Sentences with phrase «gave as an explanation»

Immediately after he entered the outer court of the Temple, he drove away the money changers and the merchants who sold birds for sacrifice, giving as an explanation a quotation from Isaiah 56:7: «Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer.»

The top reason was «to ask questions without needing to type,» which 87 % gave as an explanation.

Not exact matches

As I wrote last week, one possible explanation for why Boehner and the rest of the Republican establishment have given the Tea Party so much free rein is that they fear primary challengers to the right.

As part of the explanation as to why Europe gives proportionately more ODA, Gunzburg noted that countries with bigger welfare states — like those for which the Scandinavian nations are famed — tend to pay higher taxes, leading to more government revenue that can be spent on aiAs part of the explanation as to why Europe gives proportionately more ODA, Gunzburg noted that countries with bigger welfare states — like those for which the Scandinavian nations are famed — tend to pay higher taxes, leading to more government revenue that can be spent on aias to why Europe gives proportionately more ODA, Gunzburg noted that countries with bigger welfare states — like those for which the Scandinavian nations are famed — tend to pay higher taxes, leading to more government revenue that can be spent on aid.

As a young employee, I was in a meeting with my superiors and that was the explanation I was given for why things were getting done a certain way, when it was obvious the status quo wasn't working.

we cant fully do crypto exchange having that as a problem, can you give us an explanation if withdrawal limit is also a hindrance here with the new abra.

While Councillor Leibovici spoke about continuing along the current path laid by the mayor, she gave little explanation as to what she would do to build upon the ambitious past nine years.

This points out that everything that you explained as being only aplicable to god, which is an explanation given because no other explanation is seen, saying this is amazing so god did it, is nowhere near close to looking at these phenomena, observing and collecting the data on it and saying this is our best understanding of it to date.

However, it is abundantly clear that the human race is as it is (this is no more than mere tautology), and so we can see that what may originally seem improbable is in fact the best explanation of a given circu.mstance.

I can give examples as I did to Dal, but if you all insist on theorizing a material explanation for my experiences, there is little I can do to help you see my per spective.

As you don't understand from the explanation I have given then me explaining further is probably not going to result in it being achieved.

Now the explanations («I want to remember him as he was»; «Funerals give me the creeps»; «I hate to write letters»; «People should do things just because they want to not because they expect to be thanked») imply that there is virtue in the act of refusing to let the expectations of etiquette prevail over personal disinclinations.

(For example, given Wright's understanding of what the Reformers meant by «literal,» I wonder if they wouldn't be open to scholarship that interprets Genesis 1 as an ancient Near Eastern temple text — see John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One — rather than a scientific explanation for origins.)

To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us.

He gave a beautiful explanation of the universe as founded on and animated by love, a love that was being itself and that sustained all other things in their being.

As Walter Brueggemann points out, this covenant is given by God without reason or explanation.

Thus the traditional conception of deity, which we have received from our past, puts its main stress on divine absoluteness or aseity; on divine causative agency as the explanation of everything that occurs whether by direct divine willing or by indirect divine permission with respect to evil done in the world; on divine self - containedness and hence lack of necessary relationship with anything else; on divine impassability, which makes any suffering impossible for God; and on divine moral perfection, with the giving of laws in accordance with which everything should be ordered.

Scientists today are still following his intuition as they seek the grand unifying principle that will unify quantum theory with the theory of relativity to give one overarching explanation of the nature of the universe.

But, on the other hand, it is quite unjustified for theists to hold that we must tolerate or swallow the paradoxes or explain them away (by feats of ingenuity so subtle, and verbal methods so remote from intuitive insight or definite logical structures, that only deity could know with any assurance what was taking place), giving as justification the claim that the alternative position of atheism is even more paradoxical (lacking, it may be urged, any principle of cosmic explanation at all).

Shirley Jackson Case was able to set the book aside as being another instance of a metaphysically burdened philosopher stumbling through unfamiliar terrain, creating problems and giving explanations where no real problems existed.

Their changing arrangements give the explanation of all the changes in the appearance of matter, not only the changes as you look at it, but all the changes which occur, such as burning, decay, generation.

As I hate to assume malice when ignorance is enough of an explanation, I give you a chance: just point me to any logical error in any of the major religions.

Indeed the idea is sometimes given that the presentation of prehensions as feelings is adequate explanation of the immanence of objects.

(google pascals wager) A true christian job / duty on this earth is NOT to FORCE his / her religion / beliefs on anyone else... as Paul said «You must be able to give an explanation for the JOY you have and the HOPE You have, and the FAITH you have to others» the rest is up to God the Holy Ghost and the person you are talking to, to believe, or not..

After all It was the Catholic priest who gave us the best explanation as of today how the universe started = big bang theory.

But the best explanation of all these various lines of evidence is the one that the original Gospel writers gave — Jesus performed miracles to many onlookers as a sign of his divinity.

Both of them require exploration and explanation, so far as we are able to give this.

