Sentences with phrase «mean the same thing by»

Now if it could be shown that Whitehead means the same thing by «event» that he means by «enduring object,» then Cobb would have his point, but (a) there are no grounds I can find at all to ground such an equivalence, and (b) quite to the contrary, «events» can be, though they need not be, spatially extended.

However, not everyone means the same thing by that term.

The challenge though is in assuming once again that everyone means the same thing by the term or did the same sorts of interventions; simply looking up personalized learning in the peer - reviewed research is too simplistic.

I'm not at all convinced everyone means the same thing by the term, and not even sure it makes sense as a concept.

Do you mean the same thing by the two?

Not all stable couples resolve conflicts in the same way, nor do they mean the same thing by «resolving» their conflict.

Not exact matches

Two things bother me, why jeopardize your children's security for this experiment, and why do it??? I mean everyone has doubts I their faith, but being a Christian raised by atheists, turning your back so publicly is the same as saying your faith was a joke... it is insulting to believers, a crisis of faith is normal in life, denouncing faith is shameful

Evangelicals who speak of «overseas mission» or «world mission» mean by these terms exactly the same thing they used to mean by «foreign missions» — spreading the gospel to the unreached.

Everywhere we look — China, Cuba, Tanzania, eastern Europe — socialism means the same thing: the domination of society by huge, ponderous government bureaucracies.

Do people really mean exactly the same thing by that term?

«Sinner» and «Gentile sinner» were by no means the same thing; a Jew who sinned could hope for mercy from his heavenly Father, but a Gentile could not count God as his Father in the same way.

Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to do these things let alone live and do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,

The values of things are thus real, independent of the interpretation of them in the same sense that things are independent by virtue of being harmonies of their conditional features with and by means of their essential features.

By «Biblical» what they really mean is «American Conservative Christian» These things are not the same.

That was the dilemma after praying and seeking the Lord he shows me a couple of things one is God calls the shots not satan satans demons bow to Gods authority and must get his permission so they beg Jesus to send the demons into the pigs.Jesus allows it so we can see satans purpose is always to destroy life.God is still the same yesterday today and forever he is the giver of life.We do know that the pigs were owned by the gentile nations and may well have been offered or about to be offered to there gods which would mean they would belong to satan.Like the example Jesus said about taxes should he pay them and he said give to caesar what is caesars.Or the other option was that it showed Gods mercy to the man that had been healed by delivering him of the demons and he was also protecting the people in the area from the influence of the demons.So God is still the same he is unchangeable and definitely not bipolar.I would say if anyone was bipolar in this situation it is David and he like us struggled with the same choice to walk according to the flesh or walk according to the spirit of God.brentnz

In that spirit, then, Dionysius could affirm that love, as applied to the Godhead, «means a faculty of unifying and conjoining and of producing a special commingling together in the Beautiful and Good... and holds together things of the same order by a mutual connection, and moves the highest to take thought for those below and fixes the inferior in a state which seeks the higher.»

Nor does the assertion mean all Americans believe equally in the ideology or mean by it the same thing in all respects.

When we say that God «knows» something, «knowledge» can not mean the same thing as it does when we speak of human knowing, because the created order works within parameters given by the Creator — parameters within which the Creator can not be confined.

The ethical framework for biological science must be based on the same principles of truth and meaning by which we as Christians judge all things, material and spiritual.

Instead, the word «saved» means the same thing it meant by in Luke 7:50.

However, if the Fourth Servant Song was really to be understood as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, and if this meant that by means of this scripture God was declaring that his death was not a miserable failure but a victory, in that it was becoming a source of blessing to men, then the rest of the Song had some suggestive things to say about this same Jesus.

I agree that my definition of «myth» is open to misunderstanding, but at the same time I am convinced that it is more satisfactory than the alternative you suggest («By «mythological» we mean the presentation of unobservable realities in terms of observable phenomena») For one thing, «observable» may prove too narrow a term and «unobservable» too broad, since all spiritual attitudes are unobservable.

I can understand what you mean by the term you use and at the same time can have a different definition for that term and we can still hold a conversation about the thing in question.

Saying that the universe is «not here by chance» does not mean the same thing as «bible god did it» or any other god or consciousness or ent ity.

Matthew Warner's «Flocknote» project enables parishes to contact people from one source, sending the same material to a person's email inbox, Facebook or Twitter account, or to their mobile phone by text message; the important thing is that it is the end user that chooses which of these means is the one by which they prefer to receive information.

It is a measure of how far things have moved since the 1980s that in DV, published in that decade, it was not necessary to spell out, after the word «marriage», the fact that by this word is meant the union of a man and a woman, and not two people of the same sex.

The selection is done by the same will that formulates intentions — the thing you call «I.» You haven't used the word spirit as a noun yet, so I wonder what you mean when you write that the whole brain is spiritual?

By «inspired» I mean the same thing you described in your post about the whisperings of God.

Berkouwer rightly sees that the challenge of the nouvelle théologie was taken up by John XXIII in his opening address to the Second Vatican Council in a much - discussed statement: «The deposit or the truths of faith, contained in our sacred teaching, are one thing, while the mode in which they are enunciated, keeping the same meaning and the same judgment, is another.»

Moralism and moral values are by no means the same thing, but with the slurring of language the two have come pretty close.

