Sentences with phrase «modern times there»

In modern times there are two great philosophies contending in the public arena.

In modern times there are many online sources with thousands of the Jewish faith that are searching for love.

In modern times there has been a return by many women to some traditional birthing methods.

Even in more modern times there are people that consider it awkward though no longer evil and don't want their kids to be left - handed.

Not exact matches

There is only one other school within the university that is named after an individual in modern times, according to the Associate Press: Harvard Kennedy School, named for John F. Kennedy.

Many argue China's US$ 2 trillion in foreign reserves would protect it from any crisis, but Chovanec points out there have only been two times in modern history when a country accumulated such large reserves — America in the»20s and Japan in the»80s.

At the same time, Fisman and Sullivan take on some of the favorite punching bags of modern office culture — meetings, middle managers, expense reports, and the cubicle — and argue why there's good reason for them.

There's no doubt Twitter is a modern - day, real - time water cooler around which people from all over the world can gather to chat.

There are times when it is better to hold loosely to something because, in modern work culture, you either adjust quickly or you fail quickly.

«There's nothing like walking from the 1st floor of a modern looking expensive, trendy restaurant until you get out of the public area and go down the creaky unpainted wooded stairs and find a basement with damp stone foundation walls, puddles of water on the ground, and a crew of people cooking soup in a 10 gallon pot which is on the ground at the time.»

The Apple (aapl) executive also commented on the First Amendment, which protects free speech — adding that at the time the founding fathers established this idea, there were no app developers, modern content creators, and other new forms of speech, notes 9 to 5 Mac.

Now, with modern courses struggling to lure time - strapped duffers, there's a renewed interest in nine - hole tracks.

In times past there were two methods of engaging in this type of fraud, both of which can be illustrated by the practices of English goldsmiths in the 18th and early 19th centuries, the forerunners of modern - day banks.

The New York Times also reported that there have been numerous encounters between military aircraft and unidentified flying objects that move in ways that are unexplainable by modern technology.

In these modern times, there is no excuse.

There is no good evidence for it appearing before fairly modern times.

Our lives in the modern age typically run in seven day marathons, in which there isn't quite enough time.

At the same time, there's something perverse in the way the modern academy has sidelined theology.

Throughout Catholic thought over the past hundred and fifty years, there have run two entirely distinct conceptions of modernity and two quite different uses of Thomism — a combination of four threads weaving in and out of the Catholic Church's response to the strangeness of modern times.»

The dispersal and re-emergence of Israel was not a self - fullfilling prophecy: the dispersal portion certainly was not, as the Romans did not conquer Israel with the intent to fulfill Bible prophecy; at the time of the prophecy, there would have been no reason to believe that there would be people who would try to Israel; the people who founded modern Israel were, at least in the main, non-religious and were not trying to fulfill the Bible's prediction; and finally, considering the almost continual obstacles (wars) faced by Israel since the day of its founding, sucess at restoring Israel was far from certain.

It is thus no surprise that modern science came into being during the High Middle Ages, when for the first time in history there was a society permeated with Christian beliefs.

In modern secular Britain - indeed, in the modern secular West - any claim that there is anything like a real and absolute Truth is viewed with suspicion at the very least and most of the time with a sustained antagonism.

This Autumn is a particularly opportune time for encouraging our parishioners to reflect upon the fact that there is actually a significant gap between modern moral values and those of Christ in the Church.

There is no doubt that the state did take over these roles at the time of the creation of modern welfare states.

But there is another factor that has contributed to the decline of faith in modern times, which has not yet been seriously considered.

While the modern times would certainly allow for women to take leadership roles in religion there is an irony in it as well.

At the same time as the focus of much interfaith activity has become more practical, those in positions of leadership in the political and economic spheres are both recognizing the importance of religion in shaping the modern world and acknowledging that there is a spiritual and ethical dimension to the major problems facing humankind.

