Sentences with phrase «what part of being human»

So what part of being human have we forgotten?

Not exact matches

Our ability to communicate with each other is a big part of what makes us human.

Although Facebook points out that Trending Topics is completely separate from the main news - feed, what the recent controversy has done is highlight how much human beings are a part of everything Facebook does.

Emotions — even those we initially interpret as «negative» — are part of what makes us human.

The classic rags - to - riches tale of an enterprising dreamer who works all hours to build her dream business is part of what makes start - up life such a compelling idea, and young, growing businesses get plenty of media mileage out of their human interest aspects, from working out of garages to quirky founders.

Still, he says that he doesn't want to be part of a party (i.e., the Republican party) that upholds what he describes as unreason, but he also doesn't claim that such alleged scientific truth regarding ultimate questions of human destiny provides answers for public policy.

and everything counts what you do and what you say... you will see it on that day... it will shown to every one of us... and human will deny that they have done these and then our body parts will be testifying against us... O our Lord have mercy on all of us on that day...

This is part of what it means to think politically, because politics is about action in a realm of uncertainty; politics is about human choice, but these choices are not infinite.

What he produces is an anatomy of suffering the major axis of which is the irony that «battles over the value of suffering intensify in the contemporary world precisely at the same time people in ever greater numbers discard the notion that suffering is an inevitable part of human experience.»

In their response to me, Robert George and Patrick Lee argue that some form of material continuity, indeed, a partial identity with respect to the material aspect of the human person, is part of what it means to believe in the resurrection.

I have contended further that one can not know what the essence of experience is, or whether temporality is a part of it, merely through generalization of features found in human experience.

That is part of the human makeup THAT is what I was commenting on...

We think that individuals are better off when the human and natural communities of which they are a part are healthy, and that the health of these communities is what policy should aim at.

What resonates with me is that, if faith is an imposed «gift» (an oxymoron) then we humans bear no responsibility for any part of the salvation process.

it is your misconception of Who, what is God in the scientific theology, God is the integral forces, matter, conciousness and all reality that exist in the universe, we humans is just part of Him after the big bang when he willed 13.7 billion years ago to become matter.E = mc2.

God is evolution in His process of will implementation, humanity change in this process but not necesarily aware because our existence is very limited in time.and we are not as individual the ultimate objective, but God himself, Our existence is just part of the process for Him to become Himself in the future.We exist only in our time of existence.From pure Energy which is Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOis evolution in His process of will implementation, humanity change in this process but not necesarily aware because our existence is very limited in time.and we are not as individual the ultimate objective, but God himself, Our existence is just part of the process for Him to become Himself in the future.We exist only in our time of existence.From pure Energy which is Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOis very limited in time.and we are not as individual the ultimate objective, but God himself, Our existence is just part of the process for Him to become Himself in the future.We exist only in our time of existence.From pure Energy which is Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOis just part of the process for Him to become Himself in the future.We exist only in our time of existence.From pure Energy which is Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOis Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOIs the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOT.

We have also become aware that the anthropocentrism that characterizes much of the Judeo - Christian tradition has often fed a sensibility insensitive to our proper place in the universe.2 The ecological crisis, epitomized in the possibility of a nuclear holocaust, has brought home to many the need for a new mode of consciousness on the part of human beings, for what Rosemary Ruether calls a «conversion» to the earth, a cosmocentric sensibility (Ruether, 89).3

Its pressing task is quite simply to tell people what the basic content of Christianity is, and to give them some information of what the Christian Church is achieving in the face of ignorance, fear, disease and sheer physical human need in many parts of the world.

The pressing task is quite simply to tell people what the basic content of Christianity is, and to give them some information of what the Christian Church is achieving in the face of ignorance, fear, disease and sheer physical human need in many parts of the world.

Oh, the Calvinists could make perfect sense of it all with a wave of a hand and a swift, confident explanation about how Zarmina had been born in sin and likely predestined to spend eternity in hell to the glory of an angry God (they called her a «vessel of destruction»); about how I should just be thankful to be spared the same fate since it's what I deserve anyway; about how the Asian tsunami was just another one of God's temper tantrums sent to remind us all of His rage at our sin; about how I need not worry because «there is not one maverick molecule in the universe» so every hurricane, every earthquake, every war, every execution, every transaction in the slave trade, every rape of a child is part of God's sovereign plan, even God's idea; about how my objections to this paradigm represented unrepentant pride and a capitulation to humanism that placed too much inherent value on my fellow human beings; about how my intuitive sense of love and morality and right and wrong is so corrupted by my sin nature I can not trust it.

What I gleaned from these pages, in part, is that for Kierkegaard the roots of the comic lie in the inherent contradictoriness of human nature: soul and body, freedom and necessity, the angelic and the bestial, eternity and temporality, and so on.

But isn't such pursuits part of what makes us uniquely human?

Did you ever think when you are typing words, gathering your thoughts, deciding / choosing what to say, and using the best intellect you can find in your brain; that you are conscious in these thoughts / decisions, and that your eyes / hands / brain synapses, are all part of the lense (of the human body) that you are able to see and control to the limitations inherent in its essence?

And that's really the sad part... if you just accept them as the stories they are... of humans trying to understand what this life is all about and making answers to fit their environment and circ.umstances, then the contradictions simply confirm just how wonderfully human we are... There are some great stories.

However, begin violent, or a jerk, or a fool are, in fact, part of the human condition — of course whether you have the strength to fight those urges and not be violent, or a jerk or a fool is what separates the good from the bad.

In so doing, we learn to feel the presence of others, nonhuman and human, as part of who and what we are.

while I agree with parts of what you've stated such as: the bible is MOSTLY a book on God and human relationship, I would disagree with you as to whether it's a «good» book on the other issues.

