Sentences with phrase «as the concept seemed»

As noble as this concept seems, it is naïve and no longer realistic, even in the world of science.

I sometimes refer to the temporary discomfort as a type of withdrawal, as that concept seems to make sense to most people.

Even now, MOOCs as a concept seems obtruse perhaps due to a want of enough data.

Even back when it was first released I was surprised as to how little PR this game ended up getting as the concept seemed interesting.

For my part I would shed no tears as the concept seems, for countless reasons, to be pretty unhealthy.

Not exact matches

You'll still be able to opt out of the creepy stuff, it seems, but the rollback de-prioritizes online privacy as a concept.

I had spent the last decade in the enterprise software world working with large companies, but now it seemed as if the concept of the company was eroding.

As a young entrepreneur, when you have spent such a large percentage of your life building this concept — your baby — bringing it to life, eating, sleeping (rarely) and breathing it, failure can seem to take on monumental significance.

The concept that seemed least feasible, conceived by her classmate Jessica Beck, was a subscription service that allowed busy professionals to outsource household tasks such as grocery shopping and cleaning.

Bezos told the New York Times» Nick Wingfield that he'd welcome similar relationships with Apple and Google, and even if that prospect seems as remote as iOS running Android apps or vice versa, the basic concept of Alexa talking to other voice services is full of potential.

As an abstract concept, SEO seems valuable — you, like every other modern consumer in the United States, often consult search engines when you're making a buying decision.

By Tabitha Creighton Finding capital for a startup can be as tough as any other part business and sometimes emotionally draining, since everyone seems to have an opinion on your concept.

However, although this concept seems straightforward at first sight, using it successfully is reliant on on your understanding about features such as trading asset, trading style, risk tolerance, and market conditions.

As such it would seem that you are either claiming Jesus doesn't support the Bible or you are being disingenuous by claiming that Jesus did not speak those words but did support the same concept.

I have flagged up the problem of consent as the foundation of sexual ethics before, but it seems that legal thinking on marriage has thus far proceeded without having to acknowledge the manifold difficulties inherent in the concept.

I also appreciate Richard Reinsch's introduction to Ralph Hancock's excellent book The Responsibility of Reason, which Peter links below, but it seemed a little odd to me to use Rawls's concept of «public reason» as the key example of the sort of reason - reliance that Ralph wants us to see the insufficiency of.

Spinoza'a concept of God as with Einsteins seems to fit your view (with the exception their view sees the observable as divine) «complete law and order in a world which objectively exists».

Nancy Howell's incorporation of Whiteheadian concepts seems to me very helpful here, because the process of creation is understood as always already a relationship.

As I read your comments, you seem to imply that the concept of «straw man» is invalid.

And as you said, Jeremy, tradition takes a firm place in teaching, so the whole concept seems skewed.

When Aristotle deliberately expresses the commonality of energeia and entelecheia, and when he further asserts that energeia, as the efficacy of the actual, strives toward entelecheia as toward its fulfillment, 19 it seems to us that the decisive point of convergence between these concepts and Whiteheadian thought has been hit upon.

Verse 20 immediately falls under suspicion, since it seems to provide a reason for early Christian fasting, and, more importantly, it uses the allegory bridegroom = Jesus (This allegory is itself a product of early Christian piety, arising out of the concept of the Church as the bride of Christ [II Cor.

The changes are extremely gradual, they can not be observed over the short time span of human civilization so far, and the term «species» is a man - made concept to make categorization of life forms convenient... it is not an immutable feature of the natural world as you seem to think it is.

Given the universal applicability of this structure to all possible forms of process within a Whiteheadian universe, one could, it seems to me, regard it instead of actual entity as the key operative concept in process philosophy.

Those who believe that God did order the wholesale slaughter of Canaanites, even if that is exactly what happened, seem to have never heard of the concept of such stories as being descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Rick seems to have strayed over the theological line when it comes to the concept of free will as well.

As for as knowledge is concerned, it seems to me that the psychological concept of the specious present provides an intelligible model for a nontemporal knowledge of a temporal worlAs for as knowledge is concerned, it seems to me that the psychological concept of the specious present provides an intelligible model for a nontemporal knowledge of a temporal worlas knowledge is concerned, it seems to me that the psychological concept of the specious present provides an intelligible model for a nontemporal knowledge of a temporal world.

Like the concept of the Chosen People, election has often been regarded as an objectionable idea because it makes the deity seem arbitrary and unjust to many.

As we need a clear concept for these «real» feelings, it seems better to avoid the term «raw feels.»

This manifests itself not only in the way in which Aristotelian notions of the «unmoved mover» or neo-Platonic ideas of «being - subsisting from - itself» have been taken to be the proper definition of what is meant when we speak of «God», but also in liturgical language where all too often the basic concept implied or (as most often seems to be the case) affirmed is the utter immutability of deity, along with the rigidly legalistic moralism which it is suggested should mark those who claim to «obey» the divine mandates.

He seems to be, for instance, excited about deification as a theological concept in a way that I am not (and in a way that will make many evangelicals skittish).

