Sentences with phrase «means accepting the authority»

Feminine theology calls for an end to all authoritarian models of truth — including the model of the ordained minister or priest, for «ordination» means accepting the authority of the traditional Christian framework and being licensed to carry on that tradition.

Not exact matches

««Virtual currencies» means a digital representation of value that is neither issued by a central bank or a public authority, not attached to a legally established currency, which does not possess the legal status of currency or money, but is accepted by natural or legal persons as a means of exchange or for other purposes, and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.

Maybe it's just an issue of semantics but I always thought that accepting the invitation to drink meant we were submitting to Christ's authority — removing ourselves from office and inaugurating a new leader.

In the complementarian manifesto, the Danvers Statement, egalitarians are accused of «accepting hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of biblical texts,» resulting in a «threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity.»

You can not accept this kind of authoritarianism, and neither can I. Nevertheless, «authority» can have an admirable meaning, and we could not live without it for a single day.

Brunner appeals explicitly to the prologue of John and to certain sayings of Paul, but surely one who is as emphatic as he in rejecting the authority of Scriptural teachings as such does not mean to say that we accept the doctrine of creation because of the presence of these passages in the New Testament.

We call this process experimental, which basically means that we don't know the answer with certainty at the beginning (nor can we simply accept an answer on authority without testing it), but only when the experiment is over.

Many Muslims who accept the absolute authority of the Qur» an, also engage in lively debate about its meaning and application in the contemporary world.

First, disputes with Protestants, who accepted Scriptural authority alone and rejected allegorical interpretations, meant that the literal sense of the Bible was fundamental and almost exclusive.

We also commonly speak of someone being an authority on a certain subject, meaning that he or she is recognized as an accepted source of expert opinion in that area.

Printing gave a mighty push to the concept that meanings are in people, that ideas get their authority from widespread acceptance, and that individuals should make their own decisions rather than accept those handed down from a higher authority.

One the one hand, you do not accept the Bible as authority, and yet, on the other hand, you assume that taking it as an authority means taking each piece as literally true.

The following statement is outright false, «One the one hand, you do not accept the Bible as authority, and yet, on the other hand, you assume that taking it as an authority means taking each piece as literally true.»

Funny, I took that to mean that we should accept that governments create things acknowledge government's authority over those things, like taxes, mandates, and programs.

From the US FDA, the UN, the WHO, and health authorities in the EU, it's accepted that a vegan - we mean really good, non-refined, not radical, not boring diet - will enhance your life in every category, period.

It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country.

And so the Climate Change Authority's recommendations are simultaneously more ambitious than the government will be prepared to accept, and not so ambitious by way of assuming that international emissions trading may mean no deep emissions cuts domestically.

I don't mean the sort of respect that is old fashioned «teaching by authority», where you accept and memorize everything I say because I'm the teacher and I said so; I actually tell my students not to believe what I way just because I'm the teacher, to challenge it, to test it, and then when it makes sense or corresponds to their experiences in the labs (which at least spot check the concepts, although such checks can not be exhaustive) accept it and build a strong conceptual understanding.

Is there any authority you will accept, or is your argument going to remain «I'm completely ignorant of actual thermodynamics and statistical mechanics and mechanics and electrodynamics and quantum theory — beyond the level a bright high school student might have accomplished — but I doubt that any of them are right, so when Jelbring states a result that openly contradicts their content that doesn't mean that he is probably wrong.»?

But what you really mean is, that you refuse to accept the actual scientific authorities because what they're saying is something you dislike.

«Should it nevertheless be the case that the law or administrative practice of a third country through which the transport will transit verifiably and definitely precludes full compliance with the technical rules of [Regulation 1/2005], the margin of discretion conferred on the competent authority of the place of departure empowers it to accept realistic planning for transport which, in the light inter alia of the means of transport used and the journey arrangements made, indicates that the planned transport will safeguard the welfare of the animals at a level equivalent to those technical rules.»

(4) the term «false identification document» means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that --(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and (B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;

And this is what I understand to be the meaning of our lawyers, when they say that these civil corporations are liable to no visitation; that is, that the law having by immemorial usage appointed them to be visited and inspected by the king their founder, in his majesty's court of king's bench, according to the rules of the common law, they ought not to be visited elsewhere, or by any other authority.53 And this is so strictly true, that though the king by his letters patent had subjected the college of physicians to the visitation of four very respectable persons, the lord chancellor, the two chief justices, and the chief baron; though the college had accepted this carter with all possible marks of acquiescence, and had acted under it for near a century; yet, in 1753, the authority of this provision coming in dispute, on an appeal preferred to these supposed visitors, they directed the legality of their own appointment to be argued: and, as this college was a mere civil, and not an eleemosynary foundation, they at length determined, upon several days solemn debate, that they had no jurisdiction as visitors; and remitted the appellant (if aggrieved) to his regular remedy in his majesty's court of king's bench.

The German authorities justified this decision by stating that all virtual currencies such as Bitcoin will be considered a legal method of payment as long as all parties involved in the transaction accept that that cryptocurrency will be used as a means of payment.

Since 1 July 2016, Zug is the world's first city whose public authorities accept bitcoin and other cryptic payments as payment means.