Sentences with phrase «something from a nature»

«The bottom line here is we want to learn something from nature that could be useful in creating better batteries with renewable feedstock.»

A striking focal point, such as this antler lamp, draws the eye and sets the scene as something from nature.

Not exact matches

He added that «we may be looking in a generation's time at an EU that is also configured differently from what it is today, and the exact nature of the relationship between the UK and that future system - whatever it turns out to be - of European cooperation is something that future parliaments, future generations, will have to consider,» he said.

The impending failure of a business is something that you will instinctively recognize deep down, but human nature may prevent you from acknowledging it.

Senior German churchmen have made clear that they believe something different from what's in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whether the issue is the nature of marriage, the ethics of human love, the character of the Holy Eucharist and the priesthood, the authority of revelation, or the enduring effects of baptism.

It is, indeed, something of an unusual event that an English bishop should base himself so firmly, not merely on the odd bland quotation here and there from whoever the current pope happens to be, in order to camouflage the true nature of some firmly secularist initiative, but on the spirit as well as the letter of entire magisterial documents, not least the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself — which, it will be remembered, we were all told by Bishop David Konstant was not for the likes of us, but for the bishops to read so they could tell us what was in it.

They would have to shift their minds from believing that their team winning is something to pray for, to just praying for an exciting game no matter who wins, but that runs against the very nature of being a fanatic of either sports, or religion now doesn't it?

There is a prayer in a recent hymnbook which goes something like this: Lord, bless all those who live in rural areas; help them to appreciate the goodness of nature and be open to those different from themselves.

This makes «the theology of nature» something different from «the doctrine of creation.»

Even when something does not yet have its full nature, that is already present from which it will naturally come to be.

And attempts to restore religious freedom to its proper philosophical place, as something like the sine qua non of freedom itself, presuppose just the view of human nature and reason that our post-Christian liberalism rejects from the outset.

Something like this can also be done from the side of the theology of nature, and, as I have indicated, I believe this is the most promising starting point in the «theologies of» because, in principle at least, it is the most inclusive.

I draw this notion from Aristotle's Poetics: «Hence poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of history are singulars.»

To accept something as true is too little — we need also the rebirth through God himself where we get a new nature which shall gradually replace our old selfish ego which we have inherited from Adam.

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 Original Sin.

So, nature selects for people who perceive even random occurrences as something they have to protect themselves from.

Thus it conceives the world of nature as something derived from and dependent upon something logical prior to itself, a world of immaterial ideas; but this is not a mental world or a world of mental activities or of things depending on mental activity although it is an intelligible world or a world in which mind, when mind comes into existence, finds itself completely at home.

I once cite «Realism and Idealism,» the passage about objective idealism in which Collingwood clearly states his conception of the world of nature: «Thus it conceives the world of nature as something derived from and dependent upon something logical prior to itself, a world of immaterial ideas; but this is not a mental world or a world of mental activities or of things depending on mental activity although it is an intelligible world or a world in which mind, when mind comes into existence, finds itself completely at home.

This does not mean that God is changed, if by that verb «changed» it is suggested that the divine nature if altered or becomes something essentially different from what it was before Christ's death and thus moves in and towards the world in a fashion totally at variance with the prior mode of divine concern.

The nature imageries of Jesus from agricultural life have also shattered the prevalent understanding of the divine rule as something that is to approach at the end time with a bang and with an apocalyptic fervor.

Yet from Descartes to Gilson's «From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again» Catholic philosophy has reacted too strongly against the challenge, and unwittingly given freer rein to the empiricist and nominalist deconstruction of the concept of «the nature of something&raqfrom Descartes to Gilson's «From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again» Catholic philosophy has reacted too strongly against the challenge, and unwittingly given freer rein to the empiricist and nominalist deconstruction of the concept of «the nature of something&raqFrom Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again» Catholic philosophy has reacted too strongly against the challenge, and unwittingly given freer rein to the empiricist and nominalist deconstruction of the concept of «the nature of something».

This confidence springs from something he comprehends about Jesus and the nature of commands.

They both also acknowledge that this was in the context of the rising challenge against the idea of «the nature of something» from the school of Nominalism.

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.

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.

In Descartes» day, nature was held to be composed of inert stuff with force viewed as something external to that stuff, something mechanically applied to dead bits of matter from the outside.

Just think about the size of the comet that would have to create something like that, not to mention all the other consequences that would arise from a massive impact of that nature (namely destruction of almost all life on earth except for deep, deep sea creatures).

And that «return» (often called ressourcement theology) was not a matter of pious nostalgia but of intellectual adventure: a movement that sought to enrich the Church's reflection on her own nature and mission at a moment when theology risked falling into a sub-discipline of logic — something dry and abstract, detached from the explosive good news of the Gospel.

