Sentences with phrase «for other distinctions»

For other distinctions, the lender must closely analyze the circumstances to determine whether they are based on loan terms or a proxy for loan terms.

Not exact matches

Toys «R» Us Inc. doesn't sell the most toys in the U.S. — that distinction goes to Walmart Inc. — but it has remained a key proving ground for kids» gadgets, games and other playthings.

The Benecon Group is a big deal in insurance in central Pennsylvania, with the distinction of being one of five «preferred brokers» for Capital BlueCross and other major insurers in the area.

But this notion that mobile devices are now the market exemplar for every other form of entertainment misunderstands the distinctions between what's possible or desirable in these yet disparate ways of thinking about interactive entertainment.

You can't just be a great tasting beer or a great fitting floor mat; you have to position every other alternative, so consumers can make a clear distinction between what you stand for and everyone else.

Michelle Obama will be ceding the title of first lady to Melania Trump next month, but she may hold for some time the other distinction she earned during her time in the White House: America's best known advocate for healthy food.

A distinction that comes across when interacting with the executive team, listening to recorded presentations, and interfacing with their site is they seem sincerely committed (passionate actually) to efficiently and cost - effectively filling the funding gap that's existed between individual real estate developers looking for short - term loans for their fix - and - flip, bridge loans, and other construction projects and investors who understand the investment value of real estate and want to fund those projects.

Founders Collective was an event produced by women and for women, and the distinction between this event and others was clear.

Well then, perhaps you could give your definitions for the theological / biblical terms you cited above plus any other necessary terms that you didn't cite (i.e., your definition in distinction to the Calvinist / Arminian definitions of those words)?

those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers, and seek to make distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between; Such are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom» (Surah IV, 150 - 51).

It seems to me that in the New Testament, Paul is especially adamant on the point (in I Corinthians 10 - 11, for example), that Christianity is no place for the flaunting of privilege or distinction (whether class or ethnic or whatever), and I think that is exactly what happens anytime you have a church were some members are cool and know it (and flaunt it), while others are not so much.

1 Hartshorne is clearly right about this (CSPM 39), although, in thinking about the distinction, one must keep in mind what Hartshorne himself insists on elsewhere in replying to Paul Tillich's unqualified denial that God is a being — namely, that God's uniqueness «must consist precisely in being both reality as such and an individual reality, insofar comparable to other individuals» (A Natural Theology for Our Time [LaSalle.

For Whitehead has definitely recognized that when the distinction is made into types of entities the problem requires to be faced not merely as to how they are related to each other, but how they are related in respect of «being.»

For Heidegger, as perhaps for no other philosopher, the distinction between life and thought has meaning only if one perceives Heidegger's philosophy itself as self - confuting: So, the task is left to me, an outsider, to raise what may really be the quintessential Heideggerian question: the relation of his life to his thougFor Heidegger, as perhaps for no other philosopher, the distinction between life and thought has meaning only if one perceives Heidegger's philosophy itself as self - confuting: So, the task is left to me, an outsider, to raise what may really be the quintessential Heideggerian question: the relation of his life to his thougfor no other philosopher, the distinction between life and thought has meaning only if one perceives Heidegger's philosophy itself as self - confuting: So, the task is left to me, an outsider, to raise what may really be the quintessential Heideggerian question: the relation of his life to his thought.

The extended and most bitter indictments in the three largest prophetic collections9 as well as the sweeping, often ferocious, denunciations in Amos, Hosea, Micah, and the later Isaiahs10 make it clear that no distinction existed for the prophet between the rebelliousness expressed in social - economic - political malpractice on the one hand and cultic - religious - theological deviation on the other.

From the thesis that God could have created some other world it follows that there are unrealized potentialities for God, namely, His creating worlds He does not create.10 Thomas» distinction between active and passive potentialities11 does nothing to invalidate this point.

