Sentences with phrase «meant as an answer»

Its very existence may be meant as an answer to anxieties within the company about a persistent inability to overcome the question of «discovery,» both for Amazon Publishing titles and in general — the company remains dependent on consumers finding products they're interested elsewhere and then buying them, presumably at a discount, from Amazon.com.

It's an option to the PS4 gamer, and it was never meant as an answer to BC.

Not exact matches

You've probably already encountered bots as an intermediary for purchases or a means for answering a company's FAQs.

As to whether 5G could mean more console games being brought to mobile devices, Hudak said the answer to the question is both yes and no.

The short answer is that the repetition is just fine, as long as the meaning of the phrase as a whole is sufficiently varied.

«If the answer here is yes, that likely means you need to have a serious heart to heart conversation with the people you don't want to sit next to as something is clearly off.»

Hobson was upset — she remembered her early experience as being all about paying her dues — but she realized something: «It all goes back to the cell phone,» she says, meaning that since cell phones have been around, young people had access to instant answers (be it from their mom or Google).

Successful people understand this, and are extremely efficient with email, which means their first 10 minutes of the day may simply mean a quick scan and prioritizing of emails to answer later as part of your pre-planned day — not necessarily diving into the entire mass at once.

When asked if the deal meant mingling the brands, such as Burger King selling Tim Hortons» coffee, the answer was a quick and definitive «Absolutely not.»

The decision means a previously obscure grouping of senior officials - the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee - will be thrust into the spotlight as Canada's answer to the pledge the federal government and its allies in the Group of 20 made to correct regulatory failings that contributed to the financial crisis.

The answer is that Fed policy is the primary factor driving the returns of short - term bonds, meaning that they tend to hold up much better than long - term debt when the Fed is expected to keep rates low as was the case in 2013.

This means real - time answers for the buyer and happy clients for the business as well as a more positive view of the corporation's beneficial footprint.

Returning buyer personas to its origins and original meaning as well as advancing with changes adaptable to the social age will help in answering such big questions.

Yesterday, President Obama took to the podium and proclaimed, ``... we have always been and always will be a triple - A country,» and it sounded like empty sentimentalism from a man at a loss for words and for meaning» the kind of helpless, grasping - at - straws thing you say to a defeated friend you are trying to buck up, even as you know you lack the answers, or the resources, to offer either consolation or solutions.

And he could be serious about his faith, as well: In reply to Garry Wills» claim that «being Catholic always mattered more to him than being conservative,» Buckley responded, «If he meant he has a higher loyalty to God than to civil society, then the answer is obvious: God has to be preeminent.»

Which, as always, means you have to answer where did that First Cause come from.

I'd rather live my life honestly, and be good to my fellow man, and live with a sense of wonder as to what it all means, and hope someday I get the answer.

Man - made hypothesis of where we came from, such as from evolution (saying that proteins formed in a «prebiotic soup» and then «joining hands» with DNA, so that eventually a living cell is born), is not satisfying nor does it provide logical answers as to how the quality of love came about nor a conscience, that literally means «co-knowledge» in Greek.

Answer - It simply means that any day like today can be your salvation as you don't know when your life will end.

Science will never be able to answer all the silly qustions mankind has (such as what happens to us after we die), but in no way does that mean the logical default answer is a so called «god».

If one accepts the word God with its usual conventional connotations and traditional meanings, then the answer is No, as Schweitzer himself made clear.

Christians must raise and answer the question as to the meaning of Jesus» lordship.

Perhaps the question as to what their church - relationship means is asked less searchingly among us because of the apparent self - evidence of the answer: we are preparing ministerial leadership for the churches.

But Fred — What does it mean to say a prayer has been «answered» if there is never a way to verify it and measure it to make sure it's not the sort of thing that would have happened just as easily without the prayer?

But if we look to the Bible for religious truths such as these, that doesn't mean that we also look to it for authoritative answers in the realm of the physical sciences or medicine or astronomy or geography.

Instead of communicating meaning, the words serve only as signs, stimulating certain approved forms of behavior, usually also verbal, such as «repeating the correct answer.»

If we may take the parables of the weeds and the dragnet as Jesus» answer to such questions, they mean something like this: That is not the way God governs his world.

Instead, the interviewer treats the member's answer as a disclosure of meaning important within itself, a symbolic construction that the interviewer must try to understand.

That will mean that the ethos of its common life as a school will tend to privilege certain answers to the questions about construal of the Christian thing, community, and understanding God.

In the area of knowledge, religion's weakness is not in questions it raises but in its attempt to give dogmatic answers: Beyond the myths about the origin, end and meaning of life, beyond the alienated notions of transcendence and death, there exists the concrete dialectic of finite and infinite, and this remains a living reality as long as we remain aware that it is not in the order of answer but in the order of question.

without implying the answer, so the very structure of reason, its very meaning and drive toward ultimate truth, implies the existence of God as Absolute Truth, as the very Ground of reason.

The Bible clearly lays the answers to the foundational questions as it relates to origins, life, meaning, purpose and eternal life.

Science has raised new questions for the text to answer but by no means has it replaced the Scriptures as the authority.

