Sentences with phrase «with human interpretation»

I suppose if we could revisit ourselves in a thousand years, look at the historical recordings of ourselves, we will see there are factual basis, but sprinkled with human interpretation of our present time now by those who have appointed themselves as the keepers of what we do, just as the recordings of the Bible were done by those appointees trying to capture there presnt now... yet sprinkled with their best interpretation of what they new then.

Not exact matches

The Bible is a book, and was «edited» by humans for the telling of a good «story», as with any «good book» there can be many (mis --RRB- interpretations of the text.

If each day in Genesis was 1,000 years then that interpretation would mean there were 6,000 years before recorded human history, provided you think human history started with the Hebrews, clearly not the case.

And we have an interpretation of human existence as a movement toward love, accepted willingly or rejected selfishly with the inevitable consequences of human fulfillment or nonfulfillment.

Consider, above all, the activity of what Whitehead calls «the final percipient occasion», i.e., the present occasion of human experience, in integrating its present visual experience, with all the complex interpretation involved therein, with previous experiences.

Whereas Marx defined transcendence as the human beings» possibility to move towards the future with freedom and choice, so that they could shape their own destiny, Bonhoeffer gave a this - worldly interpretation of transcendence in which the experience of transcendence is Jesus «being there for others».

However, combine this with the irrefutable observation of humanity that would see human evil as universal in its scope, and combine this with the fact that the VAST majority of human beings disagreed with your interpretation of essential human goodness, and the force of the conviction steels itself.

The problem may not be with rights per se, whose articulation is invaluable to our conception of modern republicanism (and may even help more fully articulate what is true about Christian morality), but with an interpretation that takes rights as the whole of moral discourse and therefore, understands the abstract Lockean individual to be a comprehensive account of the human person.

Her rationale for such a view seems to rest upon (1) a highly questionable interpretation of one text in Process an Reality and the claims (2) that only such a view is compatible with human freedom and (3) that only such a view is compatible with human faith.

Another area where I have had some difficulties with Hartshorne's philosophy is his interpretation of human immortality in terms of «being remembered by God.»

The community - building process, says Royce, is constituted by human beings engaged in acts of «interpretation» with one another.

A possible real connection with the animal kingdom is itself of relatively little theological importance, for anything in it that would be important for the theological interpretation of human life in the present, can also be known without it, that is to say, the vulnerability of man in face of the powers of this earth, man's temptation to see himself from the point of view of his animality, his liability to death, man's dynamic orientation and task of developing to his perfection from below upwards, beyond his beginnings.

Yet he refuses to collapse biblical theology into the history of the religion of Israel, distinguishing the two this way: ««History of religion» is concerned with all the forms and aspects of all human religions, while theology tends to be concerned with the truth - claims of one religion and especially with its authoritative texts and traditions and their interpretations.»

Thus with each interpretation the process moves into a new state of affairs.9 In idealist fashion Royce sees human existence as this infinitely expanding community of interpretation.

Thus I am obliged to say, with H. H. Price, that theism, at least in a Christian sense, is «a metaphysics of love»; and with this, I am obliged to affirm that «the world», including nature in its farthest stretches as well as in the intimacy of human existence, is given its proper «interpretation» only when «the key» to it is found in Jesus Christ.

Because its very interdisciplinariness and inherent concern with issues of interpretation have put it at the center of the most significant controversy in the human sciences today.

It simply does not follow that Hitler's warped interpretation of any scientific theory is something with which a sane human being, scientifically literate or not, would agree.

Now, this is one possible interpretation — though notice, even this interpretation doesn't fully support Calvinism, for it still grants humans the freedom to come up with their own plans!

It is remarkable that this simple fact of human life fits in so closely with the pattern of the Christian interpretation of existence — so remarkable that we may be pardoned if we believe that it is not really accidental at all, but providential.

With this interpretation of the Christian philosophy of human history we have reached the affirmation upon which our entire argument rests.

When presented with an explanation of the text that challenges our own explanation, our immediate defensive position is to say, «Well, that's wrong because they are importing their own human interpretation into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself the way I do.»

If one follows Whitehead in extrapolating from human experience, one can find in this interpretation of the divine priority a doctrine of creation that is compatible with biological evolution: in the concept of God supplying a «lure» to evolution, «process» thinking approximates to that of Teilhard de Chardin.

It is the Reason of Plato at work, freeing us from old, stale habits of thought in the expectation that out of the resulting conversation, from the very turmoil and confusion of interpretations at war with one another, can emerge in good time a better understanding and a better practice of what it is to become and be within human communities.

[2] One canget a glimpse of how far this can go in some of the more extreme interpretations of Maximus the Confessor, in which it is suggested that, without the fall, the Incarnation would not have taken place in the person of Jesus, but in a «universal» incarnation in human nature through man's free co-operation with divine grace.

Most of the issues related to the Bible and warfare (warfare seems to be what history is made of and there are usually multiple causes and interpretations for each conflict) had to do with power struggles (also the most human of all endeavors) and perhaps doctrinal issues of freedom related to these power struggles.

This does not present us with facts of the past in their bare actuality, nor does it lead to encounter with human existence and its interpretation, but, as a sacramental event, it re-presents the events of the past in such a way that it renews them, and thus becomes a personal encounter for me.

And more recently, Bruno Dreher has called for «homiletical induction» which begins with an interpretation of human existence today and then moves to the text.