He is, rather, a very complex structured society which sustains, among many other societies, a regnant, personally ordered, subordinate society (an enduring object) which Whitehead refers to as «the soul of which Plato spoke» (Adventures of Ideas 267 — see also pp. 263 - 264 for a clear statement of the distinction between «the ordinary meaning of the term «man,» which includes the total bodily man, and the narrow sense of «man,» where «man» is considered a person in Whitehead's technical sense, i.e., as the regnant, personally ordered society which he identifies as his equivalent of Descartes» thinking substance and Plato's soul).

Buddhist love differs from Christian love in that the Buddhist lover is not a self and, consequently, makes no distinction between lover and beloved, whereas Christian love is that of a self for other selves.

The profusion of gifts among believers led them to draw what Paul S. Minear called «invidious distinctions among themselves, claim [ing] for one gift pre-eminence over others.

In Ernest Nagel, The Structure of Science, the distinction between theory and observation is less absolute than for these other authors.

The other is either passed over in silence or without distinction looked upon as the stranger, the foreigner, the pagan, the one who is different, the outsider and the threat, the unbeliever, the one to be ministered to, the object for mission.

It would be natural to make distinctions between, for example, some men who responded to the prophets» message by taking such action as they could, such as the disciples of Isaiah, and those others who were indifferent and self - satisfied.

However Aristotelian Austen was in other respects, she implicitly rejects Aristotle's distinction between praxis (actions whose effects remain with the actor) and poesis (actions whose effects go beyond the actor), for she knows that every action is «poetic.»

The old subject / object distinction is redefined to be the relation of the becoming of the entity (subject) and the subject, having become, is then data for other subjects (object).

I continue to press for a clear distinction between homosexual orientation and same - sex attraction, on the one hand, and being gay, on the other.

While exegesis and proclamation admit of only relative separation from each other, still the degree of that distinction must be preserved for the health of both.

By accepting from Austin and Holmes an overly sharp distinction between law and morality, by largely abandoning the search for the common good, and by permitting individual liberty or equality to trump most other values, mainstream American law may have had a part in fostering a set of cultural conditions inhospitable to communities of memory and mutual aid.

But as much as this can not be said for another distinction, of which one often hears, between the historical interpretation of the Bible on the one hand, and an interpretation variously called devotional, religious, or theological, on the other.

As I understand my assignment for this conference, it is to represent a «methodological alternative in process theology» that has been given the name «rationalist» so as to facilitate its distinction from two other such alternatives, the empirical and speculative so - called.

Others eliminate the force of the difference, but not the difference itself, by making various distinctions, for example, between the historical «accidents» and the eternal «essence» (as in Harnack), or between the familiar present worldview, which is normative, and the strange, alien past one, which is not (as in J. Weiss and Schweitzer), or between what a text «says» and what it «means» (as in Bultmann, whose approach attempts to resolve the tensions involved in the former two enterprises).

In other words, Ogden's analysis of various descriptions of experience is informed by two distinctions, both of which apply to the noetic pole of experience: a twofold distinction between nonsensuous and sensory modes of experience and a threefold distinction of what Whitehead calls «the feeling of the ego, the others, the totality,» that is, of self, other, and whole (PP 84).8 This comprehensive hermeneutical grid then permits an explanation of what he claims is a «sense of ourselves and others as of transcendent worth,» as precisely an «awareness of ourselves and the world as of worth to God» (PP 86f) Y Ogden notes that such an evidently theistic explanation is not open to empirical or experiential confirmation on either of the two more restrictive descriptions which, as he observes, must either «refer the word God» to some merely creaturely reality or process of interaction, or else., must deny it all reference whatever by construing its meaning as wholly noncognitive,» if they seek experiential illustration for such a sense at all (PP 80) 10

Thus, we can see that and how Ogden's critical appropriation of Whitehead's comprehensive empiricism as a hermeneutical grid for presenting in first - order fashion the content of experience as a sense of worth that requires the threefold distinction of self, other, and whole in order to describe it both is informed by and illustrates his second - order analysis.

(The ethical distinctions, for example, between drinking as a part of a relaxed evening at home and drinking prior to operating a car or other piece of potentially lethal machinery, need to be seen clearly by a young person.)

