Well, talk about education, do
you even know the history of thanksgiving?
They are happy to talk to you about the pieces they carry and sometimes
even know their history.
Not exact matches
I don't
even really
know that much about American
history.»
Taken seriously, the right to
know your food's
history even implies that the racist or sexist or homophobe has a right to personal information about the people who handled their food along the supply chain.
The embroiderers were
known for being particularly extraordinary; Guo Pei has changed
history because, during the Cultural Revolution, that skill was stopped, so people in the area lost the skill of embroidery; and now that she's brought it back, there's
even a woman in her studio whose great grandmother was one of the embroiderers in the last dynasty.
It
even knows the relationship between Queen Elizabeth and George VI and the
history of Star Wars, says Facebook Engineer Sriram Sankar.
And then there is bitcoin, bitcoin allows us to have complete control over our funds, to hide them so bad people don't
know they
even exist in our possessions, plus we can really easily purchase them or sell them at a 3 % exchange fee at localbitcoins, and doing so safely by choosing a seller / buyer who has 100 % positive feedback, 1000 + transactions and at least 250BTC volume
history on his account.
If you take a look at the global corporate
history, you will see that the large cap stocks, also
known as Blue Chip stocks are by and far the most consistently high performers in the market,
even when you average them across decades of performance data.
That's why we offer secured and unsecured loan options that fit the needs of modern insurance agencies like yours,
no matter the size of your business, and
even if your agency has a poor business credit rating or
even no credit
history at all (9002 credit).
Canada business owners should
know that
even if your credit
history is less than perfect, a small business loan or merchant cash advance may be a great alternative for your financing needs.
In Church: The Human Story of God, Schillebeeckx says, «Therefore the historical future is not
known even to God; otherwise we and our
history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.
i did read page 2 and i
know what im talking about you obiosly do nt because you all think hitler was a christian and he wasnt because im a christian and i
know for a fact christians do nt act like that you can claim it all youd like but you should of read more up on
history and if you think hitler was a christian your wrong because
even if he said he was a christian then he wasnt a real one
I don't
know Boghossian's academic
history, but I would be stunned if it included a degree of any sort in psychology, or
even substantial reading in the field.
But it then proceeds to equate these presuppositions with «faith» so that it can move to the conclusion that
even secular historians who reject appeals to supernatural intervention in
history are
no less acting «in faith» than are those believing historians who accept them.
In fact, Religion and science have walked hand and hand throughout
history to do some of the greatest deeds ever
known and some of the worst deeds which
even today scare us.
Don't get me wrong Catholic Mom i love you but for someone to stand up for this church Blindly and don't
even know there own
history it's a shame.
Therefore the historical future is not
known even to God, otherwise we and our
history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.
This selective «colorblindness» is a mighty convenient approach to race in America for white people, for it allows us to paper over America's troubled (and decidedly anti-Christian)
history, to discount racism as a thing of the past for which we are
no longer responsible, and to ignore persistent racial injustices like mass incarceration, police brutality, voting rights issues, white flight, and economic inequality, all while consistently benefiting from an oppressive system we claim we can not
even see.
But we maintain, on the contrary, that we
know the Jesus of
history very well,
even if we do not have a precise and photographic account of his day - by - day activities; and the unique claim of Christianity is that in and by those events in the actual realm of historical happenedness, God is revealed — revealed, of course, in and under the conditions of
history and human life, but revealed nonetheless.
It's hilarious that you keep say in one post that I'm the one whining about death threats after you proclaimed you wish hitler had gone after gay people,
even though if you
knew a shred of
history you would
know he did.
Paul did NOT come out against homosexuality as we
know it today and this is clear when one looks at both
history of the culture and
even a basic semblance of textual analysis.
I have a theory that SBNRs are so because one or more or a combination of the following: (1) they can't justify their spiritual texts - and so they try to remove themselves from gory genocidal tales, misogyny and anecdotal professions of a man / god, (2) can't defend and are turned off by organized religious
history (which encompasses the overwhelming majority of spiritual experiences)- which is simply rife with cruelty, criminal behavior and
even modern day cruel - ignorant ostracization, (3) are unable to separate ethics from their respective religious moral code - they, like many theists on this board, wouldn't
know how to think ethically because they think the genesis of morality resides in their respective spiritual guides / traditions and (4) are unable to separate from the communal (social) benefits of their respective religion (many atheists aren't either).
A contemporary faith that opens itself to the actuality of the death of God in our
history as the historical realization of the dawning of the Kingdom of God can
know the spiritual emptiness of our time as the consequence in human experience of God's self - annihilation in Christ,
even while recovering in a new and universal form the apocalyptic faith of the primitive Christian.
Child psychiatrist Bruno Bettelheim warns that stories of both the superhuman heroes of myth and the real heroes of
history tend to discourage a child,
even cause him or her to feel inferior, because the child
knows that their extraordinary deeds can not be matched.