I knew he was a Christian, but he didn't seem to have heard of being a stay - at - home daughter; while I knew our church was more conservative than most, I assumed that a concept as plain as «keeper at home» would be obvious no matter what church you went to.

As people come to realize that the concept of «God» is just an ancient human fabrication «spiritual but not religious» seems to be a rational way to deal with this dichotomy.

It seems the only answer is that we can never know with any certainty what the «Bible» (as the concept, not the physical text on your coffee table) is actually saying.

While Paul's thought is by no means always clear, and perhaps from letter to letter not always exactly the same, it is nevertheless certain that his concept of resurrection can be clearly distinguished from that of the traditional «bodily resurrection».27 Paul does not speak in terms of the «same body» but rather in terms of a new body, whether it be a «spiritual body», 28 «the likeness of the heavenly man», 29 «a house not made by human hands, eternal and in heaven», 30 or, a «new body put on» over the old.31 In using various figures of speech to distinguish between the present body of flesh and blood and the future resurrection body, he seems to be thinking of both bodies as the externals which clothe the spirit and without which we should «find ourselves naked».32 But he freely confesses that the «earthly frame that houses us today ’33 may, like the seed, and man of dust, be destroyed, but the «heavenly habitation», which the believer longs to put on, is already waiting in the heavenly realm, for it is eternal by nature.

Thus while the idea of the predicate has mass is sensible preprojectively as an attribution to be made at the periphery of the Quinian web, it seems to have no deep meaning — this is to say, no embedding into a network of concepts and actions that allows us to describe and circumscribe the phenomenal world — without recourse to mathematical abstraction.

Common sense would seem to make such concepts as being ridiculous unless one has been hopelessly brainwashed from childhood.

Omnipotence and denial of ones exists seems contradictory, as does «fully man and fully god», as does some concepts of «trinity».

Conversely, it may be that the concept of essence bears a particularly negative affinity to the idea of time, since it seems always to make time look as if it were a bare nothing that has no essence.

Conversely, it may be that the concept of essence bears a particularly negative affinity to the idea of time, since it seems always to make time look as if it were a bare nothing that has no essence.4 But whatever the affinity may be between time and the concept of essence, the two confront one another in one or other of the above - mentioned ways, and this confrontation must be included in the determination of time's essence.

So sharply contrasting are his views on natural law that it almost seems as if Novak were adopting Thomas Aquinas» method, that is, beginning his book with the concession: «It would seem that the concept of natural law can not function inside Jewish theology or jurisprudence.»

I lean towards the third view... but I admit it is the most difficult of the three views... Christ's priorities appear to be «love in motion» flowing in almost unpredictable directions as dictated by the greatest need: — He heals a slave rather than rebukes slavery; — He heals a man at a pool, then leads the man to belief, then says «cease from sinning»; — He heals many others and says «go and sin no more» to but a few; — He shares money with the poor but establishes no long - term aid; — He touches lepers; He converses with seeking Pharisees; He debates with other Pharisees; He lives with Samaritan outcasts for two days; — He acknowledges the five «marriages» of the Samaritan woman as «marriages»... and then remarks about her current co-habitation... but then moves to higher priorities; — He seems so very focused on internal holiness and not on external holiness; — He violates the Sabbath; He says He is Lord of the Sabbath; He even says that the Sabbath was created to assist man, rather than man created to serve the Sabbath... thus turning the entire concept of the Law into one of assistance rather than being chained to obedience; — He insists on impartiality in the way we bless others, even if we call them «evil» or «good».

The concept of «the consent of the governed» sometimes seems almost as inoperative as it was when a Caesar imposed his will by fiat.

As with social regimentation and behavioristic concepts of human nature, so too with the denial of immortality, what seems to many people a modern conclusion was, in fact, the primitive beginning.

The concept of one supreme being was readily adopted, as it seemed greatly superior to the plethora of gods that were worshipped in the ancient world.

And yet, while Brown's most recent work, Love's Body (Random House, Inc., 1966), indicates he is familiar with Barfield's discussions on language as metaphor, Altizer does not seem to see the necessary connection between this concept and Saving the Appearances.

This, it seems to me, is untrue to the usual pattern of Christian experience — and, indeed, out of harmony with Calvin's own concept of faith as «recognition.»

More precisely, it seems that the third chapter of the first part of Process and Reality, while having been written late during the composition of the book, incorporates earlier materials that have been displaced from their initial location in the book.30 The passage from Process 32 discussed here would belong to that category.31 However, one should not, and can not, conclude, on the sole basis that the fourth full paragraph from Process 32 is an insertion, that this paragraph of has to be considered an expression of a second — chronologically speaking — concept of God as non-temporal.

But when you think of it that way it doesn't seem nearly as terrible of a concept as you're trying to make it out to be, does it?

of our most fundamental concepts (such as object and subject, matter and spirit, and so on) come as indissociable polarities, a philosophical imagination would seem to be indispensable for retaining the essential unities of merely apparent dualities.