Quotessence
Home / Topics / Justification Quotes

Justification Quotes

Browse 693 quotes about Justification.

Related topics

Justification Quotes

“He turned to her - his gesture a superb compound of relief, remorse, passionate candour and bewilderment touched with curiosity; confidence and perfect penitence. Against which Scylla had to brace herself. Against such bravura how dull truth seemed, and difficult to access. Never had the bottom of a well seemed less attractive. She must hear him first. She could go down later.”

“Those living under severe mental anguish have all but ceased from living. The justification for this state of mind determines the duration; if it’s due to the loss of a loved one, it’s likely to slowly dissolve, but if imminent death looms, the torment shall persist. Peace be with you.”

“Berto." Voice like ice. "Maggie, cara mia!" Voice like fire. He leapt forward to embrace her, but she held up her hand, her face grave. I noticed she'd freshened her lipstick, though. No dummy, that one. "Back off! I am not going to forgive you, so don't fritter your charm. You broke my heart and sent me flying home like a kicked dog." Maggie was just warming up. "I fled my home, my work, my friends. Every single person we know, our colleagues, our neighbors, knew I had been thrown over for a younger woman and pitied me. I am not to be pitied, Berto. I am a proud and beautiful woman, and I am the one who should be pitying you. But I don't pity you, because you made your own bed. Now go back to Italy and lie in it. Alone.”

“The Eye of Karma by Stewart Stafford Do we still rationalise things we do? Karma's cold, clear eye sees through, Soiled laundry aired for the public to see, A looking glass raised to gross misdeeds. No compunction, an inflaming sick note, Deaf to the plea bargains began by rote, Facing peccadilloes that seek redress, Damaging overflow of avarice and hubris. Poison sucked from self-flagellation wounds, The stinging venom disgorged and plumed, A penalty passed with the gavel in hand, Purge those failings with goodwill planned. © Stewart Stafford, 2022. All rights reserved.”

“Antinomianism and legalism conspire in forcing us to make a false choice: Is salvation a matter of God's forgiveness or is it moral transformation? This is a trick question from the Reformers' point of view. Calvin reasons, "Surely those things which are connected do not destroy one another!" Forensic justification through faith alone is not the enemy but the basis of sanctification.”

“I am now convinced that we have recently become possessed of experimental evidence of the discrete or grained nature of matter, which the atomic hypothesis sought in vain for hundreds and thousands of years. The isolation and counting of gaseous ions, on the one hand, which have crowned with success the long and brilliant researches of J.J. Thomson, and, on the other, agreement of the Brownian movement with the requirements of the kinetic hypothesis, established by many investigators and most conclusively by J. Perrin, justify the most cautious scientist in now speaking of the experimental proof of the atomic nature of matter, The atomic hypothesis is thus raised to the position of a scientifically well-founded theory, and can claim a place in a text-book intended for use as an introduction to the present state of our knowledge of General Chemistry.”

“What about ‘Just-ification,’ but with a hyphen? Just-hyphen-ification?” Michael asked. “What inspired you to come up with this idea?” I inquired. “Well, if you hyphenate the word justification, it separates the term just from ication. The term just means to be fair and equitable, and since you told us that you wanted to advocate for tolerance between Reformists and Capacianists, I found that justness would be especially relevant to our new movement. Plus, writing that name on paper may intrigue more people, so the movement could become more widespread and well-known. And if you consider the word just and the word justification and put the ideas behind the words together, you would pretty much be saying that you would be using what is just as a justification to the new movement.”

“The Spirit of God draws or leads the sinner from one phase to another, gradually, in proportion as one is found having a disposition to responsive hearing. Grace flows ordinarily from prevenient grace through the grace of baptism through the grace of justification toward sanctifying grace leading toward consummation in glory. The power by which one cooperates with grace is grace itself. In this way God draws all to himself, eliciting a hunger for righteousness and a desire for truth.”

