Sentences with phrase «against nature with»
Do not try to go against Nature with unnatural nuclear energy.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/ Not exact matches
With Blue Ant, MacMillan appears to be tacking against the torrents of broadcast television dreck at the bottom of the dial by targeting two coveted demographics, the first of which is thinking, affluent baby boomers: its portfolio includes content about the cottage lifestyle, travel, and PBS - style documentary programming through the Canadian version of the Smithsonian Channel, as well as a nature channel called Oasis.
And while that's not illegal, it is against the law to make false claims about the nature of the service or lie about being affiliated with the government's Direct Loan Program.
It was filmed using a custom - built drone equipped with seven GoPro cameras and operated by a licensed drone pilot due to the complicated nature of the shoot, which included dropping 30 feet into a field of sharp agave; long, continuous shots; and stabilization against the wind.
Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied by forward - looking statements based on a number of factors, including, without limitation: (1) risks related to the consummation of the Merger, including the risks that (a) the Merger may not be consummated within the anticipated time period, or at all, (b) the parties may fail to obtain shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement, (c) the parties may fail to secure the termination or expiration of any waiting period applicable under the HSR Act, (d) other conditions to the consummation of the Merger under the Merger Agreement may not be satisfied, (e) all or part of Arby's financing may not become available, and (f) the significant limitations on remedies contained in the Merger Agreement may limit or entirely prevent BWW from specifically enforcing Arby's obligations under the Merger Agreement or recovering damages for any breach by Arby's; (2) the effects that any termination of the Merger Agreement may have on BWW or its business, including the risks that (a) BWW's stock price may decline significantly if the Merger is not completed, (b) the Merger Agreement may be terminated in circumstances requiring BWW to pay Arby's a termination fee of $ 74 million, or (c) the circumstances of the termination, including the possible imposition of a 12 - month tail period during which the termination fee could be payable upon certain subsequent transactions, may have a chilling effect on alternatives to the Merger; (3) the effects that the announcement or pendency of the Merger may have on BWW and its business, including the risks that as a result (a) BWW's business, operating results or stock price may suffer, (b) BWW's current plans and operations may be disrupted, (c) BWW's ability to retain or recruit key employees may be adversely affected, (d) BWW's business relationships (including, customers, franchisees and suppliers) may be adversely affected, or (e) BWW's management's or employees» attention may be diverted from other important matters; (4) the effect of limitations that the Merger Agreement places on BWW's ability to operate its business, return capital to shareholders or engage in alternative transactions; (5) the nature, cost and outcome of pending and future litigation and other legal proceedings, including any such proceedings related to the Merger and instituted against BWW and others; (6) the risk that the Merger and related transactions may involve unexpected costs, liabilities or delays; (7) other economic, business, competitive, legal, regulatory, and / or tax factors; and (8) other factors described under the heading «Risk Factors» in Part I, Item 1A of BWW's Annual Report on Form 10 - K for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, as updated or supplemented by subsequent reports that BWW has filed or files with the SEC.
Scientists, for their part, especially those in the scientific community with burdens against religion, need to understand that the nature of scientific evidence, method and hypotheses and the nature of theological evidence, method, and hypothesis have more in common than they might imagine.
They are using that good nature against us and every other civilized country in the world & its time the we wake up and begin to deal with them in a forceful manner before its too late.
Kierkegaard shares with Kant the assumption that being moral inevitably involves a struggle to thwart the impulses of human nature, which by definition must tug the agent in the direction of aesthetic indulgence — and where does ethics derive the authority to make me go against my feelings?
The problem with Observer's comment is that if God suddenly appeared before Atheists it would go against His nature of love.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, covenant - breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.
It was the spiritual guide, the moral and legal code, the political system, the sustenance of life, whether that meant endurance of hardship, the endless struggle against nature, battle with enemies, or the inevitable processes of life and death.
But it is important to note a passage of his exact words here: «I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school.»
In 1841, defending African men on trial for rebelling against slavetraders who had abducted them, John Quincy Adams said: «In the Declaration of Independence, the Laws of Nature are announced and appealed to as identical with the laws of Nature's God» and as the foundation of all obligatory human laws.»
When we say that a social activity, arrangement, or pattern is in accord with or contrary to human nature, we are saying that it works either with or against that grain of nature.
Genesis, over against this viewpoint, affirms (1) that there is only one God; (2) that this God is not identified with or contained by any region of nature; (3) that the pagan gods and goddesses are not divinities at all but creatures, creations of the one true God; and (4) that the worship of any of these false divinities is idolatry.