The position taken in this book is that such a democracy is inherently self - defeating, in part because the unrestrained pursuit of satisfaction tends to breed conflict rather than harmony, but more importantly because human nature is such that persons and cultures do not grow in beauty, strength, and virtue when people strive only to get what they want.

In his book the tech expert makes the case that technology is part of what makes us human, between our beginning in «the Garden», which was void of technology, and our end in «the City» — heavenly Jerusalem, which will be filled with human technology.

the belief on the existence of the devil was concieved by theologians of the past thousands of years, there was no other way of explaining the bad experiences of people in the past because we were not educated yet to the kind of what we have now, Why this happened because that was part of the learning process that God wants us to know, in pathrotheism, we are part of God, and He himself is evolving because He is the universe, We are now the conscious part of Him, our destiny in accordance to his will also be His destiny because it is His will.Although He prepared first all the material reality of the universe ahead of us, The experiences for us humans including the supernatural is just part of nirmal process for learning because its natural process, today we reach a point of not believing the practices of the past, but it does not mean its wrong, Just like a child, adults loved to tell mythical stories to them, because we knew children enjoys it as part of their learning process.

A genuine philosophy of history regarding the beginning8 of genuinely human history, and a genuine theology of the experience of man's own existence as a fallen one which can not have been so «in the beginning», would show that where it is a question of the history of the spirit, the pure beginning in reality already possesses in its dawn - like innocence and simplicity, what is to ensue from it, and that consequently the theological picture of man in the beginning as it was traditionally painted and as it in part belongs to the Church's dogma, expresses much more reality and truth than a superficial person might at first admit.

It has been necessary to see what may be made of the «resurrection» about which the New Testament speaks, both in respect to Jesus Christ as the decisive event in the story of that divine - human relationship and also in respect to the human side of the matter, where you and I may fit in and have our part and place.

It has almost been as if we humans, with our limitations and in our finitude, not to mention our obvious and tragic defection from right alignment with the divine intention for the world and for us, were to insist that until and unless we are given what we regard as due recognition and the security of our own survival in an individualistic sense, we shall refuse to take our place and play our part in the creative advance of the universe.

It is important to appreciate that estrangement is a part of the experience of all human beings including those who know what fullness of life means.

It is a part of what has happened in human history that has not yet been integrated into the ongoing discussion.

Since «heart», used in it's anatomical form, could not possibly be wicked, what other part of the human being could we use?

Most of what is known of human nature from mathematics and the physical sciences is based on reflection on those disciplines and hence is not normally thought to be part of their proper subject matter, but to belong more to the philosophy of science and mathematics.

They present the Church as the Church of those who as sinners accept in faith the human life of all, with its ordinariness and its burdens, so that we experience our own lot as that of the Church, and ourselves as its members in that way; as the Church which is believed because we believe in God, the Church whose belief is not to be identified with what it experiences; above all as the Church which is the promise of salvation for the world which has not yet expressly recognized itself as part of the Church, the Church as the sacramentum of the world's salvation.

The first hundred and fifty or so pages of his Leviathan show forth his attempt to paint that portrait of human being, but by almost universal agreement, he failed — that is, he could not both present human being as a part of the new nature and at the same time do justice to our direct experience of what it is to be human.

The Protestant Reformation was in part a protest against what seemed to the Reformers an overly optimistic Catholic doctrine of human perfection through the infusion of divine grace.

The building block electronic and protonic actual occasions are, in the case of human beings, swept into vastly more complex, Chinese box - like sets of containing societies within which there are social levels that can be identified with cells, others which answer to Aristotle's levels of tissues and organs, and which finally are presided over by what Whitehead refers to as the regnant nexus, a social thread of complex temporal inheritance which, Whitehead suggests, wanders from part to part of the brain, is the seat of conscious direction of the organism as a whole, and answers to what in Plato and Aristotle is called the soul.

It would be to do for the modern era what Aristotle succeeded in doing for an earlier age — it would be to find a way, given the modern world's understanding of nature, to do justice to human being as a part of nature so understood.

Yet though neither being gay nor being American, nor even having «sexual» or «national» identities, is essential to what it means for Jack to be human, those things may be part of what makes Jack the particular human we call «Jack.»

That Whitehead should have borrowed from human experience the term «society» and then employed it systematically to refer to a certain type of «derivative existent» without intending any metaphysical implication in the context of human social affairs, would have been not only careless on his part, but what is worse, fraudulent.

However, since in the past Christianity has demonstrated its ability to survive the passing of the order which it has helped to shape and of which it has seemed to be an inseparable part, it is to be expected that this again will be the record and that after what may be a decline Christianity will revive and with increased power go on to mold, more than before, the human race.

What we are talking about is being part of a network of nations that respond with a human rights framework that actually upholds the dignity of these people, instead of falling into the scapegoating and the «othering» of people.

The question of whether such structures exist and what they are is always an empirical question, but whatever they may be, in their transcendence of what man shares with the animal they may be thought of as part of human nature.

Jesus» teaching momentarily parts the curtain from what is unseen; we glimpse the world of the resurrection where human beings walk as sons of God.

In Roman Catholicism, for example, one goes from the official condemnation of the «modernists» in an early part of this century to what might be appropriately described as the dominant position today, found in Pope Pius XII's Human generis (1950), which, concerning the relation between evolution and creation, accepts evolution yet insists on the special, «second» creation of the human Human generis (1950), which, concerning the relation between evolution and creation, accepts evolution yet insists on the special, «second» creation of the human human soul.

So let me share something of what I see as the affirmations, and the signs of hope that Americans are an integral part of this struggle to manifest total humanness and to acknowledge God's ownership and care of the whole of creation of which human beings are a part.