Sentences with phrase «understanding of language as»

Towards the end of her five - decade career, she continued to push the boundaries of her practice with the Solstice Series, revisiting and cannibalizing older works and processes, while demonstrating an acute understanding of language as an integral element of the self.

Postmodern hermeneutics, left to itself, devolves into relativism, fragmentation, and subjective perspectivism, a trajectory that challenges the historic Christian understanding of language as a reliable medium of truth.

Not exact matches

As AI becomes more and more capable of processing and understanding complex language, lawyers» jobs are becoming more efficient.

Spearheaded by more than two dozen lenders and small business advocacy organizations, including Lending Club, Funding Circle, the Aspen Institute, and the Small Business Majority, the bill requires transparency about pricing and fees, fair treatment of borrowers and responsible underwriting, as well as clear language and easy - to - understand terms.

History has enabled me to understand the path of lots of different places as I focused on world history, and Arabic is such a complex and fascinating language and also a really unusual one and I think that's what drew me to it.

The company had released three products, all of which will remain operational as before: Snowboy («a customizable hotword detection engine»), NLU («a multilingual natural language understanding engine»), and ChatFlow (a multi-turn conversation engine that we covered here), and appeared to be built as a cross-platform service, improving its ubiquity.

The First Vatican Council included language like (the Pope) «is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to...» This transfer of power depends on the Roman Church's understanding of the Office of the Keys which I do not agree with, but their statements make it clear that the Pope's authority as the Roman Church understands it is derived from Christ's.

To see language as «the element in which we live,» or to say that our understanding of the world is «language - bound»» or, in his most famous formula, that «Being that can be understood is language»» does not mean simply that language is a medium in which we can connect with anything.

I aim to get at some of the theological underpinnings of that unease in language that may seem unfamiliar or even unwelcome, but it is language that is grounded in important Christian affirmations that seek to understand the child as our equal» one who is a gift and not a product.

What we meant to model was the sending of one of our number to be a foreign missionary — to learn a new language, to understand a local culture, to sacrifice the amenities of affluence and to live knowing that he or she is always being watched by seekers — while the rest of us stay here as lifetime local missionaries, learning to speak the language of the unchurched, understanding secular culture, sacrificing the amenities of affluence and living as a «watched» person in a society that is skeptical of Christian spirituality until it sees the real thing on display.

And I try to learn as much as I can about language, customs, traditions and other aspects that can lead to a better understanding of a text.

For the over-all result of the great reaction has been a sophistication of the true simplicity of the gospel, the use of a jargon which the common man (and the intelligent one, too, often enough) can not understand, and a tendency to assume that the biblical and creedal language as it stands need only be spoken, and enough then has been done to state and communicate the point of the Christian proclamation.

Thus, metaphors and models of God are understood to be discovered as well as created, to relate to God's reality not in the sense of being literally in correspondence with it, but as versions or hypotheses of it that the community (in this case, the church) accepts as relatively adequate.16 Hence, models of God are not simply heuristic fictions; the critical realist does not accept the Feuerbachian critique that language about God is nothing but human projection.

Yet in its texts and applications, as in the Declaration and the Constitution, the language of natural rights, natural law, natural reason and nature's God still has power if the right speaker (ethos) with an intuitive understanding of audience (pathos) finds the right words and mode of reasoning (logos) in the right occasion or context.

Concerning God, Clement pursued two fundamental principles: that God is beyond the reach even of abstract human language and therefore must be identified by what God is not, but that, at the same time, God must be understood as «the omnipotent God» (Stromata, 1.24): «Nothing withstands God, nothing opposes Him: seeing He is [42] Lord and omnipotent» (1:17).

The Report also says that «assent to formularies and the use of liturgical language in public worship should be understood as signifying general acceptance without implying detailed assent to every phrase or proposition thus employed».3

Because theological truth and therefore theological language belong to the eschatological dimension, linguistic analysis as now understood and practiced which deals with empirical and historical truths can not decide on the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of theological language.

I have suggested that the language of religion may be understood as representing in a mythic and symbolic way at least a portion of the qualitative data given to us in primary perception.

Or perhaps we should say that «language» needs to be understood broadly as any medium of communication, not only speaking or writing.

Clearly, all of this language about God must be understood as analogical discourse.

And they were able to read it in language written so that anyone, even, as Tyndale wrote, «the boy who driveth the plow,» could understand it.1 The Word became, as Ong says, silent.2 That silence has had profound influence on the way we think about religious language, but it is well to remember that when those translations into the vernacular were made, they were not written down in the language of print.

The immediate awareness of the Holy, the mysterium tremendum, ecstatic participation in the Sacred: this is language he can understand and with which he can identify, as is evidenced by his first book, Oriental Mysticism and Biblical Eschatology.

It would be strange if, after all the recent discussion as to how much Christianity is a «historical faith,» Christian theologians would adopt an understanding of theological language which ruled out all historical statements.