Others may make neat distinctions between «authentic sentiment» and sentimentality, but these days of Christmas are a time for the suspension of neat distinctions.

But the chief distinction between internal process and physical time is that the process occurring within an occasion has no efficacy for other occasions except indirectly through the satisfaction in which it eventuates.

7 The metaphysical distinction between that which is hidden in itself and that which is manifest for others is hardly enough to have caused any departure from the strict monotheism of the Old Testament heritage.

As a result of this recognition, Whitehead calls for a more precise distinction between writing and speaking, but not for a dichotomy that places one over the other.

For Premise X to be accepted, actual (in distinction from imaginary or ideal) entities would have to be completely determinable in all respects, by some being or beings other than themselves.

Other indications of evolution are too numerous to actually list in full, but a few might be the clear genetic distinction between Neanderthals and modern man; the overlapping features of hominid and pre-hominid fossil forms; the progressive order of the fossil record (that is, first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds; contradicting the Genesis order and all flood models); the phylogenetic relationships between extant and extinct species (including distributions of parasitic genetic elements like Endogenous Retroviruses); the real time observations of speciation in the lab and in the wild; the real time observations of novel functionality in the lab and wild (both genetic, Lenski's E. coli, and organsimal, the Pod Mrcaru lizards); the observation of convergent evolution defeating arguments of common component creationism (new world v. old world vultures for instance); and... well... I guess you get the picture.

At least the Protestant concept calls for little insignia other than an academic or tradition - related distinction.

Mill uses a distinction between «higher» and «lower» pleasures to respond to the criticism that utilitarianism can not account for the moral significance of the differences between human beings and (other) animals.

The Pragmatist version of this tends to see no other intelligibility in such objects than their practical potentialities for us, famously collapsing the «fact — value» distinction.

First there is the distinction between specific conceptions of kinds of actualities whose existence is contingent, as is shown by their restricting the positive possibilities for other kinds, in contrast to conceptions so generic that they do not restrict the positive possibilities.

The third point is that Hinduism, like Buddhism and Shintoism, lacks one other distinction so fundamental for our Christian thinking: the belief in the basic essential difference between creation and Creator.

These internal relationships, these new subject - object wholes — which blur the distinction between subject and object — are for Merleau - Ponty Gestalt - structured, since one feature of a Gestalt is that each part bears to others as well as to the whole interdependent rather than independent relations.

In 1 Corinthians Paul simply assumes that a certain kind of behaviour is unquestionably unacceptable, while in the same letter making very careful moral distinctions between matters covered by a «word of the Lord» (for example against divorce), matters he himself advises are best (keeping an unbelieving wife), and matters intrinsically indifferent where we must be governed by respect for the consciences of others (eating butcher's meat which may have come from offerings to idols).

Elsewhere, there is a puzzling assertion that businessmen, et al., should have the same rights of expression that academic freedom guarantees to faculty — but that assertion destroys the real and substantial teleological distinction between the work of faculty (precisely to deal with and attempt to clarify and expand truth for its own sake) and other professions with quite different ends.

That and our «third - rate educational system, our third - rate morality, our refusal to draw a distinction between right and wrong lest we «impose» our morality on others and thus invite others to «impose» their morality onus, our reluctance to judge or be judged, our indifference to the needs of future generations as evidenced by our willingness to saddle them with a huge national debt, an overgrown arsenal of destruction, and a deteriorating environment; our inhospitable attitude to the newcomers born in our midst, our unstated assumption which underlies so much of the propaganda for unlimited abortion that only those children born for success ought to be allowed to be born at all.»

In response to the news item, Rush Limbaugh had a particularly offensive broadcast (although with El Rushbo, it's kinda hard to make such distinctions) in which he opined that «one of the benefits of school being out [is]... your kids losing weight because they're starving to death out there because there's no school meal being provided» He then suggested, among other things, that hungry kids should Dumpster - dive for food.

I know others have written on this before, but I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for those who haven't read on the distinction and hope to clarify a few things.