Sentences with phrase «separated from nature»

Digress for a moment for a counterfactual, but still within the realm of humans separated from nature and attempting to have totalitarian control over temperature:

But cities are not separated from the nature world.

The machines are not separated from nature of account of being artificially created in silicon, versus born naturally as flesh and blood.

Humans have become too separated from nature.

Once again, if thinking about nature — or looking at it through the window — leads to positive changes in our mood and the tension you're holding in your body, imagine how beneficial it actually is to be IN nature, and conversely, how detrimental it can be to your health to be devoid or separated from nature.

Religious Browns: Eight percent of the American public, are highly religious, and feel the most separated from nature of any group.

«Reusing the microbes to make beer completely separated them from nature.

Thus did Dostoevsky bring man's wanderings to a close: when he is separated from nature and earth he is cast into hell, at the end of his course he comes back to them.

Feuerbach further offended the people of his day by suggesting that the ancient nature religions remained superior to Christianity since they were sensuously in touch with the earth and with nature, whereas Christianity had become separated from nature, and had made of God a separate, sexless, spiritual being.

Humans have separated themselves from nature: pollution, global warming, cities, genetically engineered food that gives us diabetes, etc..

Our domination of nature brings with it the illusion that we are separate from nature.

It is not even to set up another home where I belong, alongside of and separate from nature, humanity and myself.

Mind, while dependent upon nature as the means whereby it may arrive at the truth, is nevertheless separate from nature in some fundamental sense.

Not only is it separate from nature, but it is also a higher form of existence insofar as it corresponds to its concept, that is, it is able to realize its essence, something nature is in principle incapable of doing.

«It is impossible to speak of history as though it were a realm of freedom and decision entirely separate from nature.

If it isn't perfectly clear by now, we humans are not autonomous organisms separate from nature.

Because they don't believe themselves to be separate from nature.

Ali Van's organic paintings and installation of collected objects remind us that we can not separate ourselves from nature and must continue to work toward coexistence.

We are not separate from nature, therefore it is natural.

Many people live their lives so separate from nature that it's become merely a concept that is very foreign, very scary to them.

We're not separate from nature, we're part of nature, and if we're messing nature up its because we're not being very skillful at what we're doing, or at understanding why we're here.

S: Modern culture has a world view that human beings are very separate from nature.

Separating ourselves from nature.

Contrary to Humans The argument here is that technology separates us from nature, which puts us out of touch with nature and makes us behave selfishly and maybe stupidly.

Not exact matches

Call it nature's Maginot Line, separating the world of planes from the world of rockets.

When you're raised the way I was, you understand nature is guiding your life, and there's no way to separate that from what you do professionally.

Second, the esoteric, self «referencing nature of much of contemporary legal theory is a product of the «professionalization» of the legal academy, where law professors have become a profession separate from that of the bench or bar.

NOt all who call themselves prophets are true believers... some are just for the gains... those are persecuted... cause their evil gets them... those who don't separate themselves from God's side and wisdom can not be harm by evil... evil bows to them and allows them to pass by him unharmed... Cause evil can not harm God... it's the law of Nature... only evil can be harmed by evil...

You can change the nature of that religion, but I would still consider it a religion as it can not exist separate from it's religous history.

Based on what I know of God, I don't think it is within the character or nature of God to separate anyone from Him eternally simply because they were unlucky enough to live in an area that didn't have a Bible.

The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 simply made it necessary to begin separating himself from how the left was changing its nature.

That only leaves when you are separated from him as though by death, when in earthly or temporal fashion you do not come too near him, but only forever remember what he himself would have termed the best thing in his nature!

Everything in God's creation is interrelated, and one can not separate protection of the environment from protection of humanity: Again citing Benedict, Francis observes that «the world can not be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since «the book of nature is one and indivisible,» and includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth.»

So, we have to separate our notion of innocence — and of God's nature — from that of the Old Testament authors.

The idea that the primordial and consequent natures are separate actual entities, each existing in relative independence from the other, has been generally laid to rest by Whitehead scholars.

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 study of human minds and what they do in the world, accordingly, was separated sharply from the study of nature.

Zen begins with the ordinary individual who is separated from his own true Buddha nature by the false dichotomies of a «Buddha» far back in history, or now in Nirvana; or, more existentially, man as separated from the world around him by a subject - object dualism.

When this has taken place, the true nature of knowledge as communication — as the «word» which results from the relation of two separate existing beings — is forgotten.

It emphasizes the difference of humans from gods and nature; it also separates religion, society and government and the functionaries within them and gives them autonomy to function according to the laws inherent in each.

It can not be separated from that world, to be sure; but precisely because of its nature and mission it must always be distinct from it.

Holiness in its fundamental nature, separates itself from the unholy and the profane.

However, the Church's theological discourse can not be so intimately bound to any one scientific theory, as «the final way» to explain something, that it becomes difficult to separate itself from such a theory, either because a theological doctrine itself can no longer be explained without it (which it can) or because a scientific theory has been superseded by a more coherent scientific theory (better able to explain reality) as is the nature of progress in science.There is a precedent for this in the Galileo controversy from the 1600s.

In his significant work Christianity in World History, a prominent theologian Arend Theodor van Leeuwen has argued that the idea of separating out the things of God from the things of people in such a way as to deny the divine nature of kingship was first formulated in ancient Israel and then became a major motif of Christianity.

Modern philosophy has separated mind from nature in such a radical and fundamental sense that philosophy subsequent to and including the modern era has been unable to make sense of the relation between the two.

He is an abscess on the universe who withdraws and separates himself from the reason of our common nature, through being displeased with the things which happen.

The basic conviction was that of a legitimate distinction between sacred and secular: between things which by nature and circumstance belonged to God and through which he might be known, on the one hand, and those which belonged to the world and tended, therefore, to separate a man from God on the other.

He was also aware that his physical nature created an illusion of being separate from God, or even of being his own, individual god.

It was believed that some of these things were so foreign to God that they must simply be avoided at all costs, a tomb, for example, or the shadow of a Gentile; but that others were of such a nature that if they were ritually purified they would cease to separate man from God, household utensils, for example, or the tools of one's trade.

What we then see is a flood of sympathetic forces, spreading from the heart of the system, which transforms the whole nature of the phenomenon: sympathy in the first place (an act of quasi-adoration) on the part of all the elements gathered together for the general impulse that carries them along; and also the sympathy (this time fraternal) of each separate element for all that is most unique and incommunicable in each of the co-elements with which it converges in the unity, not only of a single act of vision but of a single living subject.