“As a transmuted energy, anger is mirror-wisdom – undistracted, undistorted clarity. But in order for us to find this clarity, to polish this mirror, we need to cut through the insidious process of justification. Justification is the authority we invoke to license our anger. Because of this it is important not to allow space for the distorted indulgence of justification. This can be very difficult because the process of justification is a strong part of our education and a salient feature of the world’s cultural heritage. The nuclear balance of terror was part of that process. Totalitarian political movements (either extreme left or extreme right) are a manifestation of that process; and, unfortunately, it has also become part of the very ideologies that have arisen to benefit humanity. How often have we heard people saying: “Of course I’m angry! Wouldn’t anyone be angry?” And, of course, this is a purely rhetorical question. The concept that we have every right to feel anything that we feel needs to be called seriously into question. At best we can say that we simply feel what we feel. It is a delicate balance: to acknowledge emotional needs, on the one hand, and to have a sense of these needs being conceptually generated on the other. This balancing act requires the experience of emptiness, because without it, we either indulge ourselves or brutalise ourselves. The experience of emptiness, in this sense, helps us to view our emotions with a degree of humour – with more sanity and true perspective. With this sense of space we can find ourselves adopting a very powerful stance – the stance of a practitioner. Then it is no longer possible to say: “You have made me angry!” All we can say is: “I have made myself angry in reaction to what I have perceived you to have done to me”. In this way we make ourselves completely responsible for what we feel. That is really wonderful, because from this perspective we stop laying this responsibility on other people. Taking responsibility for whatever we may happen to be feeling is what enables us to kill justification. Dechen, Khandro; Chogyam, Ngakpa (2014-01-14). Spectrum of Ecstasy: Embracing the Five Wisdom Emotions of Vajrayana Buddhism (p. 143). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.”

“It is a childish cavil wherewith in the matter of justification our adversaries do so greatly please themselves, exclaiming that we tread all Christian virtues under our feet and require nothing in Christians but faith, because we teach that faith alone justifieth; whereas by this speech we never meant to exclude either hope and charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified, or works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified man, but to show that faith is the only hand which putteth on Christ unto justification, and Christ the only garment which, being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures, hideth the imperfections of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight of God, before whom otherwise the very weakness of our faith were cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us out from the kingdom of heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter.”

“She had no desire to see Conall dead. She loved him. That was a thought that caught her by surprise. Claray had liked Conall from the start, admired his sense of honor and determination to look after his people. She also appreciated all he had done for her, rescuing her from Kerr, carrying her before him on his mount while she slept, no matter that he was exhausted. He'd also been most patient with her rescuing animals at every turn on the way home to MacFarlane when she'd known he hadn't wanted her to. He was a good man----he worked day and night here to build a home for them all, and he'd tended to her when she was injured and ill with such gentleness and kindness. And then there was his loving. Aye, at first Claray had worried that her soul might be in peril because of the pleasure he gave her, but she'd come to terms with that. It was just too beautiful and intimate to be something God would begrudge them. Surely, if He hadn't wanted them to enjoy each other like that, He wouldn't have made it possible for people to enjoy it as they did. At least that was her reasoning. Perhaps it was just a justification to allow her to continue to enjoy her marital bed without guilt, but since she found it impossible not to, she was happy to accept that justification. Whatever the case, with all that she admired, respected and enjoyed about her husband, Claray supposed it would be surprising if she did not love him. Conall was a man worth loving, and she simply could not bear the thought of this man ending his life.”