Despite some of his protests against the Reformed, Dawson's fundamental convictions about the social nature of the human person resonates with Abraham Kuyper's argument that the organic nature of life is the foundation of the social or ecclesial organisms that come after it.
Adam's sin against God lost for himself and for his descendants the union with God that had been granted to him (Ibid., pp.139 - 140) and that profoundly affected their human nature as well.
I concluded at the time of the riots that of all the things the government now needed to do, it was the married family which most urgently needed to be rebuilt: I was and remain as certain of that as anything I have ever written, and I have been saying it repeatedly for over 20 years: I was saying it, for instance, when I was attacking (in The Mail and also The Telegraph), as it went through the Commons, the parliamentary bill which became that disastrous piece of (Tory) legislation called the Children Act 1989, which abolished parental rights (substituting for them the much weaker «parental responsibility»), which encouraged parents not to spend too much time with their children, which even, preposterously, gave children the right to take legal action against theirparents for attempting to discipline them, which made it «unlawful for a parent or carer to smack their child, except where this amounts to «reasonable punishment»;» and which specified that «Whether a «smack» amounts to reasonable punishment will depend on the circumstances of each case taking into consideration factors like the age of the child and the nature of the smack.»
Another way to say it would be to observe that my story testifies to the truth of the position the Christian church has held with almost total unanimity throughout the centuries — namely, that homosexuality was not God's original creative intention for humanity, that it is, on the contrary, a tragic sign of human nature and relationships being fractured by sin, and therefore that homosexual practice goes against God's express will for all human beings, especially those who trust in Christ.»
I would align myself with you against the positions of Dulles and Schonborn (and Gilson) insofar as they say that modern science by its very nature excludes the consideration of formality.
Romans 1:26 - 32 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Let's see what the Bibe says; Romans 1:26 - 28, «For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
I also think that in some cases people choose against their biological leaning, for a number of reasons, and live with the difficulty of going against their own nature.
The first, in 2004, happened when the Rhea County Commission voted to introduce legislation that would amend Tennessee's criminal code so that the county could charge gays and lesbians with «crimes against nature.»
Just keep praying, fasting, and reading your BIBLE and i will see all the saints on WED @ chick fillet Romans chapter 1 verse 26 thru 28 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Concern for nature is associated with the Canaanite religion against which the worship of Yahweh is defined.
... Trusted God was love indeed, And love Creation's final law; Tho» Nature, red in tooth and claw, With ravine, shriek'd against his creed.
But if the abstractive nature of speech formation is recognized, then it must be seen also that the abstract term always implies more than itself; it always brings with it the presupposition of the total context from which it is drawn (12:84).6 All speech, in other words, implies a metaphysical background against which it must be interpreted for its significance to be grasped (PR 16 - 20; 12:46).
Why do we struggle so much because its our old nature that fights against our new nature in Christ which ever one we give into is the one that rules us.But as a born again believer sin shall not have dominion over us.The battle has been won by Christ so by believing in him we also walk as he does as a victor not a victim.Its his holy spirit that empowers us to do what is impossible in the flesh.But to do that our old nature or heart must be crucified with Christ.brentnz
So... when the Holy Spirit gave inspiration to the Apostle Paul in Roman 1:26 - 28 to write; «For this cause, God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature (Lesbianism): and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with me working that which is unseemly (Homosexuality), and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
God can not act against his nature, and so I believe we can understand all teh stories in Romans 9 in a way that is consistent with love, mercy, fairness, and justice, without having to appeal to the «God is God and I am not» mentality.
Martin Luther presented the theology of Sola scriptura that the bible is the sole source to live and understand what Christianity is all about... but the bible itself does not come with a table of contents to prove that it is correct which is why the bible itself says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth... remember that the church existed before even the bible was even put together... To understand the bible you cant just rely on your own interpretation like the protestants often say... The truth is always absolute and hence the teachings of the bible HAS to be absolute which is why the church is said to be ONE in nature (in every sense of the word), HOLY, CATHOLIC (Universal in teaching in every corner of the world) and APOSTOLIC (roots dating back to Jesus himself)... Now figure out what is that one church... The church put together the bible and the holy spirit always protected the church against false teachings and 1600 years later came about the teaching of Sola Scriptura... Protestants... look within and see whats wrong with this teaching.
This conclusion also leads to a more general point about the nature of culture that is consistent with the previously mentioned criticism leveled by Zaret against the idea of abstract values legitimating practical ethics.
But these past 5 years the lord has been showing me life or His word and its cool but the power or grace is in identifing with my own flesh or sinful nature as THE issue, not whats around me, that there is no weapon that is form against me that will prosper, or I think it says do nt fear loosing YOUR life but loosing your soul.
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.