Instead when a person marries... he takes his sexual desire, and he does the same thing with it that we must all do with all our physical desires if we would make them means of worship — 1) he brings it into conformity to God's word; 2) he subordinates it to a higher pattern of love and care; 3) he transposes the music of physical pleasure into the music of spiritual worship, 4) he listens for the echoes of God's goodness in every nerve; 5) he seeks to double his pleasure by making her joy his joy; and 6) he gives thanks to God from the bottom of his heart because he knows and he feels that he never deserved one minute of this pleasure.

But for the rest of us, and for the Bush Administration in particular, the answer must involve the proper use of force to stop the cycle of violence» force and violence being by no means the same thing» from becoming established.

(1) An author may mean several different things by the same word, just as he may use different words to signify the same, or essentially the same, thing.

But that same Paul confessed he could be all things to all people if by any means he might save some (1 Cor.

You don't get my point... What I mean by doing the same thing over and over again is that Arsenal has had the opportunity to sign excellent players (you can't have enough of those)... but year after year, we only fix 1 problem while 3 more problems haunt us for the rest of the season.

Nothing like one underachiever blowing smoke up the ass of another... we know that Ozil has some incredible technical gifts, but to be considered the best you have to bring more than just assists to the table... for me, a top player has to possess a more well - rounded game, which doesn't mean they need to be a beast on both ends of the pitch, but they must have the ability to take their game to another level when it matters most... although he amassed some record - like stats early on, it set the bar too high, so when people expected him to duplicate those numbers each year the pressure seemed to get the best of our soft - spoken star... obviously that's not an excuse for what has happened in the meantime, but it's important to make note of a few things: (1) his best year was a transition year for many of the traditionally dominant teams in the EPL, so that clearly made the numbers appear better than they actually were and (2) Wenger's system, or lack thereof, didn't do him any favours; by playing him out of position and by not acquiring world - class striker and / or right - side forward that would best fit an Ozil - centered offensive scheme certainly hurt his chances to repeat his earlier peformances, (3) the loss of Cazorla, who took a lot of pressure off Ozil in the midfield and was highly efficient when it came to getting him the ball in space, negatively impacted his effectiveness and (4) he likewise missed a good chunk of games and frankly never looked himself when he eventually returned to the field... overall the Ozil experiment has had mixed reviews and rightfully so, but I do have some empathy for the man because he has always carried himself the same way, whether for Real or the German National team, yet he has only suffered any lengthy down periods with Arsenal... to me that goes directly to this club's inability to surround him with the necessary players to succeed, especially for someone who is a pass first type of player; as such, this simply highlights our club's ineffective and antiquated transfer policies... frankly I'm disappointed in both Ozil and our management team for not stepping up when it counted because they had a chance to do something special, but they didn't have it in them... there is no one that better exemplifies our recent history than Ozil, brief moments of greatness undercut by long periods of disappointing play, only made worse by his mopey posturing like a younger slightly less awkward Wenger... what a terribly waste

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

I know that is old fashioned, and that by no means is set in stone, but I never saw that as a bad thing until I started reading this, (and countless like it) and seeing that the same view is overwhelmingly not shared by women.

Now the dynamics identified in your post (together with the simple fact of Tory numerical supremacy within the coalition) mean that those issues not decisively closed off in the agreement will tend to be decided by the Tories in their own favour, and even those items that are dealt with in an apparently decisive way in the agreement will be pulled in a more «Tory» direction in their implementation, especially where being implemented by a Tory cabinet minister (or by David Laws, which amounts to the same thing...).

And Derek Draper and Damian McBride have been creating it in large quantities, and they're by no means the first or the most obvious examples, given the loans - for - peerages scandal, various bits of chicanery around the Iraq war and subsequent investigations (e.g. David Kelly), ministerial expense fraud (or at least it would be fraud if you or I tried the same thing on our tax returns), pretty much anything to do with Peter Mandelson and the various leaks, briefings and spin cycles that have characterised the Labour party for the last fifteen years.

These same studies have also begun to explain how and why the brain allocates each memory to a particular group of cells and how it links them together and organizes them — the physical means by which the scent of a madeleine, the legendary confection that sparked Marcel Proust's memory stream, leads to remembrance of things past.

From there it wasn't a huge technological step to the purely mechanical clock, prodded in large part by the twin developments of the Industrial Revolution (factory workers needed to show up on time) and the railroad (it would be nice if 10 o'clock in London meant the same thing everywhere in England).

And in the end, it is to be hoped, sequence data accompanied by agreed - on standards for metadata will mean the same thing to everyone who wants to use it.

But here's the thing: Just because you enjoy healthy food, tend to get enough sleep, and have a solid meditation practice doesn't mean you're inspired by the same workouts that your friend is.

This means that both conditions are caused by the same thing, in this case, eating excessive amounts of carbohydrates.

Dear Lindsey, I am also amazed by the number 2, but not surprised at all... I had a blog (same name, another platform) where I posted quite a lot, but travelling and doing things — it means, living — started to prevent me to post like before.

I do understand that this is meant to be as a base for the serum however I personally feel like it's an over priced rose water and I could probably create the same thing by steeping fresh rose petals in water.

By all means have a go at online dating, but at the same time get involved in enjoyable activities where you may find someone who enjoys the same things, be open to new friendships at work or socially, be friendly and confident with yourself whatever you are doing.

Even if you use a more mainstream dating site then by all means look for partners that want to do the same things that you are.

Put that together with both sites» terrible and misleading billing practices, (they are controlled by the same entity, and OKStupid, erm, I mean OKCupid are all under the same umbrella), and the only thing «refreshing» about these websites is the feeling you get when you close your profile for good and always.