Sentences with phrase «man do in this case»

And what should a man do in this case?

Not exact matches

In most cases, this brief panic ended as it did for the man and woman below — in joy and relieIn most cases, this brief panic ended as it did for the man and woman below — in joy and reliein joy and relief.

They're doing it through dozens of workshops held in community centers, libraries, YMCA's, and municipal buildings, where anywhere from 40 to 60 women (and sometimes a few men) work their way through a two - hour curriculum that teaches them how to figure out how much they should be paid, how to make their case to an employer, and how to gracefully exit a negotiation that might not be going well.

What some experts are doing is putting up a straw man, pointing to those extreme cases in which some people let the development of the business plan become an end in itself — something that gets in the way of business rather than helping to optimize it.

It's also the case that young men are doing noticeably poorer than young women in the job market — largely because of a growing gender gap in post-secondary schooling.

In the Arizona case you had a deranged man who did not seem connected to any political movement and who was uninterested in the partisan debates of our timIn the Arizona case you had a deranged man who did not seem connected to any political movement and who was uninterested in the partisan debates of our timin the partisan debates of our time.

Unlike Superman whose creation can actually be traced back to a couple of young Jewish men in 1938 for the purpose of providing a sellable fictional story line to Detective Comics, there is no such evidence in regards to religious belief; especially since in this case being that this is about a God who does not want to be made known but who would rather have us develop our faith.

Causing the death of an unborn child is in the Bible, for in the Bible at Exodus 21, it says that «in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices.

To do such which results in a man having in one case years of legal procedure and suffer panic attacks is deplorable.

The pamphlet «What makes Man Unique» comments that nature, from its own internal laws, should not produce an animal which is beyond environmental control, as it in fact does in the case of mMan Unique» comments that nature, from its own internal laws, should not produce an animal which is beyond environmental control, as it in fact does in the case of manman.

I hadn't read this comment in a while, but when i did today, it brought to mind Acts 5, and what the teacher Gamaliel said concerning the earliest Christian movement, «Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone!

Men don't get children in custody cases because women are «naturally» better mothers.

And anyone who knows the Old Testament knows that when the Israelites were capturing land, God was telling them to take the women «that did not know man» in most cases.

In the case of Abraham Lincoln, for example, it was not only the things that Lincoln did, but it was also the things that he said and (in this modern instance) the things that he wrote in letters and state papers, which make it possible for us to know the kind of man that he really waIn the case of Abraham Lincoln, for example, it was not only the things that Lincoln did, but it was also the things that he said and (in this modern instance) the things that he wrote in letters and state papers, which make it possible for us to know the kind of man that he really wain this modern instance) the things that he wrote in letters and state papers, which make it possible for us to know the kind of man that he really wain letters and state papers, which make it possible for us to know the kind of man that he really was.

In that case, you can do the same to every other fairy tale known to man.

Powell, an Emmanuelite, wrote: «While men like Jerry McAuley and the Salvation Army leaders have done something, the emotional motive which they use does not avail in every case.»

But if one day it becomes clear that this a priori does not exist at all, but was a historically conditioned and transient form of human self - expression, and if therefore man becomes radically religionless and I think that is already more or less the case (else how is it, for example, that this war, in contrast to all previous ones, is not calling forth any «religious» reaction?)

Do you support or are you okay with an abortion in the case of a man ra - ping a woman?

In each case faith involves a relationship of trust which prompts the man to do certain things as a result.

True, in a particular case I do claim the right to be more objective, farseeing and wiser than a certain other person whose opinion I encounter, but I do this only because I attribute reason and honesty to all men, at least in principle, and hence also to myself, not because I prefer my own subjective opinions.

Workers and seminarians always came to hear both men speak; but they were also friends of those who did not work with their hands — like John D. Rockefeller, in Rauschenbusch's case.