Most of the text below is taken from: (Later in the book, Marcus Borg explains the meaning of the language as understood biblically and by the early church)

My positions on all three are probably still best described as revisionary (Le, the use of a «limit - language» approach to the questions of religion and revelation; the use of process categories for understanding the reality of God; and the use of symbolic literary - critical analyses for interpreting Christology).

As I understand it, this question really comes down to a matter of language and semantics.

Each biblical statement is a sentence which must be understood in terms of the vocabulary and grammar of its original language (Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek), but the better modern translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, have made it possible for one who understands English vocabulary and grammar to read and study the Bible without being seriously misled on most points.

But there are two fundamentally different ways of approaching such an explication, and they are correlative with the two primary ways of understanding the language in which the confessional statement is made: the univocal, which takes the language as rigidly discursive, and the imagistic, which sees it as highly analogical or symbolic.

Second: to say that this particular book is true is to say that we can trust it, trust it as a guide to faith and life which provides not only specific claims about God's faithfulness and how we ought to live our lives in response to it, but also a way of understanding the whole world and a language in which to speak about that world.

It is an affirmation and not, as many conservative evangelicals have reflexively assumed, a questioning of biblical authority when the language of liberation and empowerment prove fruitful in understanding further dimensions of what salvation always meant according to the scriptural witness, even though we had not previously been pushed to see it that clearly.

Whitehead's use of assumptions dating back to Descartes and Locke in his account of perception leaves him vulnerable to the criticisms introduced by the revolution in philosophic method taking place at the time he was writing his major works, one in which the analysis of the functioning of language was replacing psychological introspection as the principal method for understanding human thought.

The outsider can question another tradition's language as to its inner logic, argues Lindbeck, but to understand the realities being created and affirmed by that language — both the personal commitment and the worldview — takes more identification with it than most of us can usually manage.

As it becomes aware of the specific form in which ultimate human problems present themselves in our own time, the ministry, and therewith the schools that prepare men for it, begin to understand more sharply what the pastoral function is, in what language the gospel speaks to this need, and what form the Church must take in serving such men in such a time.

Panikkar understands what pluralism means and what it can offer us — in his language, he is attuned to the «myth» of pluralism — without succumbing to it as another «ism.»

But of course the creedal statement, hallowed as it is by centuries of use during the celebration of the Eucharist, can be understood only when it is seen as a combination of supposedly historical data, theological affirmation put in a quasi-philosophical idiom, and a good deal of symbolic language (with the use of such phrases as «came down from heaven», «ascended into heaven», and the like).

In understanding the work of art as a language - event, an image - event, the hermeneutics of Hans - Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur offered a critique of the formalists» tendency to make «meaning» a static object.

For reasons either of personal character or of professional training as a diplomat, his statements were exceedingly cautious and wrapped up in an involuted language that is difficult for many to understand, especially in this age of the resonant soundbite and ubiquitous rent - a-moralists.

The language - game concept is helpful as we try to understand ways of thinking in other cultures, not only primitive ones or those foreign to us but also the subcultures in our own country.

Instead of understanding, as James le Fanu writes, that «the implications of mortality are intrinsic to a proper grasp of the human experience», we choose to sanitise the things of death, including the language we use to describe it (in Last Things, Tablet, 29 November 2014, p. 28).

The word as revelation is the Holy Spirit, who manifests himself for the first time at Pentecost in the diversity of words, in the multiplicity of languages reduced to a single understanding.

So, as I began to understand that, this sort of superficial language of religion seemed less relevant.»

Unfortunately there is no single brand of specialists — call them «hominists» — to whom one can turn for authoritative answers about man, as one might turn to linguists for information about languages or, if he had great faith, to meteorologists for understanding the weather.

Just as in so much of Paul's language the Jesus who was raised from the dead must be understood in terms of spirit, so also this remains the most satisfactory, if not indeed the only, category in which to understand the nature of the risen Christ.

«In spite of certain changes in mood and language, the core of the philosophy developed by the young Marx was never changed and it is impossible to understand his concept of socialism and his criticism of capitalism as developed in his later writings except on the basis of the concept of man which he developed in his early writings».

Because theology does not adequately feed our imagination, and because our language is inadequate for encompassing the whole of spiritual reality, it is still helpful and perhaps necessary to use imagery as well as concepts to get across our understanding of God.

This means, in my understanding, that there should be diversity of belief or non-belief, as well as diversity of expression and language.

He discusses language, style and arrangement of the Qur» an, as well as differences between the early (Meccan) and later (Medinan) revelations and the importance of the «occasions of revelation» for understanding particular passages.

It has moreover taught Jews to treat Judaism as an all - embracing civilization which can elicit from them «a sense of spiritual rootedness in Eretz Yisrael, a feeling of oneness with the forty - century - old People of Israel, a desire to understand its language and literature, a yearning to cherish its aspirations, and an eagerness to live its way of life, with its mores, laws, and arts» (GIM 394, 451).

The secret of his success was that he spoke a metaphorical language that was commonly understood in antiquity: Christ, he said, had given himself up for us «as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.»

«Meanwhile, as a corollary,» continues Ramsey, «we can note that to understand religious language or theology we must first evoke the odd kind of situation to which I have given various parallels.»