Thus instead of trying to construct a philosophical system which accords with the rule of reason, as Hegel had done, Nietzsche begins by turning reason against itself, uncovering in the process its «irrational» origins in nature («On the Genealogy & Morals,» BWN; Sections 2 and 16; WP, Sections 480 and 481).
By adopting a purely reactionary stance against the idealism of Hegel (and the philosophical tradition in general) Nietzsche ends up providing us with a vision of nature and the world which is overly narrow in scope.
Jesus could have been blaspheming, his exorcisms could be collusion with evil forces, and what his opponents, no doubt, regarded as the indiscriminate nature of both the forgiveness (including tax collectors and sinners) and the healings (Samaritan leper) could be an argument against these aspects of his ministry, but for faith both are a manifestation of the kingly activity of God.
a set of cosmological and anthropological views that owed not a little to the vast mélange of Hellenism and Orientalism flooding the world where he grew up, and providing him with the unique setting for still other ideas, of sin, Satan, death, of the sinful and therefore mortal nature of man — as «flesh» — of the «spiritual» forces arrayed against God and his Messiah and all the faithful, of the victory to be won by the Messiah when he should at last appear — all these ideas were shaped to the mold of certain half - Jewish, half - pagan ideas which Paul seems to have derived from the world about him.
In it is rooted also their trust in God through the worst vicissitudes of their struggle against nature, against their enemies, against strange gods that competed with Yahweh for their loyalty.
We are not working against our lesser nature when we seek to live with God; on the contrary, we are living as we were created.
Since Whiteheadians have often been drawn into the discussion in terms of the rights of nature, and since the language of rights is associated with individualistic thinking, he argues against us:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
VS. 26,28 For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, liaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Jeremy good message and quite relevant for today God is still looking at our hearts and motives for serving him or are we serving our own agenda as Jonah was.He did nt feel compassionate towards his enemies and who could blame him they had cruelly killed many Jews it was a question of life or death to his own people.The Jewish nation was no more deserving of Gods grace than the other nations that is revealed by sending Jonah to preach a message of hope and life.Ultimately God calls all by faith in him and is willing to be merciful to all nations and peoples that do not not deserve it just like us it is by grace that we all are forgiven.I am pleased that God is sovereign and knows whats best he is merciful to us.Our human nature is that it is better to kill our enemies before they can kill us and that is essentially Jonahs message that is why he struggled to be obedient to Gods will.Gods message is to forgive those that trespass against us and show mercy.Its complicated and it is natural to protect ourselves and our families from those who would seek to destroy them but ultimately its about trusting God with everything easier said than done.If it comes to a choice we will have to trust God and ask for his strength because we cant do it in ours.As Christ laid down his life for us are we ready to lay our lives and the lives of our families as a sacrifice for him.To me that is where the story of Jonah is leading to we have the choice to fight our enemies or to love them as God loves them.brentnz
An essential element of Hall's novel vision of the future is the idea that once technology has been fully established as a self - governing, self - sustaining system, a sort of «automatic rationality» with which we need no longer concern ourselves, we will be free to turn away from «actions over against nature,» to turn our attention «inward» to the sort of «actions» which enhance the aesthetic value of experience.
Furthermore, the notion of pregnancy here, together with descriptions of Nature as events (VI 200, 208), converges on Merleau - Ponty's preference in La Nature for a Whiteheadian potentiality in nature as against Sartre's full and complete en sui, and also reinforces Merleau - Ponty's appreciation of Whitehead's term «concrescence.&Nature as events (VI 200, 208), converges on Merleau - Ponty's preference in La Nature for a Whiteheadian potentiality in nature as against Sartre's full and complete en sui, and also reinforces Merleau - Ponty's appreciation of Whitehead's term «concrescence.&Nature for a Whiteheadian potentiality in nature as against Sartre's full and complete en sui, and also reinforces Merleau - Ponty's appreciation of Whitehead's term «concrescence.&nature as against Sartre's full and complete en sui, and also reinforces Merleau - Ponty's appreciation of Whitehead's term «concrescence.»
Olympian athleticism can reside on a spectrum with transgendering, as forms of human power over against nature.
Who trusted God was love indeed And love Creation's final law Tho» Nature, red in tooth and claw With ravine, shriek'd against his creed.
But few of us would endorse those elements of tradition that baptize patriarchal oppression, endorse violence against women, oppress lesbians and gays, exalt perpetual virginity as the superior state, or declare that heterosexual rape is a lesser sin than masturbation (on the view that the latter act contradicts nature while the former act, while also sinful, is in accordance with nature) The postbiblical tradition, like Scripture itself, does not provide one coherent, consistent sexual ethic.