Sentences with phrase «thoughts on interpretation»

The CRTC has just published their thoughts on the interpretation of section 8 of CASL that requires consents for certain types of software installations.

Unfortunately they did not give us any hints at all on their thoughts on interpretation.

Not exact matches

Many on here may think that I take offense with anyone who holds to a traditional interpretation of scripture stating that * all * homosexual expression is sinful.

After reading several of the posts on the «interpretation of mythical texts into a book called the bible» one is left to wonder how a being who is supposed to have created the universe would permit what is often referred to as «his inerrant words»... to get so screwed up... you would think he / she / it would have been keeping a close eye on a book that he / she / it wanted to have in print for... mass distribution... it is not not a womder the bible is messed up the way it is... it is a «human» construct... only humans could mess a book up that badly... gods do nor make mistakes... except for Rick Santorum

Nor am I impressed by deep - think interpretations that impose on sports events a burden of meaning they can not bear.

I suspect it has to do with a misguided interpretation of Philippians 4:8, which says, «Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are honest, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.»

All of which is to say that Christians have been thinking about these matters for some time, and there are sound reasons for their insisting on a «spiritual» interpretation.

Hence we have countless different denominations, because each one has put its own slant or interpretation on what it thinks God has been telling it.

Lutek, Yes, we tend to come up with what we think is the literal meaning of the Bible, then place our interpretation on others like a bag of rocks on their back that we think they should carry.

On the other side, humanists develop hermeneutical methods for the interpretation of documents with no regard for scientific thought.

For an action to be ours in this special sense requires more than (a) that it be thought to be this by someone and (b) that the trait attributed to us on the basis of this interpretation actually describes us.

Regardless of your view's on Santorum, the author offers us hope that Evangelicals are beginning to think beyond the narrow confines of strict Bible interpretations and understand the values that underlie the message of Jesus in the new Testament.

There is only one way to interpret literature, that is to base our interpretation on the context and the plain meaning of the words that the author chose to convey his thoughts to the reader.

I would never profess to understand the nuances of interpretation either, however, I think that it means that somewhere, at any given time, by any given person, a «rule» can be made based on what someone had for breakfast.

This may be a character flaw in someone who writes autobiographies purporting to be true accounts, although even on that score more charitable interpretations are possible (politics of any sort didn't seem to be very important in the life and thinking of Eliade).

So you think intentionally handling poisonous animals because of a literal interpretation of one of many thousands of Bible verses is the same as passing a homeless man on the street.

I think the poster's advice on interpretation makes the case of belief much stronger, honestly, not weaker.

Everything every believer thinks, says or writes on Scripture is their «interpretation of the truth of Scripture»; that's the nature of the beast that is man.

Macquarrie goes on - and I think rightly - to speculate just what sort of God might be expected to appear in the spaces we create with our poetic interpretations.

My constant purpose was and is to adumbrate on every subject I handle a genuinely canonical interpretation of Scripture - a view that in its coherence embraces and expresses the thrust of all the biblical passages and units of thought that bear on my theme - a total, integrated view built out of biblical material in such a way that, if the writers of the various books knew what I had made of what they taught, they would nod their heads and say that I had got them right.

If you look back where I first (I think) explored the analogy of performance, in a piece titled «Performing the Scriptures» (first published in 1982, reprinted in a collection called Theology on the Way to Emmaus in 1986), you will see that I contrast the notion of interpretation as performance not with the historian's craft but with the supposition that a text (any text, although it is with scripture that I am most concerned)-- a set of black marks on white paper — tells you how to take it, without any interpretative labor on the reader's part, a labor for which the reader must take personal responsibility.

@david johson your long response offers no proof of anything, opinions and personal interpretation are not «proof «you admitted as much -LRB-, the old i can't prove a negative) but you impressed the heck out of martin t (not particularly difficult on that, as he appears to thrive on any bs that seems to support his «position») Just a side bar Santa does exist, or rather did, Saint Nicholas, Didn't know him personally and I don't think he was anything like the «Coke» version, but the persona is supposedly based on an actual person.

To underpin this realistic interpretation, one may refer to Whitehead's magnum opus, Process and Reality, where, on several occasions, he explicitly objects to a Kantian epistemology, presenting his philosophy of organism as a return to a pre-Kantian mode of thought.22

critics tended on the whole to say: strip off the interpretation so far as possible; it only tells us what some early Christians thought or believed; the residue will be plain matter of fact.

The number of arbitrary psychological interpretations at the same time from the basis of important structures of thought; and how often do people think that the task of criticism has already been discharged by palying tuneful psychological variations on the given factual theme!»

It is the purpose of this chapter to discuss the interpretations gleaned from the writings of the old schools of Muslims — mystics and rationalists, including both the theologians and the philosophers — who are not usually regarded by the orthodox school as strict Muslims, but whose influence on Muslim thought and practical religious life is felt even today.

