Sentences with phrase «within nature of human beings»

Chief among these are the capacity for self «organization, the teleological «directionality» that nature exhibits, and the emergence within nature of human beings who «transcend the natural level.»

Not exact matches

But it is one thing to state that all human beings have some access to God's law within and through human nature, quite another to expect natural law theories based on reason alone to persuade others about contested moral issues in a context where such theories are stripped of their foundations in God as creator, lawgiver, and judge.

But it's also true within the larger context of human reality that we recognize the gracious nature of such relationships, and can be thankful that we have the ability and freedom to give and receive.

So to summarize the salient features of the preceding views of nature and human nature: One would place man above and outside nature; the second would make man subservient to nature, and ideally (for some) remove man from nature; and the third would place man entirely within nature, insisting also that nature is all there is.

The facts of human perversity are only too plain, and it is by no means clear that by any processes within our control or within reasonable forecast human nature may be fundamentally improved.

Underlying this erroneous tendency, as Faith has pointed out many times over the last forty years, is the implicit or explicit denial of the transcendence of God, the Divinity of Christ, the historical objectivity of revelation and the authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals, and also the denial of the spiritual soul as a principle of existence that is distinct from yet integrates the material within the unity of our human nature.

How much the CES actually cares about «the most profound metaphysical questions concerning human existence and the nature of reality» within any recognisably Catholic perspective is, however, to put it as mildly as possible, perhaps in some doubt.

The terrible personal cost is not something demanded by the Father; it is the consequence of what sin has done to human beings in destroying the image and glory of God within our nature.

Human society is the natural outgrowth and expression of human nature which, like all created natures, is set within the Unity Law of Control and Direction, which is his new name for and conception of the NaturalHuman society is the natural outgrowth and expression of human nature which, like all created natures, is set within the Unity Law of Control and Direction, which is his new name for and conception of the Naturalhuman nature which, like all created natures, is set within the Unity Law of Control and Direction, which is his new name for and conception of the Natural Law.

In redefining marriage and the family, the state not only embarks on an unprecedented expansion of its powers into realms heretofore considered prior to or outside its reach, and not only does it usurp functions and prerogatives once performed by intermediary associations within civil society, it also exercises these powers by tacitly redefining what the human being is and committing the nation to a decidedly post-Christian (and ultimately post-human) anthropology and philosophy of nature.

If man was to be redeemed, human nature must be changed from within, by the total offering of aninnocent mind and will for the sake of goodness and for the good of others.

The bonds of trust that bind communities together in shared faith, hope and charity will be corroded from within as human nature itself withers like branches detached from the Vine.

It is most certainly within human nature to be selfish and to be born dead spiritually but that does not mean that we need to be threatened, beaten or kicked into some kind of religious conversion.

The rejection of dualism and the full inclusion of every aspect of human reality within nature profoundly affect how nature is understood.

The reaction of nature is a blindingly flashing red - light that man's actions are unnatural; that he need be true to his inner demands, which acted upon automatically set a proper balance within human consciousness and adjust the physical conditions in the entire creation around him.

If as human creatures we are not so confined by law but that events can be made to happen within the order of nature in response to purpose, surely God is not so limited.

On the contrary, there are standards of right and wrong within Christian tradition concerning human sexuality, based in human nature and biblical revelation, which are acceptable to homosexual and heterosexual alike, and which can form the moral basis of public policy.

God the progeny — the divine nature not Just of Jesus, but when manifested within any human being (and within any being at all to some degree, though in a different way)

There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy, despite the fact that the nature of the intrauterine life has been the subject of considerable dispute in the past.

The principles of human action, like the processes of nature, fall within a universal order established by the Creator, to be recognized at any level by those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Carl Henry, for example, was able to respond to Jim Wallis's characterization of the communal, over against the individual, nature of the gospel by saying that he agreed with Wallis's communal definition.67» But Henry's individualistic view of people within human society, while allowing for the community of the church, the importance of the family, and a limited function for the state, remains largely atomistic.

Similarly, can one's doctrine of human nature (which lies behind all discussion both of homosexuality and of women's place in the family and church) be considered of secondary interest within Scripture?

«Holloway suggests that the concept of environment is a helpful way in which to preserve the relevance of the subject without losing its realistic objectivity because a subject is inherently related to its environment whilst at the same time distinct from it... We would propose it as a sort of medium between... (the fairly uncritical) adoption of the post-modern subject and... «scholastic rationalism»... If then we further understand the human person as being within a personal environment, that of the living God... We can affrm that human nature is intrinsically ordered to God» (page 4).

But, as I say, much more needs to be included about the nature of the human body and the reasons why the marital context is the morallycorrect context within which sexual intimacy is expressed.

In your excellent editorial article, you write: «There has been a long - tradition within Catholic catechesis for making a rational case for the immortal nature of men... She (the Catholic Church) needs to make a renewed case for her teaching concerning the human soul.

And the consequence is that, having the nature of man so strong within him, he is able to enter into human nature, and to sympathise with it, with a gift peculiarly his own.»

Yet within a framework of disparate biological inheritance fixed by nature and of disparate social inheritance which is the result of both biological and human forces, the democratic ideal requires that every person be given an opportunity to experience the «abundant life» and do the work for which he is best fitted.

The new being produced could preserve all the positive constituents of the old essence within itself as its own properties (as for instance human nature preserves all the reality of lower natures).

When we understand human nature as the pinnacle and goal of material development it all appears to come to nothing, or at least to frustration, without an end in God - and that quandary can not be answered from within the categories and potential of created being.

However, this «new kind of reality,» who is Jesus, is an emergent manifestation of God in human life emanating from within creation: «a unique manifestation of apossibility always inherently there for human beings by virtue of their potential nature being created by God... a new mode of human existence emerged through Jesus» openness to God making him a God informed human being» (ibid).

