspective, the Solar System is thought to be 4.5 billion years old and humans have existed as a genus for only a few million years.

The starting point of Kurzweil's thinking is the assumption, as Diamond puts it, that the «only absolute in human life, human history, and human culture is faith in the living transcendent God.»

Put in nontemporal terms, there is neither textual evidence nor sensible reason for thinking that a human being would have knowledge of or a relationship to the divine if he had no relations with other human beings.

Well some believe that we live in a world that just randomly put together and that the human conscience or whatever you want to call it just randomly enter or form or how ever you think just come into existence.

had to reply to your simplistic view of things... remember we are only human yet GOD is perfect, all powerful, all knowing and as humans we will never be able to see things from an omnipotent viewpoint such as GOD's... so remember bad things happen daily and it is GOD's will but who are we to question GOD allmighty when we only think in mindset of humans... do nt let ur foolish pride put a spotlight on ur ignorance...

Thus for each of us, the exacting and inescapable question, which must be faced and answered, is the question of our total mortal life as we are now living it, a question which arises from our mortality with the responsibility which that entails, which puts itself to us in the form of our measuring up to the possibility of becoming authentically ourselves, and which issues in our realization (not so much in thought as in deeply felt experience as existing men) of blessedness, as we know ourselves becoming what we truly are, or in destruction or damnation, as we know ourselves both frustrated men and failures in our human fulfillment.

Instead of thinking of themselves as having problems, which would simply make them a part of the human race, they tend to think of themselves as somehow being problems, which puts them in a special negatively important category.

Indeed, while he might not put it just like this, I think Hauerwas would wish quite strongly to agree with Muray's own affirmation that «the self is a relational or social self... Any human is constituted by his or her personal past, the past of the universe, and more immediately the cultures and environments of which we are a part» (91).

that is like a 5 year old mentality... how can you take these people seriously... You want to put people who think such childish nonsense in charge of the human race??

We as the human race are the ones that allow Satan to put thoughts like «Christians spoil sex» in our minds.

Did you ever stop to think that we the human race have the ability to put a end to hunger?

I think it is time to put aside fairy tales when dealing with real human tragedies like this.

What do the following authors all have in common — Jean Paul Sartre, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, Victor Hugo, Jean - Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, René Descartes, Francis Bacon, John Milton, John Locke, and Blaise Pascal: (a) They are among the most gifted writers the World has known; (b) They concentrated on opposing dogma and opening the human mind and spirit to the wonders of free thought and intellectual freedom; (c) They were intimidated by the Catholic Church and put on the Church's list of prohibited authors; or (d) All of the above.

Now may we all return to focus on the real nature of the message that has been put out by this pope and think about how we can make a difference in the lives of another human being that is not as fortunate as we are.