Sentences with phrase «meant different understanding»

I started traveling when I was young, and I quickly realized that seeing the world meant different understanding people in the world.

Not exact matches

From the second video, you'll understand: - The different components of CPI data - What «seasonally adjusted» means for monthly inflation numbers

To understand what this really means for your business, let's back up and look at how Twitter ads have typically performed, how retargeting actually works, why social retargeting is different, and how you can tap into the power of retargeting.

My grandmother, a sweet old lady who grew up in the»30 and» 40's, used terms to describe people she didn't understand (which means anyone different than her) in ways that would make you blush.

The fact that many people have intelligently reflected on this verse and different conclusions come to about its meaning demands that where there are differences in understanding that come from its reading, that they be treated with the utomost intellectual respect.

Matter of fact, I would venture to guess that his understanding of what heaven is / means is different than the typical Christian view.

Rather, I think many of us would prefer to separate those who disagree with us and cleanse the church and even the world of all who are different and challenge our understanding of who Jesus is and what he means... unless they get saved, of course.

As Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott (professor of New Testament at the Tulsa Seminary) explains in «The Trouble With Resurrection» what «seeing Jesus» meant (in the correctly contextually translated Greek of Paul) was «coming to * understand * Jesus * in a different light».

Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been different for the biblical authors.

A few words taken out of context can mean anything the speaker chooses but the understanding within the context is a different matter.

That doesn't mean we won't, though the theory might end up being quite different from our current understanding (think of Newton's theory of gravity, very successful as an approximation but needing Einstein to look at things differently).

From the moment I could understand what murder meant, I was taught that it was «wrong» — a relative consensus that seemed to be universal; that came from people of different philosophical backgrounds.

We actually understand that we might have different versions, but THE MEANING IS THE SAME.

Yes, I understand that terms have many different meanings to many people.

I think that different flavors of religion are creations of manking, meant to explain things we don't understand.

So if Vikings came and plundered my village, I would not hate all Vikings and the moment I see Vikings doing good in the name of Odin, then I would have to be mature and come to the understanding that Scripture and belief can mean something different to different people.

The body of God, as theologians would say, is creation, understood as God's self - expression; it is formed in God's own reality, bodied forth in the eons of evolutionary time, and supplied with the means to nurture and sustain billions of different forms of life.

Reality, Reality, Reality Please be more careful with your words if you would understand and believe those words in different translations but meaning one verse in Quran;

This does not mean we give up discussing different viewpoints or working to deepen our understanding of God.

The same word also may have different meanings and that will make it difficult for participants in the communication to understand each other.

Their communication may then be complicated or blocked by the different understandings they have of the meaning of the word.

Jesus, to me, was a very poetic speaker and his meaning to words such as wife probably mean something different than our current understanding of our wife at home.

What we have seen in the form and spirit of the biblical faith makes it clear how sharply different understandings of the meaning and requirements of love could arise.

The principle difference that most people don't understand though is that «scientific theory» means that it's a hypothesis that's been repeatedly tested and supported with multiple pieces of evidence through many different trials and approaches.

If we do have an understanding of the conversation then the definitions of these «packed» concepts are subjective and we wind up debating terms like «following Jesus» which means something entirely different to me than it did to my 92 year old grandmother.

I understand how and where faith and trust might be confused, but they are different words with different meanings.

Both of these Christian groups believed that Jesus was the son of God, but they had different understandings about exactly what that meant.

Since we all come from different contexts, we don't tend to have the same understanding of what these words mean.

Ask why that is, understand why that is, and just as our gurus did 500 years ago, find a solution... stop be hot headed and ignore the problem just because it's «the rule»... Because that mindset is no different from the religions we were revolting against in the first place (and I mean that in all repe t because even those religions are no evolving to need the needs...

The horizons of meaning within which humans experience, reflect, question, imagine, and act have certainly changed in different times and places, and thus the understanding of what it means to be a «subject» has changed.

I criticized the thinkers of the Enlightenment because not only do they mean something different by «nature» than the classical thinkers do, but they throw away most of their equipment for understanding it.

I have different understandings of (1) what it means for God to judge, (2) the nature of sin and evil, and (3) what love can and can not do.

Any discipline, be it theology or philosophy, which seeks to understand the meaning of, purpose of, behaviour of, and relationship between the different constituent «beings» of this reality of ours should at least try to account for and incorporate an understanding of that which is observed in such a reality.

A further consequence of Whitehead's view is a different understanding of what objective and subjective mean.

What an awesome God we serve, and if the shepherds in the field understood what it meant to pray and seek God for what He sets in their heart, and to allow God to fulfill what He sets in their heart, God's sheep would be witnesses unto God, and Christ would be with man, and this world be a much different place than it is.

I guess it seems like an obvious question, but bob and Rhology, you two seem to have very different understanding of either what «knowing» mean or how we can know.

The motu proprio, he insists, «compromises thecoherence of the Church's self - understanding and threatens to reduce the liturgy to a simple matter of individual «taste» rather than what it is meant to be: an accurate reflection of what we believe as Catholic Christians who live in the twenty - first century»: for that, of course is utterly different from what Catholic Christians who lived in previous centuries (and in the twentieth century before the sixties) believed: hence, the absolute indefensibility of what he calls «this medieval rite».

Perhaps this cautious and challenging Catholic response is also spurred on by the recognition that what we mean by love is somewhat different from the Muslim understanding.

All of us are at different points on our journeys so our understanding is not necessarily the same, but at the same time it doesn't mean any one is right or wrong... we have the understanding that befits where we are.

That is not what I meant by the term, but that is the way some people are understanding my use of it, and so I am trying to think of a different word to use, or a different way of explaining what I mean.

Thus, over two millennia, there have been innumerable different ways of understanding what it means to be a Christian and during the last 500 years they have been multiplying.

That this question is not formulated is by no means under all circumstances a sign of undeveloped thinking or of an immature, childish understanding of human existence; it can also be the sign of a very different interpretation of human life which is the reverse of childish.

I really can't comment without a better understanding of what you mean by «natural», which could have so many different meanings, and how exactly that relates to what God intends.

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.

I don't call myself a Christian, either, first, because labels of any sort are confining and misleading — much like the label «God», and second because I find my understanding of «the Christ» to be quite different from the norm — including Hamilton's too, I suspect, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's not on the right track.

It means that I have a different understanding of these texts than you do.

Short of the End Time, even among people of the best will (and it will never be that everybody will be of the best will), there will be different and frequently conflicting understandings of moral truth and the common good — and, increasingly, there is disagreement over what might be meant by words such as «truth» and «good.»

The one he rephrased several different ways to make sure we understood exactly what he meant.

The different theology remark is easily understood to mean Obama's policies are motivated by a belief that he and the government know what is best for Americans.

Word have different sense, one can only understand the meaning if you know who say it, it help to know God.