Sentences with phrase «fact present only»

Thus the competition and the «efficiencies of the marketplace» that are often thought of as intrinsic to capitalism are in fact present only in free enterprise capitalism and not in elite capitalism.

Not exact matches

In fact, the only form of A.I. he would like to see regulated is self - driving cars — such as those being developed by Musk's Tesla — which Brooks claims present imminent and very real practical problems.

«If I'm running a company (and I do manage employees currently), I probably choose not to make salaries transparent, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that salaries present only one of many components to a compensation package and work situation.»

Not many ex-Communists in fact posed this question, because to do so would be to undermine the presupposition that binds Marxism with all modern forms of moral calculation; «the utilitarian attention to consequences rather than to actions themselves is liable to lead to a continuous evaluation of the present only as it leads on to some future.»

The only problem is science eventually caught up with them and presented it's own facts.

And, by focusing on the undeniable fact of Cram's works, Anthony avoids the pitfalls present in the only other recent treatment of Cram, Douglass Shand - Tucci's bloated two - volume extravaganza, the 1995 Boston Bohemia and the 2006 Ralph Adams Cram: An Architect's Four Quests.

not presented as fact until verified, and not presented to convince, only to explore the possibilities.

Nevertheless, this book is being presented to you not only as fact, but as inerrant words dictated by the one supreme supernatural force in the universe (the Christian God), and someone is attempting to convince you to reorient your entire life according to it.

That does not mean only (or not primarily) that there is no foreseeable end to the program — a fact which, in view of what we are at present presented with, admittedly makes a certain hostility to the media understandable.

The implication is that in a mere memorial what is present is only a picture of what is supposed to have happened in the past, and that such a picture may not be in fact derived from what occurred in the past.

In fact, the sea is presented as a monster that only God's ineffable power...

It is only by grasping this fact that we arrive at a satisfying answer to the problem presented by the crudities and imperfections of certain parts of the Bible.

In fact, those who understand it will see the event in its present context immediately following the first prediction of the passion and Peter's confession of that which never comes by observation of flesh and blood but only by revelation (16:17).

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

The fact is, however, that not only is it impossible to understand the New Testament without the Old, but that the New Testament alone presents an incomplete statement of the range of moral obligation.

I no longer have to represent my going to God as a departure from time and history.42 In fact, to attain God as the Absolute Future who is also the Fullness of Time, I must perforce be occupied with the present and the tasks of the present, for it is only in and through the present that I can advance into the future.

Hawking is using his «scientific pulpit» to present his opinion seemingly as a fact but it is ONLY his opinion and I see exactly zero attempt at real scientific method to prove otherwise.

The notion of an empirical fact, however, as pointing to the present alone, is an abstraction, existing only in the mind or to common sense, for all things in time can not be thought of apart from their futures.

You routinely ignore the literal facts presented in Hebrew and go on as if the English version was the «only» Bible available.

In fact, the sea is presented as a monster that only God's ineffable power can tame.

Even though I perceive one - twentieth of a second all at once, I, and my awareness, are still in time, because my specious present is of only finite duration, and, in fact, of much shorter duration than I.

The pure prophets are distinguished from the apocalyptic ones, as from the seers and diviners of other religions, by the fact that they did not wish to peep into an already certain and immutable future but were concerned only with the full grasping of the present, actual and potential.

It is an interpretation that is intended to make sense of and give sense to the persisting fact that Jesus is not only a figure of the past but in some profoundly real way a present factor in the experience of the human race.

This means that not only is structure present in the world in a sense analogous to that of mind, but those structures must be accessible to reason, that is, they are present or open to mind or reason in the realized fact of nature's web of interconnections (to borrow from Quine).

Since Professor Johnson only hints at this fact in his article, I would like to present several points that merit greater consideration.

Thirdly, it became proclaimed as a present fact whereas up until now it had been looked forward to only as a future hope.

LOGOS must be animated by the eros or love that's only present in persons and is, in fact, most deeply personal.

To Jesus the kingdom of God was the universal, eternal, righteous reign of God, only partially accepted amid the world's evil yet a present fact, a sphere of human existence to be entered and furthered by moral obedience in love to the will of God.

The explanation of this distinctive conception, scholars have suggested, is that Mark, fully convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, could find no clear evidence that he had presented himself as such to the Jewish nation; and the reason for this silence, Mark decided, could only be that Jesus was not yet ready to claim his Messiahship publicly and did not want the fact divulged prematurely.

Let it be acknowledged then that Josephus is not a first - class historian; but the failure to recognize the validity of his facts, especially in that part of his work which lay largely within his own experience and recollection, and the truth of his interpretations, as far as they go — he is never exhaustive — is surely responsible for the neglect of his writings by too many interpreters of the New Testament at the present time, and for the rise of theories which leave not only Josephus but likewise the New Testament out of the reckoning.