Bernstein gives a number of examples of the source of this failure, as explanations of his general belief «that the authors have admitted into the book concepts and principles based on considerations not sufficiently convincing — concepts and principles based on views opposed to those forced on mathematicians by the work of Peano, Pieri, Hilbert, Veblen, Huntington» (BAMS32: 712).

A paradigm, such as Newton's work in mechanics, implicitly defines for a given scientific community the types of question that may legitimately be asked, the types of explanation that are to be sought, and the types of solution that are acceptable.

Yet no explanation was given as to what that love is by virtue of which the peculiar ideal of Christianity is embodied and fulfilled.

your explanation is understandable... it's also the typical liberal explanation of the gospel as Galatians 1:4 plainly tells us He gave himself for our sins... Also see John 1:29, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Ephesians 1:7, 1 Timothy 1:15, Hebrews 10:12, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 John 3:5, Revelation 1:5....

Toward my belief system, religion is a personal belief and should not be a sociable consideration... Anyone's beliefs upon religious conjuring séances should be held personally and not be centered by any socialism of the religiously clairvoyant which tends to conjure their weekly seminary séances upon the weakly enamored folks ever forsaking the doctrines oaths... Emotionalisms are where religious circles are deemed rented and the renters pay steeply for a yarn's worth... Therefore keeps one's faith separated from religious teamsters who take and never give their folded flocks any causally rational explanations as to why there are reportedly many more of God's many sons then what Christendom so portends there to be...

Toward my belief system, religion is a personal belief and should not be a sociable consideration... Anyone's beliefs upon religious conjuring séances should be held personally and not be centered by any socialism of the religiously clairvoyant which tends to conjure their weekly seminary séances upon the weakly enamored folks ever forsaking the doctrines oaths... Emotionalisms are where religious circles are deemed rented and the renters pay steeply for a yarn's worth... Therefore keep one's faith separated from religious teamsters who take and never give their folded flocks any causally rational explanations as to why there are reportedly many more of God's many sons then what Christendom so potentially claims there to be...

For America as a whole, he took a hit by giving an obviously false or evasive explanation for why Texas ranks just about last on Medicaid payments.

You're still hung up on a simple explanation of Holy Orders that was given you as a child?

This involves: (i) a given operation or function, (ii) a set of entities, (iii) explanation of the primitive ideas, and (iv) axioms as rules governing the relations of the entities.

Darwin saw himself as giving an explanation, by no means complete, of the variety and distribution of species around the globe; he argued for the superiority of his explanation over its competitors, including those that attempted to account for these facts by appeal to a divine intelligence.

You are judging, your opening line for example said... «It's not like atheists offer people anything» You gave no explanation as to what you meant by that, and you made a sweeping statement about all atheists.

If this is all that is said, an explanation is given (in the sense of course in which metaphysical statements aim at «explaining» anything) of the aspect in which the act is more, but not how the act founded and sustained in that way, is not only the act of the finite being because it is received in it, as Aquinas puts it, but also because it is posited by it as a cause.

As a teacher, I feel it is never enough to just give facts and explanations.

Given the character of scientific explanation in terms of efficient causes, it is quite understandable that such evolutionary advance should be explained in terms of natural selection and chance variation as the best possible scientific theory.

While it would be foolish to give up the meteorological explanation for the theological one, it should be said that there may be important aspects of the storm, such as its relation to the powers of nature on which life is dependent and the sense of awe inspired by it, which are present in the latter interpretation but wholly lacking in the former.

Not only are directions given as to what to do and how to do it but, as appeared in the sample above, some explanation, of either the origin or significance of the act.

And he does not use the tragedy as a chance to inflate the ranks of his own followers or give some theological explanation for the illness and death of Lazarus... What he does do is share in their grief.

Those chapters reflect the arguments MacIntyre had been developing against behaviorist and deterministic accounts of action, as well as his development of Wittgenstein's distinction between description and explanation — all of which is crucial for the constructive account After Virtue gives of practical reason and the virtues.

The Christian doctrine of the triunitarian nature of God, to which we shall come in the latter part of this chapter, is a symbolic account that gives a better ultimate explanation of what the whole story is about than does some account true (so far as it goes) which is given in scientific (or similar) terms alone.

Whitehead, for example, seems to have been in two minds about the viability of the idea of God as «personal», largely because he felt that as commonly used the term was overtly anthropomorphic and did not provide adequate explanation of that kind of experience which stresses the sheer «given - ness» of process.

Such instances, for which no convincing scientific explanations have been given, are cited by some Christian biologists as evidence of God's intervention in the process.

This qualifies the first half of that particular section, which calls for singing to come from one of the books of chant: «If there is no singing at the Entrance, the antiphon given in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader; otherwise, it is recited by the Priest himself, who may even adapt it as an introductory explanation.»

Thus, he could use it as an example of pagan depravity (Romans 1:26 - 27) or list it as one among many different sins (1 Corinthians 6:9 - 10 and 1 Timothy 1:10), without needing to give any further explanation.