And Yahweh is jewish terminology is the same now that mean Allah and Yahweh are the same being but christian god is unknown I don't know what he is, And Muhammad in the Qur» an is the last of all Prophets and Messengers and is known as Rehmat ul alimeen the mercy of the world he forgive his most bitterest enemies who tortured him and his followers for believing in one true God.Now Muhammad never try to fake a miracle, the pig is forbidden to eat even in the jewish testament and so even here bible agrees but I don't know why christians eat pork.Secondly wine was forbidden because Muhammad's companions saw the evil in it.So please don't speak without having proper knowledge or Blurting out made up stories that actually have no sense, the jews call Jesus the false prophet, Sorcerer, Necromancer etc would you beieve those stories or be angry.Surely we both know the answer

You're right, Your Answer, what should not matter is whether it was a «couple» having the children as much as the fact that they (gays and lesbians) chose to have them in the first place by whatever means.

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,

When, however, it comes to the question of the religious meaning of the discovery; the great Workaholic, as Bowlby once called Darwin, was not the best person to find the answer.

As to your question, it is difficult to answer because I am not sure what you mean by «confess Jesus as Savior.&raquAs to your question, it is difficult to answer because I am not sure what you mean by «confess Jesus as Savior.&raquas Savior.»

And spirituality in itself was never meant to be the complete «answer» to our sexuality, for as Rob Bell eloquently explored in Sex God, we believe God made us both sexual and spiritual beings.

But perhaps before we can answer the question as to why, we have to establish the biblical meaning and purpose of miracles.

And I take it as established that Hausman has shown a means whereby we can understand Bergson's approach as both metaphorical and rational2 As I am certain the reader does, I have questions I would like answered in light of their important insights and these interpretations of Bergson, but the issue I will examine presently is how Gunter's thesis and Hausman's elaboration might affect our understanding of Bergson's influence on Whitehead.3 The view of Bergson Gunter seeks to supplant is very widely held, and indeed was held, (if not really defended) until recently even by Professor Hausman (see the «Dialogue» belowas established that Hausman has shown a means whereby we can understand Bergson's approach as both metaphorical and rational2 As I am certain the reader does, I have questions I would like answered in light of their important insights and these interpretations of Bergson, but the issue I will examine presently is how Gunter's thesis and Hausman's elaboration might affect our understanding of Bergson's influence on Whitehead.3 The view of Bergson Gunter seeks to supplant is very widely held, and indeed was held, (if not really defended) until recently even by Professor Hausman (see the «Dialogue» belowas both metaphorical and rational2 As I am certain the reader does, I have questions I would like answered in light of their important insights and these interpretations of Bergson, but the issue I will examine presently is how Gunter's thesis and Hausman's elaboration might affect our understanding of Bergson's influence on Whitehead.3 The view of Bergson Gunter seeks to supplant is very widely held, and indeed was held, (if not really defended) until recently even by Professor Hausman (see the «Dialogue» belowAs I am certain the reader does, I have questions I would like answered in light of their important insights and these interpretations of Bergson, but the issue I will examine presently is how Gunter's thesis and Hausman's elaboration might affect our understanding of Bergson's influence on Whitehead.3 The view of Bergson Gunter seeks to supplant is very widely held, and indeed was held, (if not really defended) until recently even by Professor Hausman (see the «Dialogue» below).

More to the point: Is it not inevitable that there will be conflict if we continue to define what it means to «a theist» only as a question and answer exam.

Asked if he believes the probe will address the concerns of residents, the minister answered: «I think it will depend on how the inquiry proceeds, the line of questioning and the extent to which the inquiry really is trying to dig deep as to the causes of the fire - by that I don't just mean the technical aspect.»

Thus a new paradigm not only makes possible new forms and means for church education but also suggests new questions and answers as to our purposes.

However, I don't see the emergent movement as the answer by any means, nor «church bashing».

This would mean acting on the answers to such questions as:

1) We're highly evolved primates 2) We have overactive imaginations 3) Our greatest evolutionary asset, our large and highly-folded brains, are also responsible for an insatiable curiosity 4) As a species, and a survival tactic, we make things up to comfort ourselves in difficult times 5) As a complex societal species, we create commonalities and «traditions» with others in our clan / tribe / community 6) These «traditions» result in security, trust, and strong relationships that make the collective more able to survive than the individual 7) These common beliefs also act as a means of numbing the brain to questions and concerns without legitimate or tangible answers 8) Religion is simply a survival mechanism 9) When we die, we simple «are not alive» anymorAs a species, and a survival tactic, we make things up to comfort ourselves in difficult times 5) As a complex societal species, we create commonalities and «traditions» with others in our clan / tribe / community 6) These «traditions» result in security, trust, and strong relationships that make the collective more able to survive than the individual 7) These common beliefs also act as a means of numbing the brain to questions and concerns without legitimate or tangible answers 8) Religion is simply a survival mechanism 9) When we die, we simple «are not alive» anymorAs a complex societal species, we create commonalities and «traditions» with others in our clan / tribe / community 6) These «traditions» result in security, trust, and strong relationships that make the collective more able to survive than the individual 7) These common beliefs also act as a means of numbing the brain to questions and concerns without legitimate or tangible answers 8) Religion is simply a survival mechanism 9) When we die, we simple «are not alive» anymoras a means of numbing the brain to questions and concerns without legitimate or tangible answers 8) Religion is simply a survival mechanism 9) When we die, we simple «are not alive» anymore.

But I wasn't talking in the abstract, I meant the question very literally and I would like you to answer as I presented it.

The Christian answer lies in a conception which emerged in the Protestant Reformation, but which has yet to be appreciated in its full meaning: the conception of life as vocation.

Socrates... you mean that only the church gets to pose whacked out unproveable nonsense (can't even call them theories) as definite answers to metaphysical questions.,,, I see.