Sentences with phrase «different reality for»

It reminded me of being a kid: reading comics and just living in a completely different reality for a while.

You will not only be creating a different reality for yourself, you will also be making a positive impact on all minorities.

It's a completely different reality for the entrepreneur who's going through the entire process for the first time.

Not exact matches

Joe Seiner, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, recently told me he believes certifying Uber drivers as a class ignores the different «economic realities» that affect drivers who approach Uber as a full - time job or career and those who use it for occasional income supplementation.

The reality of business funding for startups and young businesses turns out to be entirely different than most people imagine.

The reality is that every woman's pregnancy is different, as science writers Tara Haelle and Emily Willingham make abundantly clear in their meticulously researched book, «The Informed Parent: A Science - Based Resource for Your Child's First Four Years».

That includes everything from renovating existing stores to be more interactive to incorporating virtual reality for customers to test out how tires feel in different driving conditions.

But, the reality can be different, despite employees, particularly millennials, communicating their clear preference for employers who give them lots of opportunities to learn and grow.

Augmented reality could be a boon for the smart glasses but getting consumers to buy them is a different story.

Unfortunately for Amazon employees, the reality is very different.

It may seem a smart action to apply for different credit cards at the same time to increase your chances of approval but in reality, it is quite a dumb idea and you will eventually end up with a heavily damaged FICO or credit score whether you get approved or not.

It may be easy to convince yourself that you have the best solution to a life situation for someone else, but it is much different to make it a reality.

For the internet of value to become a reality, industry standards must be adopted in order to homogenize the world's different financial systems.

The faith has «tried» to stay the same for 2000 years, but, just as Galileo and heliocentrism struggled to show that reality was clearly different than what bare faith could handle, this same scene will be repeated a hundred thousand times more, as real life overtakes 2000 - year - old literature.

In a place designed to make you forget — everything from the reality of mortality to your own name — he is constantly searching for physical specificity and for a window, two different routes back to reality.

So obviously there's a problem there if in reality what they're giving is not a clear sense of the different options and where commission is skewing that choice for people that is clearly something that needs to be looked at.

Different people, from the pastor to the visitor, are always pressuring, lobbying, praying, expecting, longing and working for their own fantasies of what the church should be to become a reality.

Hartshorne's program seems to presuppose also that the «backbone» of metaphysics is neutral to the «flesh» (content) of reality, so that when we say coherence or consistency, these words mean, or should mean, the same for different philosophers.2 It is true that some metaphilosophical principles are almost universally accepted (e.g. noncontradiction), but others are strictly connected with given systems.

to Jake, in every era or times in the past, humans have different perception of reality, because our knowledge improves or changes toward sophistication, For example during the times of Jesus, there was no science yet as what we have today, since the religion in the past corresponds to their needs, it is true for them in the past, but today we already knew many new ideas and facts, so what is applicable in the past is no longer today, like religion, we have also to change to conform with todays knowledge.The creation or our origin for example is now explained beyond doubt by science as the big bang and evolution is the reason we become humans, is in contrast to creation in the bibles genesiFor example during the times of Jesus, there was no science yet as what we have today, since the religion in the past corresponds to their needs, it is true for them in the past, but today we already knew many new ideas and facts, so what is applicable in the past is no longer today, like religion, we have also to change to conform with todays knowledge.The creation or our origin for example is now explained beyond doubt by science as the big bang and evolution is the reason we become humans, is in contrast to creation in the bibles genesifor them in the past, but today we already knew many new ideas and facts, so what is applicable in the past is no longer today, like religion, we have also to change to conform with todays knowledge.The creation or our origin for example is now explained beyond doubt by science as the big bang and evolution is the reason we become humans, is in contrast to creation in the bibles genesifor example is now explained beyond doubt by science as the big bang and evolution is the reason we become humans, is in contrast to creation in the bibles genesis,.

I don't know how reality may have shattered your dreams and expectations for being a mom, but the truth is, momming is very different from what most of us expect it to be.

How many who read that immediately thought, «Oh yes but that was Jesus, He was different, we deal with reality», «What» and Jesus didn't when he suffered and died for His enemies.

If we step back from this particular passage, and attend to our different hermeneutical strategies, we shall see that most of the continuity we discern between these books will depend upon the interpretative unit we select for Process and Reality.

The juxtaposition of these two comments on the threefold character of an actual occasion indicates that Whitehead expressed at least two different conceptions of God in Process and Reality, and at least some of the passages depicting the final concept are insertions.11 It turns out that all of them can be so construed, except for the main text (V.2.3 - 6) which Whitehead reserved for the end.

He, like Whitehead, will have a «dipolar» God, but in a different way.10 For Hartshorne, the dialectic is between the abstract and the concrete: «The supreme in its total concrete reality will be the supereminent case of relativity, the Surrelative, just as, in its abstract character, it will be the supereminent case of nonrelativity — not only absolute, but the absolute» (DR 76).11 These two poles are not said to be separate entities but are, rather, aspects of a unified divine essence.

For the kinds of «publicness» achieved by different theologies are strongly influenced by the distinct kinds of social realities (or publics) from which theologies emerge and to which they speak.

What if we realize that God cares about both this life and the afterlife, that for God, who is not a dualist, they are both just different facets of one reality called life?

In these quite different ways, something is being said about a refreshment or enablement which is provided for human existence; and something is also being said, even in a fashion which sometimes seems curiously negative (as in Indian religious thought and observance), about a relationship with a more ultimate and all - inclusive reality that establishes a kind of companionship between our own little life and the greater circumambient divine being.