And since the world has a radical freedom, being in fact the realm of choice, such as we know at the human level in conscious decision but which in differing mode is present at every level, this may be not only a «natural» recalcitrance but a quite definitely elected refusal to move.

In a similar fashion, the uncritical literalism of fundamentalism is presented as the only religious option in interpreting Creation, ignoring the fact that outside of fundamentalist circles, that has not been the position of any contemporary religious thinker of any repute.

We had this discussion at church should we allow homosexuals in leadership i was the only one who spoke up and i had prayed during the week and confessed all my sin before the Lord i certainly had no right to condemn someone else for there sin.But the fact is that it needs addressing that was my question to the people presenting the proposal.Is homosexuality a sin the people taking the discussion would not address it as they knew scripturally that it was and clearly had no answer on dealing with that issue and tried to detour around it.

When this memory of Jesus Christ, the crucified, comes fully alive it will not come as a traditional formula or symbol, reminding men only of the past, but as the recollection of a most decisive fact in the present situation of men.

Actually the only ones who are presenting real facts are the people who support gay marriage.

Another school of thought assumes that the threat of nuclear war has radically altered this traditional relationship, which was perennial only in appearance but was in fact dependent upon certain ephemeral factors no longer present today.

The revelatory image of a self - emptying God explains not only the fact of reality's mysterious openness but also why mystery presents itself to us in the mode of a promising future.

God, as chief causative principle and as supreme affect, is «in this world or he is nowhere»; biblical material, and in relation to it Christian liturgical and hymnological imagery, with the theological articulation of this, intend to make affirmations which are to be found in the pictures and forms and myths — and these we must seek to make meaningful and valid for ourselves in our present existence; man is an «embodied» and a social occasion or series (or «routing») of occasions, organic to the world of nature, and can only truly live as he lives in due recognition of these facts and sees them as integral to himself.

In fact, in the statement by which Schweitzer comes nearest to hinting that Jesus discerned its presence, he uses the simile of the shadow: «It is present only as a cloud may be said to be present which throws its shadow upon the earth; its nearness, that is to say, is recognized by the paralysis of the Kingdom of Satan.

He pretends he can «prove» that his version of god exists and is the only «true» god, when he can do nothing of the sort, and demeans his own faith by presenting it as fact.

But I shall keep myself as far as possible at present to the more «scientific» view; and only as the plot thickens in subsequent lectures shall I consider the question of its absolute sufficiency as an explanation of all the facts.

You decide on a daily basis when you come to this blog that regardless of the facts, the evidence that you are presented with, that not only will you ignore it, but you will just plain not understand it and try to refute it anyways.

They believe that not only is human difference a healthy fact of life, but that individuals should understand the past and present dynamics of ethnic identity, relationships and groups, not only because it will make them more sure of themselves, but also because it will strengthen the democratic nature of tire total society.

As a matter of fact, if such a criterion were applied, Jesus himself, as his character is presented in the Gospels, could not be regarded as an historical person since nothing is more certain than that only relatively few of those who had some contact with him recognized this character.

Whoever thinks this does not yet grasp the fact that what he apprehends has come into existence; he has before him only the present content of a sensory and cognitive immediacy, in which coming into existence is not contained.

The radical Christian who chooses a fully contemporary Christ not only must be willing to abandon the Christ of our Christian past but he must accept the fact that no clear path lies present to the Christ whom he has chosen, and no final authority exists to direct him upon his quest.

Thus the thesis is reduced to the apparent triviality that each event is simultaneous with itself But it ceases to be trivial if we add that each event is simultaneous only with itself That this is not trivial is obvious from the fact that it was denied, for instance, by Kurt Goedel (1949, pp. 560 - 561), who accepted the possibility of self - intersecting world - lines — that is, the possibility of a Wellsian trip to the past and back to the present.

The revelatory image of a self - emptying God explains not only the fact of reality's mysterious openness, as we noted at the end of Chapter 3, but also why mystery presents itself to us in the mode of a promising future.

The J of the title was discovered in 1711 by Henning Bernhard Witter, an obscure Lutheran pastor of Hildesheim, so obscure, in fact, that his role in the naming of this source of the Pentateuch was only rediscovered in the present century by the French biblical scholar Adolphe Lods.

Although it might appear somewhat unprecedented to those familiar only with the traditions of the Latin West, the seminal vision we present, in fact, builds upon and is profoundly coherent with the patrimony of the Greek Fathers which fundamentally belongs to the whole Catholic Church.