As exegetes assert, «the likeness of man is not to be drawn from something called «human nature.»

If something new happens — that means, that forgiveness is not a necessary result determined by the nature of the man who forgives, something upon which the offender can count (if he did, he would obviously be unworthy of it); but it is an act arising wholly from the free good will of a person, wholly a gift.

Few will deny, for example, that Paul's theology represents with something approaching adequacy the fact and meaning of sin in human life — the reality of moral evil, the universal blight it brings, man's hopeless entanglement with it, the perverse and rebellious pride, deep in our nature, which degrades us, distorts our efforts, mars even our best moral achievements, and from which we know God must save us if we are to be saved at all.

First, it displays an unwarranted distrust of human nature and of the created order inasmuch as it denies our native capacity to know something of sacred mystery apart from our being specifically Christianized.

That God's love, manifest in diverse ways throughout the duration of the universe, might come to a full and unsurpassable self - expression in an individual human being who lived and died in the Middle East almost two thousand years ago does not seem incongruous with what we now understand about the nature of an evolving universe, especially if we regard religion as a phenomenon emergent from the universe rather than just something done on the earth by cosmically homeless human subjects.

Sometimes, especially when he is speaking pre-systematically and citing examples from ordinary experience, Whitehead seems to claim that causal efficacy merely discloses relations among the data of presentational immediacy and to indicate that «something is going on in nature and some things are affecting other things.»

The ruling philosophy of our Swedes is naturalism, the metaphysical doctrine that nature is a permanently closed system of material causes and effects that can never be influenced by something from outside» like God.

lol, yes clay i am an atheist... i created the sun whorshipping thing to have argument against religion from a religious stand point... however, the sun makes more sense then something you can't see or feel — the sun also gives free energy... your god once did that for the jews, my gives it to the human race as well as everything else on the planet, fuk even the planet is nothing without the sun... but back to your point — yes it is very hypocritical of me, AND thats the point, every religious person i have ever met has and on a constant basis broken the tenets of there faith without regard for there souls — it seems to only be the person's conscience that dictates what is right and wrong... the belief in a god figure is just because its tradition to and plus every else believes so its always to be part of the group instead of an outsider — that is sadly human nature to be part of the group.

For the relationship to the Living God which is religion is not contained primarily in these other things, but in an ontological relationship, i.e. something that derives from the very nature of your being, to God, as the One lain hold of in a personal, loving ful lment which lls out both our intellect, and our capacity for loving alike.

They, and therefore we, were forever excluded from the possibility of reaching heaven and beholding God face to face — something our whole nature longs for.

The reader of these pages may find it profitable to ask himself whether some of his fears do not come from the fact that he «got spanked» by nature or society when he wanted something he could not have.

Aquinas clarified the doctrine by identifying God, the First Mover, with infinite Existence (Esse) and then distinguishing essences («what something is», the equivalent of nature - substance) from existence in created realities.

[17] In order for somebody or something to be liberated from the chains of particular contexts, [18] one needs to have an understanding of the nature of such contexts.

For, if we can learn from animals something important about inanimate nature, we can do it only by rejecting both dualism and materialism.

This recognition of the politicised nature of identity will be of assistance in the attempt to understand the characteristic of the hyphen as something which is not isolated but as an entity which has the power to draw together elements which come from the living past, while being informed about the machinations of the present, and anticipating an uncertain future.

Names did not merely mark off A from B; they really said something about the nature of those who bore them.

It is taken from something he says about the relationship between human suffering and human depravity in his essay «On Human Nature.»

In fact, all my anxieties run in the opposite direction: that, in order to affirm the uniqueness of humanity within organic nature, as well as the unique moral obligations it entails, we will reject all evidence of intentionality, reason, or affection in animals as something only apparently purposive, doing so by reference to the most egregiously vapid of philosophical naturalism's mystifications — «instinct» — and thereby opening the way to a mechanistic narrative that, as we have learned from an incessant torrent of biological and bioethical theory in recent decades, can be extended to human behavior as well.

When this belief was coupled with the notion of a last judgement which would not occur until God «had accomplished the number of his elect», in words from still another prayer, it said something about the corporate nature of human life, the equally corporate nature of whatever destiny men have, and the need for patient waiting until our fellowmen have found their capacity for fulfillment along with us.

I hate to stear everyone away from the troll fest (or feast, due to the constant feeding of trolls), but I am curious about something of a theological nature.

His completion, so that he is exempt from transition into something else, must mean that his nature remains self - consistent in relation to all change.

The argument at Willingen was between those who derived the missionary obligation from the nature of the church, that is, as inherent in its very being, and those who insisted that the missionary obligation must be derived from something anterior to the church, namely, the Gospel.