“C’est pourquoi la justification de ces inégalités extrêmes passe souvent par un discours moins grandiloquent, et insistant surtout sur le besoin de stabilité patrimoniale et de protection du droit de propriété. Autrement dit, l’inégalité des fortunes n’est peut-être pas entièrement juste, et pas toujours utile, surtout dans les proportions observées, y compris en Californie, mais sa remise en cause risquerait d’ouvrir une escalade sans fin dont les plus pauvres et la société dans son ensemble finiraient par faire les frais. Cet argument propriétariste fondé sur le besoin de stabilité sociopolitique et de sécurisation absolue (et parfois quasi religieuse) des droits de propriété acquis dans le passé jouait déjà un rôle central pour justifier les fortes inégalités caractérisant les sociétés de propriétaires qui prospéraient en ee Europe et aux États-Unis auXIX siècle et au début du XX . On retrouvera aussi cet éternel argument de la stabilité dans la justification des sociétés trifonctionnelles et esclavagistes. Il faut aussi y ajouter aujourd’hui un discours sur l’inefficacité supposée de l’État et l’agilité réputée supérieure de la philanthropie privée, argument qui jouait également un rôle lors des périodes précédentes, mais qui a pris une ampleur nouvelle à l’époque contemporaine. Ces différents discours sont légitimes et doivent être entendus, jusqu’à un certain point, mais je tenterai de démontrer qu’ils peuvent être dépassés, en nous fondant sur les leçons de l’histoire.”

“En effet, ils n'ont ni connu ni fait la volonté de la loi ; ce qu'ils ont pensé, ils ont cru que la loi le voulait. Ainsi ils n'ont pas cru à la loi en tant que parole prophétique, ils n'ont vu en elle qu'une parole stérile. C'est par crainte, non par affection ni par foi qu'ils lui ont été fidèles; car Jésus-Christ, dont l'avènement a été prédit par la loi, est la fin de la loi pour justifier tous ceux qui croiront.”

“Face à des évolutions aussi spectaculaires, les discours de justification de l’inégalité patrimoniale extrême oscillent souvent entre plusieurs attitudes, et prennent parfois des formes étonnantes. Dans les pays occidentaux, une distinction très forte est souvent faite entre d’une part les « oligarques » russes, les pétro- milliardaires moyen-orientaux et autres milliardaires chinois, mexicains, guinéens, indiens ou indonésiens, dont on considère souvent qu’ils ne « méritent » pas véritablement leur fortune, car elle aurait été obtenue par l’entremise de relations avec les pouvoirs étatiques (par exemple par l’appropriation indue de ressources naturelles ou de diverses licences) et ne serait guère utile pour la croissance ; et d’autre part les « entrepreneurs » européens et étatsuniens, californiens de préférence, dont il est de bon ton de chanter les louanges et les contributions infinies au bien-être mondial, et de penser qu’ils devraient être encore plus riches si la planète savait les récompenser comme ils le méritent. Peut-être même devrait-on étendre notre dette morale considérable à leur égard en une dette financière sonnante et trébuchante, ou bien en leur cédant nos droits de vote, ce qui d’ailleurs n’est pas loin d’être déjà le cas dans plusieurs pays. Un tel régime de justification des inégalités, qui se veut à la fois hyperméritocratique et occidentalo-centré, illustre bien le besoin irrépressible des sociétés humaines de donner du sens à leurs inégalités, parfois au-delà du raisonnable. De fait, ce discours de quasi-béatification de la fortune n’est pas exempt de contradictions, pour certaines abyssales. Est-on bien sûr que Bill Gates et les autres techno-milliardaires auraient pu développer leurs affaires sans les centaines de milliards d’argent public investies dans la formation et la recherche fondamentale depuis des décennies, et pense-t-on vraiment que leur pouvoir de quasi-monopole commercial et de brevetage privé de connaissances publiques aurait pu prospérer autrement qu’avec le soutien actif du système légal et fiscal en vigueur ?”

“The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions. And even a cursory glance at the history of the biological sciences during the last quarter of a century is sufficient to justify the assertion, that the most potent instrument for the extension of the realm of natural knowledge which has come into men's hands, since the publication of Newton's ‘Principia’, is Darwin's ‘Origin of Species.”

“Most people, if they know they have done wrong, foolishly suppose they can conceal their error by defending it, and finding a justification for it; but in my belief there is only one medicine for an evil deed, and that is for the guilty man to admit his guilt and show that he is sorry for it. Such an admission will make the consequences easier for the victim to bear, and the guilty man himself, by plainly showing his distress at former transgressions, will find good grounds of hope for avoiding similar transgressions in the future.”