Sentences with phrase «such use of language»

Such use of language has much greater impact on the reader than a simple list of responsibilities.

Not exact matches

This can be done by creating an in - house team of native language customer service representatives, finding a third party that offers such a service or even using email translation software to help support customers who can't correspond in English.

Google also introduced PlaNet, which identifies where a photo was taken without using geotags — instead relying on landmarks and clues such as types of vegetation, languages on signs, architectural styles, and the side of the road cars are driving on.

What separates decentralized applications from standard applications is the infrastructure of their back - end servers, omitting the use of programming languages such as Rails or Django in favor of blockchain technology — removing centralized hosting services and putting power and voice back in the hands of its users.

Usage, Log, and Device Information: We collect information from your use of the Startup Grind Service such as system activity, hardware settings, browser type, browser language, the date and time of your visit, and the referral URL.

Then there is the FACT that you continue to use inflammatory language such as «lack of intellectual honesty,» «too busy,» and «naive» and my developing THEORY that your arrogant attitude may be what is preventing both riches and fame from making their way into your life.

When such ancient enemies of the Republic use republican language, he suspects an anti-republican purpose.

my use of the 15th century switch in languages was just an example of the uproar such acts can cause common folk... but that was clearly lost on such common folk on you... read much?

BC doesn't think he's wielding a club, but using degrading and dehumanizing language, making demeaning assumptions, and holding out the threat of eternal torture for honest disagreement — regardless of the source of such «wisdom» — is absolutely an example of club wielding.

4.8 - 13, which describes Christian existence first in eschatological terms such as Jesus used, and then in Paul's more typical language of union with Christ.

The difficulty we have is that much of the language we would wish to use has been corrupted such that it is ambiguous, so tolerance and human rights can now be used to suppress Catholic beliefs and the freedom of Catholics to teach.

In such a materialistic society, the Church MUST reclaim the strong language used by early church leaders to warn of the potential dangers of wealth, and we MUST be more careful of proclaiming all wealth as an undisputed blessing from God.

Thus perhaps we should conclude that Whitehead uses «perception» in an extended sense, like many other terms he appropriates from ordinary language, such that one need not be conscious to have perceptions in the mode of CE.

To speak, then, of the «God - hypothesis» may be to use a misleading kind of language, to put up the wrong frames of reference and to suggest that we look for God - answers to questions where such answers would be out of place.

Those who have had basic courses in the biblical languages and are willing to devote 20 minutes a day to such language study should gain enough language ability to base their sermon text study on the original text, and they should have enough linguistic skill to use the best of the great philological commentaries, which often cite words from the original languages.

When we use such a vocabulary, we find ourselves thinking about the world in different ways — and sometimes, at least, we may find common ground with other Christians from whom we were divided when our only language was that of contemporary politics.

What is needed is not a revision of the language of faith or an updated «theology» but a reordering of our emotions, passions and attitudes such that we will have a use in our own life for the beliefs of Christianity and the language of Christian faith.

There are, for example, signals used in animal communication, nonconventional signals which include some gestures, and single - word sentences such as the word «Tree» used by children in the early stages of language acquisition.

It is astonishing to hear even people of high achievement and excellent reputation use mean and foul language on many occasions, as though such effusions had no real significance, being mere sounds which are dispersed as soon as they are said.

But of course the creedal statement, hallowed as it is by centuries of use during the celebration of the Eucharist, can be understood only when it is seen as a combination of supposedly historical data, theological affirmation put in a quasi-philosophical idiom, and a good deal of symbolic language (with the use of such phrases as «came down from heaven», «ascended into heaven», and the like).

Using such language is part of the discourse of debate to show someone how rediculous their position, but is not intended to harm anyone.

By using such language do we restrict the range of our communication unduly and determine that we will not reach many of the unreached?

Start with the studies done by Jane Goodall, and then continue with a HUGE variety of other animal studies that PROVE animals have morals, they use tools, build societies and cultures, have their own languages (such as the prarie dogs... simple little rodents right?

Did the writers of the Bible use such logically odd language?

Therefore, preachers who become conscious of the social function of the language of the sermon can use language in such a way as to encourage social effects that are appropriate to the gospel.

It would, for instance, be quite legitimate to use such language in refuting a pantheistic conception of revelation.

The use of such language is neither in whole nor in part a properly scientific or historical use.