In this way the method of new contextual theologies such as Third World theology is different from mere speculative theology that does not take the reality of the world as a source of and challenge for a relevant theology.

However, it is certainly very much to be desired that a sober thinker would for once explain how far this purely logical process, which recalls the grammatical rule that two negatives make an affirmative, and the mathematical rule that two minuses are a plus — how far, I say, this logical process is valid in the world of reality, in the world of qualities; whether after all the qualities are not subject to a different dialectic; whether in this case «transition» does not play a different rôle.

So ingrained was the non-Christian Aristotelian framework of reality in the theological discourse of the Church at the time, that it proved difficult to conceive letting go of it and to use a different cosmology (Copernican) as a new paradigm for theological reflection on the same truths.

Any discipline, be it theology or philosophy, which seeks to understand the meaning of, purpose of, behaviour of, and relationship between the different constituent «beings» of this reality of ours should at least try to account for and incorporate an understanding of that which is observed in such a reality.

Of course, as McGrath recognises, atheist explanations for such «fine tuning» exist: the multiverse, for example, which posits that our universe is just one region of a vastly bigger reality, such that the apparently fine - tuned parameters have different values elsewhere.

In «Christianity and Myth» Cobb again considers the possibility of Christian theism for the modern mind.120 The profane spirit of contemporary man finds it impossible to talk about some «reality radically different from all other reality...,» i.e., to speak mythically.

For example, as George Grant and David Schindler have shown, technology brings with it a different view of reality from that of traditional Christianity.

talk to a different person, you'll get a different version... all thinking they're a «true christian» when in fact, they are mistaking mythology for reality.

For Israel, God was the ultimate reality, he was all power (though that is very different from the concept of omnipotence of later centuries), and he was good — not a being concerned with selfish interests, but his character was grace and love.

Though the objects of study for each of the two disciplines are different, nonetheless both should be answerable to the same philosophical scheme, and appropriately enough we find in the very opening chapter to Process and Reality just such an assertion on Whitehead's part — note the justification which Whitehead offers for his cosmology.

now, it certainly can not be denied that mutual discussion about such existential realities is possible between those who hold different existential attitudes, and that for practical purposes here can be provisional agreement on the use of such words as death, anxiety, or love as a basis for further discussion.

The joyful, confident trust in the reality of a different future for his people drove Martin Luther King, Jr., into the arena of social change.

For then it would be open to question whether one is dealing with a concept which is possible but which can correspond to no possible reality, or rather with the concept of something truly real.9 In contrast to these different possible dialectical ways in which the initial concept of a universal becoming can be used, Whitehead's categoreal system aims to describe it unmistakably as the fundamental truth: «The ancient doctrine that «no one crosses the same river twice,» is extended.

For that matter, earlier Jews and Christians not only differed from their Hellenistic brethren on how they viewed God and Christ but held jarringly different notions of the basic structure of reality.

For Reinhold, the tragic character of human history lies in the gap between the cooperation that we know ought to be the norm and the reality of bitter conflicts between different human interests.

But as McFague has said, «for theology to do less than fit our present understanding — for it to accept basic assumptions about reality from a very different time — seems blatantly wrong - headed» (McFague, 14).

Thus there is little hope for our recovering a feeling of truly belonging to the cosmos as long as we hold onto the assumptions about physical reality (such as the primacy of primary qualities and cognate assumptions) underlying scientism and materialism.5 For we will continue to have a gnawing suspicion that the real world is so different from our projections that we are still without a home in the universe as it runs on colorlessly and meaninglessly beneath our secondary and tertiary «subjective» projectiofor our recovering a feeling of truly belonging to the cosmos as long as we hold onto the assumptions about physical reality (such as the primacy of primary qualities and cognate assumptions) underlying scientism and materialism.5 For we will continue to have a gnawing suspicion that the real world is so different from our projections that we are still without a home in the universe as it runs on colorlessly and meaninglessly beneath our secondary and tertiary «subjective» projectioFor we will continue to have a gnawing suspicion that the real world is so different from our projections that we are still without a home in the universe as it runs on colorlessly and meaninglessly beneath our secondary and tertiary «subjective» projections.

A couple of practical realities we would have to guard are the occasional «flop» where, for example, a bad batch of acid has been delivered and the litmus paper does not change color (we don't want anybody to claim that a prayer was answered) or intentional sabotage by those with a religious agenda, but that is no different to the risks of any other science experiment.

If God is indeed so conceived, then, to be anything real at all is either to be God or to be a creature of God whose difference from God can not be absolute; for to be absolutely different from God would be to be absolutely different from reality as such, and so not anything real after all, but simply nothing.

If this Universe was pushed into a new dimension, a new set of dimensions, or Parallel Universe the possiblilites would depend on the laws of that new reality... They might be different from the laws we have in this Universe... so if they are different then the laws we have here... we would not be sure of the possiblities for this new Universe for sure...

This end is plainly different from salvation, for it relinquishes the distinct identity and reality that God has granted the creature.

This impact in our current dimension opens a hole in space and pushes the matter of the Universe into and new different dimension and the whole thing starts over in a reality with one more dimension added or a different set of dimensions... this could be seen as being force into a Parallel Universe or dimension... and we have the same 5 possiblities for this new Universe or dimension as we have for this one...

These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public, but for too many of our citizens a different reality exists.