The NIV, following its usual theological bias, doesn't
even bother with a footnote to tell its unwary readers that it has altered «
known» to «chosen» (Marston and Forster, God's Strategy in Human
History, 230).
Science and natural
history as we
know them simply did not exist,
even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to space, time, matter and
history by the biblical affirmation of creation.
We only
know his actions, and we
know that he has a
history of deceiving
even those who are closest to him.
The reason, though offered as much by faith as by sight, is that in Jesus Christ, as the apostle put it to the Colossians, «all things hold together,»
even the well - publicized actions of well -
known figures and the day - to - day activities of ordinary people carried on with never a thought about the scrutiny of
history.
Through
History's repetition and
even escalation of horrible wars, mankind will finally see and
know that too many people have died.
The only discernible direction, ethically and historically, is into life, without asking or
knowing where «life» and «
history» are going or
even what they are.
Even the Emperor Julian,
known by
history as «Julian the Apostate» because of his hatred of Christianity, conceded in a letter to his friend that the growth of the «Christian sect» had gotten out of control because the Christians took better care of Rome's afflicted than Rome did.
After all,
history, and
even recent
history,
knows instances where a powerful personality, temporarily and for particular ends, has come to embody in himself the spirit and purpose of a whole nation, and has been spontaneously recognized as its representative, in a more than formal sense.
But
even though iconoclasm in the material sphere was the characteristic act of Christian intransigence at the beginning of the Church's
history, at the time of the monks of the Egyptian desert in the fourth century, and in the Reformation, it
no longer seems to concern us much.
You wrote about all the mean Christians you
know, and how we have done and said so many hateful and hurtful things in
history, and
even in our own day.
A non-citizen man who can not voice a single opinion that is not fed to him by his controllers, a man who disdains this country, who is NOT a christian, whose mother's
history was rewritten after he ran for office (she was a
known wh * re not a «good citizen» as she is now portrayed, a man who is a racist against whites
even though he is half - white, a man whose wife is disbarred....
Making judgments and taking actions can be pretty tricky, and
no doubt
even unpleasant from that context, but like Shawn noted in his «invasion» analogy, they may be entirely necessary (maybe that's a tool to employ in unpacking ethical / cultural aspects of Biblical
history).
It is one of the puzzles of
history that a group of people who believed in Au and had made great sacrifices for his sake, who
knew him to be right and his enemy wrong, and who had
even risked their lives by going into battle for him should desert him and
even take up their swords against him.
They
know its contents and
even have a general grasp of biblical
history.
I
know a student of church
history can point to a laundry list of mistakes to be avoided on the way to the Chalcedon, but again, we can discuss the problems we were addressing with the various councils, and show the amount of work which was done to help proclaim Christ above
even our own preferences.
He holds simultaneously that existing democratic ideas, traditions, and institutions were often championed in actual
history by those who were non-Christians or
even anti-Christian; and yet that, in building better than they
knew, such persons were often generating in human temporal life constructs whose foundations were not only consistent with Jewish and Christian convictions about the realities of ethical and political life, but in a sense dependent on them.
It is therefore a great mistake to discuss the prayer life of Jesus, to speak of him as a praying man, to call him the greatest man of prayer in
history;
even historically one has
no right to do this.
Of course Torah... there are plenty of verses in Koran talks about Torah and Injeel... both Torah and Injeel were having the name of the prophet and the koran to come if you see in 3:70 and they
knew it both the Jews and Christians... but after the revelation of Koran some of them believed and most of them did not and we have people till today that they do not believe
even though their
history tells the truth...
But
even an atheist like me, who
knows history can clearly accept that a preacher named Jesus did exist.
But in many parts of this country,
even regions with tremendous Catholic
history, the possibility of using cultural capital to assert the distinctiveness of the Church and her related institutions
no longer seems possible.
If this is correct, it is one of the ironies of
history that the title by which Jesus was unwilling to be
known became very soon the one most commonly applied to him,
even ceasing to be recognized as a title and being used practically as a surname.
There is
no longer
even a narrator: «events are posited as though they were produced to the extent that they appeared on the horizon of
history.
It was evident that a new page had been turned in American
history, and Negroes would
no longer be satisfied simply to wait another hundred years, to say nothing of fifty years or
even of ten years.
No longer math - phobes, now steeped in
history, geology, logic, sentence diagramming, and
even (thanks to my husband) a little Plato, they thrived.
You can not
even prove any of the godspel accounts are oral
histories and not invented stories, and as a JD you must surely
know at least three are lies.
The question is whether a generation which has lost its faith in all the gods of the nineteenth century, that is, in «
history,» or «progress,» or «enlightenment,» or the «perfectibility of man,» is not expressing its desire to believe in something, to be committed somehow,
even though it is not willing to be committed to a God who can be
known only through repentance, and whose majesty judges all human pretensions.