Sentences with phrase «which human responsibility»

Fortunately life is more than logic, and modern predestinarians like their Calvinistic forebears are seldom consistent if the issue is one in which human responsibility is clearly evident.

Not exact matches

Governments in the U.S. and Israel are already trying to sidestep responsibility for the damage existing drone strikes are doing, so there needs to be clear rules for who is ultimately responsible for anyone's death if humans are indeed going to be pulled out of the loop, which seems inevitable.

The «theos» points to the «other» from which human dignity and grandeur (and responsibility!)

Röpke locates wealth creation «not in «capital,» machine models, technical or organizational recipes or natural wealth, but in a spirit of order, foresight, combination, calculation, enterprise, human leadership and the freedom to shape life and things, also in citizenship, responsibility, loyalty to work, reliability, thrift and the urge to create, and in a civil middle class, providing the humus for all this» things, in short, which can neither be conjured up from the soil, nor imported.»

If you are two consenting adult human beings and you desire to have a loving, committed relationship in which to raise a family, and you wish to have all of the benefits and responsibilities that comes with it, marriage is a good choice.

But it is curious that nowhere does he mention or comment on Genesis 9:5 - 6, in which God Himself states that as part of the new (Noahide) covenant with humanity, human beings (and not God) have the responsibility of taking the life of a murderer.

It is right to acknowledge that this gap in the human experience of the Word Incarnate causes difficulty to some people, for it seems on the surface that this most vital area of personal relationship and responsibility is to some extent a room which Christ has not been through before us.

In this view, Judaism is fundamentally about a divine - human partnership, a covenant, in which the divine partner increasingly cedes power and responsibility for creation to the human partner.

He belongs to our race, sharing our propensities and temptations, bearing our human responsibilities and enduring our human weakness; yet in him the sin of Everyman, the inward - looking self - centeredness which bars the way to communion with God because it tries to establish and justify itself over against God, is overcome.

And covenant, recall, entails the assumption of human finitude, responsibility, and enlightened maturity, the sign of which is epistemic modesty.

In very personal language, I believe that all things are progressing from the same divine source; that that source is the ground of all being and its essence is love and interdependence; that all human beings (all of life, really) are equal and beloved in its sight; that in response to that overarching, boundless love which ensures that no one is ever truly alone, I have a responsibility to assist in the creation of just and loving community here on Earth.

Because men have difficulty in dealing with paradox and ambiguity, they can not accept the evil in themselves, and so they project it onto others: human enemies (which explains the prevalence of war) or an omnipotent God (which allows them to avoid their own responsibility).

It gives dignified and human terms with which to analyse such economic tools as money, property, contracts, inheritance, taxation, labour skills, capital and environmental responsibility.

Such an approach creates confrontation and division, disturbs peace, harms human ecology -LSB-...] There is thus an urgent need to delineate a positive and open secularity which, grounded in the just autonomy of the temporal order and the spiritual order, can foster healthy cooperation and a spirit of shared responsibility.»

«Therefore the Church gives thanks for each and every woman: for mothers, for sisters, for wives; for women consecrated to God in virginity; for women dedicated to the many human beings who await the gratuitous love of another person; for women who watch over the human persons in the family, which is the fundamental sign of the human community; for women who work professionally, and who at times are burdened by a great social responsibility; for «perfect» women and for «weak» women - for all women as they have come forth from the heart of God in all the beauty and richness of their femininity; as they have been embraced by his eternal love; as, together with men, they are pilgrims on this earth, which is the temporal «homeland» of all people and is transformed sometimesinto a «valley of tears»; as they assume, together with men, a common responsibility for the destiny of humanity according to daily necessities and according to that definitive destiny which the human family has in God himself, in the bosom of the ineffable Trinity.»

Made in God's image, humans are to accept responsibility for the way in which they are governed.

Or does the human have certain inherent characteristics and external influences which call for a more cautious estimation of each person's responsibility for moral behavior?

We would not interfere with the wilderness ways in which animals suffer and are killed by one another, but we think that there is far more, and far less necessary, suffering among creatures for whom human beings have assumed responsibility.

This is the phenomenology, particularly as practiced by Max Scheler, of which Wojtyla became a student, and which would in time lead him into novel, but orthodox, expositions of sexual ethics (Love and Responsibility), and into even more novel, though no less orthodox, expositions of the human person as the self - possessed locus of action and thought (The Acting Person).

In one of his last writings, Niebuhr describes «the guiding principle» of his mature life in relating religious responsibility to political affairs, as a «strong conviction that a realist conception of human nature should not be made into a bastion of conservatism, particularly a conservatism which defends unjust privileges» (Man «s Nature and His Communities [Scribners, 1965], pp. 24 - 25).

Just as Republicans may be accused of ignoring their responsibility to the poor and oppressed, so you are guilty of choosing to ignore the possibility that we may have a greater responsibility to humankind — a responsibility to promote a culture of life, instead of death, a culture in which every human life is valued and allowed to reach its full potential.

From our freedom comes our human responsibility, which makes us persons instead of things and opens the door to all the highest achievements of the human spirit.

Nor can specialization, which involves a relinquishment of general human responsibility for the sake of mastery in a limited field.

But it does not for a moment negate our creaturely freedom, to which we have made reference, nor does it minimize human dignity and responsibility for what is done in the world.

What we see in the Syrian tradition is a Christianity which in its understanding of human nature was eager to preserve the freedom of the human being and a certain degree of self - reliance, thereby laying strong emphasis on ethical power and the sense of responsibility.