Gregory's approach to pastoral care of the rich has exceptional subtlety, hinging importantly upon the biblical paradigms of Nathan before David and of David's care for Saul.34 When pastors come before the wealthy as spiritual guides, they do well to remember what Nathan did in the case of the poor man whom the rich man had abused.

It may be that there is no actual decision involved in most cases since the man who has the inclination to do the one would probably not be adept at the other.

All the hateful and ridicling of Christianity aligns with what JESUS said «As the days of Noah, so shall it be the coming of the Son of man» In case you do not have an understanding of that quote, there were people mocking at Noah when he was instructed to build the Ark (Which by the way has been discovered and proven to have existed as written in the BibleIn case you do not have an understanding of that quote, there were people mocking at Noah when he was instructed to build the Ark (Which by the way has been discovered and proven to have existed as written in the Biblein the Bible).

Love then, between a man and a woman, is a mimetic phenomenon in that it reflects God's reconciliation to man and nature; «For love does not exist where two beings are in need of each other but where each could exist independently, such as in the case with God who is already in and of Himself - suapte natura - the being God (der Seyende): here then each could be for itself without considering it an act of privation to be for itself, even though it will not want to...»

Very much unlike the case of Paul de Man and deconstructionism, the TNR exposé does not succeed in discrediting the person and important work of Mircea Eliade.

In any case it was probably inevitable that Bultmann's pupils (such as Günther Bornkamm)-- while accepting his negative verdicts that Jesus did not think of himself as Messiah, Son of God, or Son of Man — should refuse to accept the dispiriting embargo on all discussion about how Jesus did regard himself, and refuse as well to accept the excessively rigorous skepticism about the facts behind the Gospels» literary forms.

Again, it doesn't matter what I think the answer is, but it seems that a reasonable interpretation might hold those sections as being either hopeful wishes, as opposed to exiting feelings, or in some cases descriptions by men not by God and therefore not entirely accurate.

9:2) And in the case of the blind man (John 9), he said it had nothing to do with the man's sins or the sins of his family, but «this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him».

In the latter case men do learn that it may be necessary to concede something in order to release the tension; they do not simply dig themselves in, relying on the whole international order to halt any attempt to change the status quIn the latter case men do learn that it may be necessary to concede something in order to release the tension; they do not simply dig themselves in, relying on the whole international order to halt any attempt to change the status quin order to release the tension; they do not simply dig themselves in, relying on the whole international order to halt any attempt to change the status quin, relying on the whole international order to halt any attempt to change the status quo.

Jeremy since we are talking about satan casting out satan heres a question for you.Have you ever wondered why Jesus helps satan at times or at least it appears that way.Mat 8:28 - 34 Why would he do that in the case of the demonic man the demons requested that Jesus cast them them into the pigs which he allowed it seems that not only did he help satan to have his way in destroying the pigs but destroyed the livelihood of the people in that area.You could argue at least it saved one man but is it acceptable to save one life but affect the lives of many?