A Christian Natural Theology explains and defends Whitehead's thought philosophically, and it contributes to current scholarly debates on the interpretation of Whitehead, as we have already seen.125 Its main purpose though is to illustrate how Christian thinking is uniquely possible within the framework of process philosophy.

As we continue our discussion of David Dark's excellent book, The Sacredness of Questioning Everything (Zondervan, 2009), I'd like to focus on the author's thoughts regarding language and interpretation.

Besides, quoting and relying on defunct historical interpretations / understandings to counter a current line of thought could be seen as specious, no?

In our general view of process thought we follow Charles Hartshorne's interpretations and revisions of Whitehead, especially on the issue of the nature of eternal objects.

Some of these Christians who focus on the canon think historical - critical research is very helpful in strengthening our interpretation of the texts of Scripture.

The distinction Hartshorne insists on making here as applied to our present question can be expressed by saying that, whereas mere experience or feeling of God can be not only direct but immediate, high - level thought or cognition of God, being mediated, as it is, by the conscious judgment or interpretation of such feeling, is of necessity mediate.

His many hooks include America's Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards (1988), the two - volume Systematic Theology (1997; 1999), On Thinking the Human (2003) and, most recently, a commentary on Song of Songs for the Interpretation Bible Commentary serieOn Thinking the Human (2003) and, most recently, a commentary on Song of Songs for the Interpretation Bible Commentary serieon Song of Songs for the Interpretation Bible Commentary series.

I think it's fascinating that in the context of lengthy instructions on how to ensure that tongues and interpretations operate in an orderly way in I Corinthians 12 - 14, Paul comes back around to say «Forbid not to speak in tongues.»

But these men are important historically in a third way: not only their results and their methods but the philosophical interpretations of their ideas had a major impact on Western thought.

However, I think it unwise to place too much reliance on the Bible, especially when there are so many «interpretations», translations and even variations in the mss.

That is a sad sad statement seems like you are judging and want everyone to think like you, fact is we are all different I would hate to think that Heaven is filled with robots who have to do this or do that in order to be right with God we did not ask to be created, we are just living our lives based on our view and interpretation of things, we can not possibly think like Jesus because we are not perfect, fact is I do nt want to worship a God that would» ALLOW» a place like HELL to exist, also tell me where the bible mentions hell, just once.

The interpretation of the Epistle to the Ephesians is quite different, depending on whether the writer is seen as primarily dependent on Jewish thought and practices, or as someone whose thought is dualistic.9 It is very difficult to know whether the writers use the various words translated into English as «flesh» and «spirit» in a spiritualizing way or not.

The real lunacy is that so - called prophets think that they can predict anything based on their interpretations of the Bible.

When I read about Calvin and others ideas on what Gods Word says, the Arminian, Lytheran, Wesleyan, Unitarian and various Church denominations and their interpretations, particularly when they hang their whole idea on one part of the Bible to prove how right they are, it affirms what I have always thought since before I was saved by God as well as after that amazing act of grace on His part, that man values and honors the mind far above the heart.

In his early writing, Peirce calls the respect the ground of the sign's function, and I think that as a ground it has the function of leading the interpretation to another interpretation with another sign as its subject, all in an on - going semeiotic process.

He had enormous influence on both the thought and the life of the medieval church, its organization, its mission, its forms of worship, its songs, preaching, and scriptural interpretation.

Not only does Siemon - Netto think these charges are false, but he believes that interpretations and actions based on stereotypical thinking about» The Fabricated Luther» have contributed to the real catastrophes of the twentieth century.

Obviously they were not without error but on the difficult issues that have multiple interpretations I think they should be the tie breakers.

A lot of his language about objects, or «eternal objects» ingressing into the process, sounds Platonic, as though they came from «outside,» but I think there is more possibility of a tenable interpretation if we take it that one patterned event passes on into another either by repetition or modification.

please keep in mind that whenever you're expressing your PERSONAL rage and trying to pass it on as yous professional Islamic interpretation, you're making everybody else hate us... as i read above, some people actually think that our religion is based on hatred.

And those thoughts on the Bible... that's your interpretation.

It is, on the other hand, the cornerstone of the systematic approach; for this last approach holds that any in - depth interpretation of Process and Reality must be conducted under the illumination provided, at the very least, by correlative in - depth interpretations of Science and the Modern World, Adventures of Ideas, and Modes of Thought.

Although they cite the Baptist theologian Timothy George in a way that shows his awareness of the ground - breaking work of the World Conference on Faith and Order at Montreal in 1963 on «Scripture, Tradition, and traditions,» Noll and Nystrom make no systematic use of his insights; they also neglect to note the phraseology of Pope John Paul II when he called for further study on «the relationship between Sacred Scripture as the highest authority in matters of faith and Sacred Tradition as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God» (Ut Unum Sint, 79)» a formulation that I think may hold the best promise of resolving the question since the sixteenth century.

Sure, scholarly thought has advanced leaps and bounds in the past 200 years but, like you, there are still camps that treat the Torah as divine and growing on its own rather than its being a human document that has matured as we matured our own skills of reasoning and interpretation.