Thus people today are much concerned to assert, both in word and deed, that they can and do make decisions that count; that they do have a human dignity which is inalienable and which they must seek to awaken in their brothers and sisters; and that their responsibility is to do all that is in their power to make human existence a good and honest and true and harmonious one.

In doing this, we have also seen how one of the consequences of authentic preaching is a determination, established in the hearts and minds and wills of those who have assisted at worship, to give themselves more fully to the service of God — as «co-creators», in Whitehead's fine word, with God in the great work of «amorization», establishing in this world (so far as a finite order will permit it) a society marked by caring, justice, responsibility, interest in others, and relief from oppression, devoted to everything positive which promotes the fullest actualization of human possibility.

I do not believe it is merely by chance that all cultures assume the existence of something that might be called the «Memory of Being,» in which everything is constantly recorded, and that they assume the related existence of supra - personal authorities or principles that not only transcend man but to which he constantly relates, and which are the sole, final explanation of a phenomenon as particular as human responsibility.

When either our animal or our primeval ancestors were not given the responsibility for our plight the blame was shifted to the social institutions which corrupt human nature.

The myth of the Last Judgment attempts, by using the end - time as the reference point, to proclaim a truth about human responsibility which is not confined to any point in time, but which pervades all time.

Niebuhr's antipathy toward any form of inherited sin reflected his fear that it would mitigate responsibility; hence he writes: «the theory of an inherited second nature is as clearly destructive of the idea of responsibility for sin as rationalistic and dualistic theories which attribute human evil to the inertia of nature» (NDM 262).

This mortality includes the responsibility that we shall become what we were created to be, which is authentic or true men, fully and completely human.

This alertness is part of his general human civic responsibilities which go beyond his responsibilities as a scientist.

That responsibility requires a certain human «control,» as we shall argue in the sequal — not control as servile obedience to imposed regulations set by society or even by God, but as useful guidelines to the best ways in which to express this inescapable part of our human existence.

One is precisely this «answering back» or response in the usual sense; another, which in common usage becomes «responsibility,» is our human accountability for what we do (or fail to do) in making just such a response.

There is an essential difference between a faith which recognizes responsibility for the universal human community but does not seek to dominate it, and master race theories such as Nazism, or the interesting new Japanese version of Nichiren Buddhism known as Sokka Gakkai (Value - Creating Society).

In the humanist canon, this awesome responsibility is the consequence of the objective uncertainty that defines the human situation — not just the ethicoreligious sphere — in which human freedom must operate.

However, I believe that Boff's emphasis on the relationships between human beings and communities is of great value, even in his programmatic - pleading form, as well as the idea of a worldwide responsibility for the planet, which every citizen of this world is to bear.

The reason for the pushback you're getting is that the Bible is opposed to «fatalism» (which makes our actions inconsequential for changing things and leads to resignation in the face of such powerlessness) but teaches and presupposes «compatiblism» (that God's absolute sovereignty is compatible with genuine human freedom and responsibility).

We humans have the responsibility to work for a world in which both they and we have habitat and opportunity to flourish.

The force of my arguments about past responsibility or future fear is not essentially one of grounding altruism or appropriate self - interest, which I would ground in the metaphysical claim that all humans have the same essence which constitutes their unity as a class called by Kant the kingdom of ends.

Shame implies the peculiarly human concern with self - perfection, guilt the sense of personal responsibility, whereas awe recognizes powers not under human control and beyond human comprehension, before which we feel shamefully small.

Early in 2001 an international commission of experts submitted a policy paper to the UN titled «The Responsibility to Protect,» which made the case for international intervention in cases of human rights violations and humanitarian emergencies.

Besides the conditions of society itself, under which family and friends had primary responsibility for the care of the dying and the dead, memento mon were spread throughout culture: in the church's art, in morality plays like Everyman, in drinking songs, in the ordinary artifacts of everyday life (e.g., in Austria a towel hanger portraying a human form split down the middle: one half a beautiful young woman, the other a skeleton) To be sure, the specter of death (and judgment) has been used as a form of social control.

The grace of God «opens before the secularized man of our time a dimension of human existence which might help him to live, in the midst of the confusion of his personal and social existence, with hope and responsibility.

This is possible only when we develop science and technology, which accepts the value of creation and responsibility of human beings.

Thus for each of us, the exacting and inescapable question, which must be faced and answered, is the question of our total mortal life as we are now living it, a question which arises from our mortality with the responsibility which that entails, which puts itself to us in the form of our measuring up to the possibility of becoming authentically ourselves, and which issues in our realization (not so much in thought as in deeply felt experience as existing men) of blessedness, as we know ourselves becoming what we truly are, or in destruction or damnation, as we know ourselves both frustrated men and failures in our human fulfillment.

But I believe it was hinted at in the words of a young Cambridge undergraduate who told me that what he and most of his friends aimed at in their sexual behavior were three things: permissiveness, within the range of social decency and acceptance; affection, by which he meant genuine caring and the beginning of real love; and responsibility, which he defined as readiness to stand up and take the consequences for any and every sort of human contact.

Now it is important to insist that neither Jeremiah nor Ezekiel means in refuting the proverb to propound a «doctrine of individualism» which would deny communal responsibility and the inescapable corporateness of human existence.

It offers us a picture of a world of interconnected and interdependent creatures in which human beings have particular but not exclusive privileges and responsibilities.