This is going to be a shock — the men who actually wrote all the parts in the Bible and made changes to the infrastructure of Christianity — including Constantine circa 300 AD in Rome — were not afraid of unleashing the occasional metaphor... in other words the Bible is not entirely literal — no, you are supposed to use your imagination... In many cases the disciples didn't actually witness an event — it was long distance and time altered hearsay — God figured Man could handle that... So don't be afraid to dilute - God's cool with that — as long as you do the right thing in life — feed the poor, help your neighbor, don't kill or covet - just be a good and decent person - smile, love and give generously... God doesn't need robots — He wants thoughtful individuals who help!in the Bible and made changes to the infrastructure of Christianity — including Constantine circa 300 AD in Rome — were not afraid of unleashing the occasional metaphor... in other words the Bible is not entirely literal — no, you are supposed to use your imagination... In many cases the disciples didn't actually witness an event — it was long distance and time altered hearsay — God figured Man could handle that... So don't be afraid to dilute - God's cool with that — as long as you do the right thing in life — feed the poor, help your neighbor, don't kill or covet - just be a good and decent person - smile, love and give generously... God doesn't need robots — He wants thoughtful individuals who help!in Rome — were not afraid of unleashing the occasional metaphor... in other words the Bible is not entirely literal — no, you are supposed to use your imagination... In many cases the disciples didn't actually witness an event — it was long distance and time altered hearsay — God figured Man could handle that... So don't be afraid to dilute - God's cool with that — as long as you do the right thing in life — feed the poor, help your neighbor, don't kill or covet - just be a good and decent person - smile, love and give generously... God doesn't need robots — He wants thoughtful individuals who help!in other words the Bible is not entirely literal — no, you are supposed to use your imagination... In many cases the disciples didn't actually witness an event — it was long distance and time altered hearsay — God figured Man could handle that... So don't be afraid to dilute - God's cool with that — as long as you do the right thing in life — feed the poor, help your neighbor, don't kill or covet - just be a good and decent person - smile, love and give generously... God doesn't need robots — He wants thoughtful individuals who help!In many cases the disciples didn't actually witness an event — it was long distance and time altered hearsay — God figured Man could handle that... So don't be afraid to dilute - God's cool with that — as long as you do the right thing in life — feed the poor, help your neighbor, don't kill or covet - just be a good and decent person - smile, love and give generously... God doesn't need robots — He wants thoughtful individuals who help!in life — feed the poor, help your neighbor, don't kill or covet - just be a good and decent person - smile, love and give generously... God doesn't need robots — He wants thoughtful individuals who help!!!

[Im just being sarcastic man, in case that did nt translate via text.]

«But what we are here today to assert is that in the case of women in England at the present time, there is no reason for any exceptional treatment which does not also exist for the corresponding class of men.

Yahweh in hebrew means my Lord and is a common reference meaning supreme God.In the bible satan is referred specifically as the adversary in hebrew or slanderer in greek its quite clear there is no confusion.Satan is not in the same league as God he is sovereign in fact God has satan on a leash and limits his control particularly over his people as we read in Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that wain hebrew means my Lord and is a common reference meaning supreme God.In the bible satan is referred specifically as the adversary in hebrew or slanderer in greek its quite clear there is no confusion.Satan is not in the same league as God he is sovereign in fact God has satan on a leash and limits his control particularly over his people as we read in Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that waIn the bible satan is referred specifically as the adversary in hebrew or slanderer in greek its quite clear there is no confusion.Satan is not in the same league as God he is sovereign in fact God has satan on a leash and limits his control particularly over his people as we read in Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that wain hebrew or slanderer in greek its quite clear there is no confusion.Satan is not in the same league as God he is sovereign in fact God has satan on a leash and limits his control particularly over his people as we read in Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that wain greek its quite clear there is no confusion.Satan is not in the same league as God he is sovereign in fact God has satan on a leash and limits his control particularly over his people as we read in Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that wain the same league as God he is sovereign in fact God has satan on a leash and limits his control particularly over his people as we read in Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that wain fact God has satan on a leash and limits his control particularly over his people as we read in Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that wain Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that waIn the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that wain to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that wain God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that wain to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that waIn the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that way?

Oh Please — Perry is such a fake — He did not have the time of day to re-examine evidence in a case and sent a man to his death.

So long as one does not regard man as spirit (in which case we can not talk about despair) but only as a synthesis of soul and body, health is an «immediate» determinant, and only the sickness of soul or body is a dialectical determinant.

Precisely that kind of man, «transported by his passion» — in this case his being caught up into a relationship with God in Christ, although it may very well be true in other ways as well, since to be «transported» by passion is to enter upon the most profound experience possible to human beings — precisely such a man does feel and know what is nothing other than «the secret of the universe».