If the program of Bultmann is not carried to the concrete existence of a particular congregation, then we are left with a universally applicable interpretation of Scripture in terms of «the human situation».

The interpretation of the present nature of human beings in any situation, as «made in the image of God» and as «brothers for whom Christ died» should be as Persons - in - Relation and destined to become Persons - in - Loving - Community with each other in the context of the community of life on earth through the responsible exercise of the finite human freedom reconciled to God.

True, Hook never understood that bit of data as Maritain did, or accepted the interpretation of human life that went with it, but his experience of the movement of human intellect to utter thanks remains a phenomenon to be explained.

The other problem arises out of the hermeneutical difficulties in the interpretation of tradition and in making the necessary distinction between binding «Tradition» (with a capital T) and purely human «traditions.»

She writes that «while many modernists saw scriptural discrepancies as evidence that the Bible was not «true,» postmodernists would attribute discrepancies to the pluralistic situatedness of interpretation,» making the Bible a more true - to - life and authentic account of human interaction with the divine.

Now the interpretation of the perfecting of the human / word process, leading to a threshold of radical change, is both in keeping with the pattern of evolutionary change evidenced in the natural world, and the biblical concept of the eschaton as the threshold of the new aeon, and the total transformation of humanity and cosmos.

Vast numbers of people think that the fact of a relatively settled order of nature, along with the scientific interpretation of change and the description of the inner dynamics of human personality (and much else as well), has ruled out once and for all genuine novelty and made change nothing more than the reshuffling of bits of matter - in - motion.

«Listener to the Christian message, «2 occasional preacher, 3 dialoguer with biblical scholars, theologians, and specialists in the history of religions, 4 Ricoeur is above all a philosopher committed to constructing as comprehensive a theory as possible of the interpretation of texts.5 A thoroughly modern man (if not, indeed, a neo-Enlightenment figure) in his determination to think «within the autonomy of responsible thought, «6 Ricoeur finds it nonetheless consistent to maintain that reflection which seeks, beyond mere calculation, to «situate [us] better in being, «7 must arise from the mythical, narrative, prophetic, poetic, apocalyptic, and other sorts of texts in which human beings have avowed their encounter both with evil and with the gracious grounds of hope.

But since human beings usually deal with symbols (i.e., signs that already bear the imprints of prior interpretations), empirical observations become more or less complete instances of symbolizings that are inherently subject to reinterpretations.

Along with dualistic mythology several developments in scientific thought since the seventeenth century have contributed to the exorcism of mind from nature: first, there is the cosmography of classical (Newtonian) physics picturing our world as composed of inanimate, unconscious bits of «matter» needing only the brute laws of inertia to explain their action; second, the Darwinian theory of evolution with its emphasis on chance, waste and the apparent «impersonality» of natural selection; third, the laws of thermodynamics (and particularly the second law) with the allied cosmological interpretation that our universe is running out of energy available to sustain life, evolution and human consciousness; fourth, the geological and astronomical disclosure of enormous tracts of apparently lifeless space and matter in the universe; fifth, the recent suggestions that life may be reducible to an inanimate chemical basis; and, finally, perhaps most shocking of all, the suspicion that mind may be explained exhaustively in terms of mindless brain chemistry.

With respect to human freedom and responsibility, the interpretation of man in process thought is very compatible with the presumptions of Christian faWith respect to human freedom and responsibility, the interpretation of man in process thought is very compatible with the presumptions of Christian fawith the presumptions of Christian faith.

McGrath suggests a new reformulation of natural theology, seeing its task as offering an interpretation of nature based on Trinitarian faith, including an account of human engagement with nature in the moral and aesthetic dimensions as well.

Without a divinely guaranteed proclaimer of the Gospel, we are left with individual interpretation and so the living Christ disappears behind a projected image that mirrors only the hearts and minds of fallen human beings.

With the evolutionary interpretation of the appearance of human beings, developed by Darwin and others, the position changed.

In times when other forces determine the interpretations of events, nature, human life and what have you, more than religious ones do, it is, in my view, a temptation to find philosophical, theological and ethical positions that can disengage Christians from intentional interactions with alternatives.

Whether they believe it was written by God / god or a human author (let alone translated from one language to another over many years and the interpretations of those words taught / passed down over many years with many different understandings which formed with even the best intentions by men and women who were products of their time and place?)

It tends to be correlated with construals of the Christian thing as either good news about a divine act that has transformed the fallen cosmos that it is again genuinely a harmonious whole, or as an ethos that embraces all of human life, or as a total interpretation of reality.

Christian interpretations of the human potential movement are in comfortable accord with such a point of view.

Prohibitions on abortion by sovereign states are not only compatible with the requirements of international human rights instruments but are in fact the most probable interpretation of those requirements.

It is inconceivable to Descartes that the health of the body could be less important than, or even inconsistent with, some other interpretation of human flourishing.

These insights illuminate many of the issues discussed in the New Testament, and provide us with a new perspective from which first century interpretations of the human situation can be reexamined.

On the other hand, postmodern interpretations of the human self, language, and textuality, while often couched in nonreligious terms, call into question many assumptions of critical exegesis and suggest sympathy with the themes and sensibilities of the premodern Christian tradition.

Likewise, human studies investigating different sources of protein and body weight and composition have either been of very short duration or conducted with energy restriction, thus confounding the interpretation of the results.