For us these are the components of reality that explain the nature of the world, the phenomenon of life within it, and even how we human organisms think through our brains.

But it does seem clear to me that we need to begin with a vision of a world community (1) consisting of a population within the biological carrying capacity of the planet (2) organized politically and economically in ways that provide to all human beings equal access to the means of material fulfillment and (3) organized technologically in ways that (4) neither exhaust essential natural resources of earth nor (5) upset the delicate balances of nature which make the environment capable of supporting life.

The first thing to give us pause, as we survey the progress of human collectivization, is what I would call the inexorable nature of a phenomenon which arises directly and automatically out of the conjunction of two factors, both of a structural kind: first, the confined surface of the globe, and secondly, the incessant multiplication, within this restricted space, of human units endowed by ever - improving means of communication with a rapidly increasing scope for action; to which may be added the fact that their advanced psychic development makes them preeminently capable of influencing and inter-penetrating one another.

There is something special about the world - and the nature of the human mind - which allows patterns within nature to be discerned and represented.

In September, Time magazine organized a debate between Collins and Dawkins which touched on all the crucial issues: the false idea that science and faith should be held as not overlapping; the place of Darwinian evolution in the plan of God; the fine - tuning of the physical constants of nature; the literal interpretation of Genesis; the place of miracles including the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus; and the origin of the moral law within the human heart.

(1) There is the (partial) estrangement of humankind from the world (or nature), evidenced by (a) enmity between serpent and woman; (b) partial alienation of man from the earth, upon which he must now toil for his food; and (c) pain of childbirth, implying conflict even within the (female) human body.

If human experience is genuinely a part of nature, and if there be only one type of actual entity within nature (an idea whose truth - value must finally be verified heuristically), then, since it is that part of nature one knows most intimately, it provides the best starting point for finding principles that can be generalized to all actual entities.

They tell us that they have arrived at an unshakable conviction, not based on inference but on immediate experience, that God is a spirit with whom the human spirit can hold intercourse; that in him meet all that they can imagine of goodness, truth, and beauty that they can see his footprints everywhere in nature, and feel his presence within them as the very life of their life, so that in proportion as they come to themselves they come to him.

If all is to be conceived by analogy with our human nature, then either Spinoza is right and the eternal, immutable essence of the cosmic soul necessitates everything in the cosmic body, and there is no chance, randomness, or genuinely open alternatives either within the world or as between this and other possible worlds; or there is freedom both in our decisions and in God's.

As Yves Simon and Heinrich Rommen long ago demonstrated, there is room for disagreement within the tradition of natural law about how one envisions the role played by God as the author of human nature, or about the tortuous problem of culpability when there is deeply rooted perversity of basic inclinations.

It should not startle us, then, to discover that there are different degrees within the continuum of eminence comprised by human nature: greater or lesser approximations to human reason, fuller or feebler adumbrations.

In fact, all my anxieties run in the opposite direction: that, in order to affirm the uniqueness of humanity within organic nature, as well as the unique moral obligations it entails, we will reject all evidence of intentionality, reason, or affection in animals as something only apparently purposive, doing so by reference to the most egregiously vapid of philosophical naturalism's mystifications — «instinct» — and thereby opening the way to a mechanistic narrative that, as we have learned from an incessant torrent of biological and bioethical theory in recent decades, can be extended to human behavior as well.

Though the problem is so rooted in the nature of both Church and secular society that it is always present, yet it has a peculiar urgency for the modern church which is confronted with unusual evidences of misery in the life of human communities and of weakness within itself.

Hence McFague argues that when we put the world at risk with our unbridled exploitation of nature, God, the God who is incarnate within the creation, is at risk in human hands.

So are the miracle wheat and rice of the Green Revolution, the technology of behavior modification proposed by B. F. Skinner, 1 and the computerized model of the global ecology produced by the authors of The Limits to Growth.2 This kind of reasoning operates within the limits of what is possible as defined by (1) the available material and human resources, (2) the laws of nature, and (3) the state of knowledge at the time.

Not only was this myth meaningful within Israel and the former generations of Christian believers, but also to us living in the new world, three thousand years later, it still speaks powerfully, as it lights up for us our human nature and our human predicament.

They are seeking what has been called post-modern paradigms for «an open secular democratic culture» within the framework of a public philosophy (Walter Lippman) or Civil Religion (Robert Bellah) or a new genuine realistic humanism or at least a body of insights about the nature of being and becoming human, evolved through dialogue among renascent religions, secularist ideologies including the philosophies of the tragic dimension of existence and disciplines of social and human sciences which have opened themselves to each other in the context of their common sense of historical responsibility and common human destiny.

My thesis is that the many visions of perfection are more or less the same or at least analogical, and therefore if each Faith keeps its ethics of law dynamic within the framework of and in tension with its own transcendent vision of perfection, the different religious and secular Faiths can have a fruitful dialogue at depth on the nature of human alienation which makes love impossible and for updating our various approaches to personal and public law with greater realism with insights from each other.

This is the biblical perspective of creation: that we are born into a world that is given to us and not something of our own making (Genesis 1 - 2, Psalm 8); that humans have a place within it but not the place (Job 34:14 - 15); that the whole of this creation is interconnected and in constant communication with itself in a complex way (Rom 8:29 - 23) and that nature experiences destructive consequences as a result of human disobedience of God (see for example Genesis 3, 1 Kings 17 - 18, Romans 8).

This is not simply a task of intellectual understanding, but of metanoia, in the fullest sense of the word: of conversion of our spirit and culture, of our technology and social relations, so that the human species exists within nature in a life - sustaining way.»