In the life of spirit, on the other hand, there is no stopping [Stilstand](nor in reality is there any condition [Tilstand], everything is actuality): in case then a man the very same second he has known what is right does not do it — well then, first of all, the knowledge stops boilinIn the life of spirit, on the other hand, there is no stopping [Stilstand](nor in reality is there any condition [Tilstand], everything is actuality): in case then a man the very same second he has known what is right does not do it — well then, first of all, the knowledge stops boilinin reality is there any condition [Tilstand], everything is actuality): in case then a man the very same second he has known what is right does not do it — well then, first of all, the knowledge stops boilinin case then a man the very same second he has known what is right does not do it — well then, first of all, the knowledge stops boiling.

So then, the fact that the man in despair is unaware that his condition is despair, has nothing to do with the case, he is in despair all the same.

In this case, therefore, we do not ask whether in fact Jesus was both God and man or whether the Holy Spirit does assure us that in him we meet GoIn this case, therefore, we do not ask whether in fact Jesus was both God and man or whether the Holy Spirit does assure us that in him we meet Goin fact Jesus was both God and man or whether the Holy Spirit does assure us that in him we meet Goin him we meet God.

In neither case does the eulogy take on the character of an elegy: for both men, neoconservatism departs the scene not because it has failed but because it has, in large part at least, succeeded in what it set out to accomplisIn neither case does the eulogy take on the character of an elegy: for both men, neoconservatism departs the scene not because it has failed but because it has, in large part at least, succeeded in what it set out to accomplisin large part at least, succeeded in what it set out to accomplisin what it set out to accomplish.

In the case of King Saul (the biblical narrative of preference for those on the «less supportive» side of the support - oppose the president spectrum), the scripture is clear that God wasn't thrilled about the idea of a monarchy in Israel at all, but did indeed choose Saul to be the man to occupy it (1 Samuel 8:1 - 22In the case of King Saul (the biblical narrative of preference for those on the «less supportive» side of the support - oppose the president spectrum), the scripture is clear that God wasn't thrilled about the idea of a monarchy in Israel at all, but did indeed choose Saul to be the man to occupy it (1 Samuel 8:1 - 22in Israel at all, but did indeed choose Saul to be the man to occupy it (1 Samuel 8:1 - 22).

If not, Yahweh just did what Jesus did: remained silent when accused, in this case by men who knew no better than to ascribe their genocide to God.

And this higher and liberating orientation by grace of man's transcendence as spirit, changing as it does in good Thomistic doctrine the very horizon of spiritual activity (the «formal object»), constitutes by the nature of the case a «revelation», even if it presents no new conceptual object to the mind, and therefore, if accepted, is faith.

But just as in the case of Benjamin Franklin this new and more innocent view of man did not lead to a liberation of the impulse life.

But it does seem to be the case that they can not increase without a re-stabilizing of a family structure that enlists the support of men, who receive in return the respect and recognition that comes with, for lack of a better term, patriarchy.

In such cases the Christian faith does not, indeed, enable us to understand how fate and freedom can be one and yet different; such understanding is denied to finite man.

In none of these does Jesus identify himself as the Son of Man, and in some cases it is exceedingly hard to harmonize Jesus» statement with such a belief on his part, as when he says, «When they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel till the Son of Man come»; or, «Be ye ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh.»In none of these does Jesus identify himself as the Son of Man, and in some cases it is exceedingly hard to harmonize Jesus» statement with such a belief on his part, as when he says, «When they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel till the Son of Man come»; or, «Be ye ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh.»in some cases it is exceedingly hard to harmonize Jesus» statement with such a belief on his part, as when he says, «When they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel till the Son of Man come»; or, «Be ye ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh.»in one city, flee to the next; for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel till the Son of Man come»; or, «Be ye ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh.»in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh.»)

All in all, the problems are such that we have felt it necessary to ignore the Johannine material altogether, even in the case of the Son of man teaching, and the only major reference to be found on the fourth gospel in what follows is one of the account of the crucifixion where it does seem apparent that John is referring to a Christian exegetical tradition.