If therefore the gospel is to be made intelligible, it must use a language such as men use when they speak of events with an ultimate existential and cosmic significance.

The practical need for a common language in a global society has already assisted the spread of the most widely - used languages, such as English and Spanish.

And when their common language, used to do business in a technically preoccupied age, is shaped to the paucity of dimensions necessary to such business, the roundness and the depth become silent for want of verbal counterparts for the felt but inchoate self.

An Emergent definition of relevance, modulated by resistance, might run something like this; relevance means listening before speaking; relevance means interpreting the culture to itself by noting the ways in which certain cultural productions gesture toward a transcendent grace and beauty; relevance means being ready to give an account for the hope that we have and being in places where someone might actually ask; relevance means believing that we might learn something from those who are most unlike us; relevance means not so much translating the churches language to the culture as translating the culture's language back to the church; relevance means making theological sense of the depth that people discover in the oddest places of ordinary living and then using that experience to draw them to the source of that depth (Augustine seems to imply such a move in his reflections on beauty and transience in his Confessions).

One thing I know for sure is that I've got to be less judgmental of those who choose to use such language to honestly express their gratitude to God.

Nevertheless, Toulmin himself must acknowledge that Newton does not consistently reflect such a view in the language he uses in the Principia, or in late additions to the Principia (for example, the «General Scholium»), or in other writings (for example, the Opticks)(see part II of Toulmin's two - part essay).

If we refuse to use moral language in our discussion, we lose our ability to hold the perpetrators of such acts responsible for their actions.

When churches and / or pastors start to use language, such as vision, that I call a part of churchianity, it reminds me of double think from George Orwells book 1984.

That is, religious language makes cognitive claims which go beyond practical and attitudinal uses, but such claims are more modest than those of all - inclusive metaphysical systems.

How can we use such anthropomorphic language as the «wrath» of God?

The Christian educator needs more than this, for he is asked to provide education in Christianity for others, not only to describe what it has been and is, but to use language in such a way that the learner will come to an understanding of the nature of Christianity and hopefully will discern the presence of God in his own life and commit himself to the Christian way.

As I tried to show in my first book (Capek 1969) as well as in some of my articles, such theories, when closely analyzed, can not be even stated in a self - consistent language, since they use alternately and surreptitiously two incompatible temporal descriptions.

Here's another, scarcely less oratorical in character, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: the title of this document (another wonderful example of Vatican bogus academic language when what is needed is a competent journalist used to writing informative headlines) is «Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons» (2003): The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognised as such by all the major cultures of the world.

Gender has surreptitiously helped itself to the language of the body, using words such as «boy» and «woman» to signify a mere state of mind.

A clear example of language of formal definition appears in Ordinatio Sacradotalis, wherein Pope John Paul II uses words such as «We teach and declare» to define the Church's teaching on the priesthood.

It is possible therefore — and it is entirely legitimate — to engage in the metaphysical enterprise with the use of such languages as we possess.

To claim that church and wife are one and the same is to also say that Jesus wasn't skillful enough in his use of language to avoid confusion in the minds of regular people and so must be interpreted by the professed learned such as yourself in order for us mere mortals to grasp their true meaning, thereby revealing a flaw in this god's claim of being all - knowing and all-wise.

I am ** NOT ** trying to be shocking or coarse here but to just make an intellectual point by using such language: The idea or concept of erect penises, throbbing clitorises, moist vaginas, explosive orgasms, the lust / desire / craving for physical / sexual pleasure and more....

First, many scholars and other intellectuals who appreciate Eiseley's writings have little understanding of what religious thought is and prefer to treat such matters by the use of safer language.

A logical analysis of the use and meaning of words, it was said, led to two types of language: (1) tautologies, where what is said is logically true, as in mathematics or in such statements as «a rose is a rose» or «I am I,» and (2) synthetic or nonanalytic sentences, in which the meaning is its method of verification.

Ordinarily, culture is sub-divided into two categories, «material culture,» referring to the physical objects people use, such as clubs, pots and pans, automobiles, and «non-material culture,» describing such non-physical aspects of human life as ideas, knowledge, language, and conduct.

Using zombie - like language, Aquinas says such souls are marked by a «roaming unrest of spirit.»

He hardly speaks in parables at all, though he does use figurative language, and in such discourses as that of the Vine and the Branches, and the Good Shepherd, he does approach the parable type.