At the same time that ministers were trying to relate Christianity to the crisis of the modern economic injustice, there were others busily engaged in attacking all who deviated from what they conceived to be the fundamentals of Christianity.

There are several arguments that can be advanced against this position: first, that there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is There are several arguments that can be advanced against this position: first, that there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is true.

Nevertheless, at no other time has there been such a crisis in relating our faith to the findings of modern research.

In that article they also tried to argue that there were NO guilt societies at all in Bible times, then later on mention Greek writers were the first ones to come up with our modern guilt.

At the time Thornton had closely read The Concept of Nature (1920) and Principles of Natural Knowledge (2d edition, 1925), tended to interpret Science and the Modern World (1925) in line with these earlier works, and was acquainted with Religion in the Making (1926) though somewhat unsure what to make of its doctrine of God.2 He took comfort in Whitehead's remark concerning the immortality of the soul, and evidently wanted to apply it to all theological issues: «There is no reason why such a question should not be decided on more special evidence, religious or otherwise, provided that it is trustworthy.

Most important, at a time in human history when there is urgent need for wisdom to guide us through a crisis of unparalleled proportions, it removes any interest in wisdom from the intelligentsia in general and the modern university in particular.

«god» was so responsible in making that «provision» for being «saved» that «he» waited tens of thousands of years after modern man arrived on this planet (dooming countless generations to «hell» because they didn't have a chance), and then on top of that «he» implemented «his» «provision» in the middle of a freakin» desert in a time when there was no Internet and at a time when those ignorant goatherding people thought the world was flat (thereby dooming countless more generations of people to «hell» because there was no way, for example, to even get the message to what would become the Americas 15 centuries later).

nice question — there was indeed a global ocean in earths history and it was salt water — according to modern science when the plates moved and enclosed land creating a land locked ocean which over time turn to fresh water by leaking the salt into the bedrock... or something like that — i have rough understanding.

To teach, as some writers have, that we must accept the «insight» of modern Evolutionists, as true beyond reasonable doubt, that humans came into existence in various places at differing times (so - called «Polyphyletism») is to compromise the Church's infallible teaching that there was one first man (Adam) and one first woman (Eve) from whom we all descend.

The experience of every generation since his own age demonstrates that there is in Jesus an appeal stronger than that of any warrior, statesman, artist, or thinker, of antiquity or of modern times.

We must remember, however, that the people of Bible times knew nothing of modern science and that in the Judaism of that day belief in the possibility of resurrection was common; there are several other instances in the Bible where resurrection is claimed.

There might also be some similarities in modern times with the movement away from the institutional church with it's buildings and clergy.

But there are many youngsters who have been brought up in the Faith but who in adolescence are overwhelmed by the atheist intellectual atmosphere of our times and who begin to assume that you can't have a modern scientific outlook and also be a Catholic - that God can not be demonstrated to exist at all.

If the Bible needs to be interpreted for modern times that just proves it's nothing more than an ordinary book written by ordinary ancient people, and there's no more reason to base our laws or our lives off it than the Iliad or Beowulf.

A modern reader would find it natural for there to be character development over time, as in the David and Jacob cycles, to which Linafelt devotes four pages (pp.42 - 45).

There is no truth that truths itself, although modern rationalism since the time of Descartes assumes therThere is no truth that truths itself, although modern rationalism since the time of Descartes assumes therethere is.

There are some distinguished and competent thinkers and writers in those circles, to be sure, but by - and - large the support for it has come either from ignorant laypeople who find its authoritative manner of speaking emotionally appealing or from those who belong to what might be called reactionary conservatism and who are annoyed by much that is found in the modern world and eager to return to «the old time religion.»

In more modern times, as is well known, this view was overturned by the Copernican idea that the Sun is at the centre (and ultimately that there is no determinate centre at all).

Staying up there on the mountain with Jesus and those sacred sources was for Peter like attending some spiritual retreat for the modern Christian: the quiet time, the holy place, the aids to worship: stained glass windows, helpful spiritual directors, rich meditations, prayers and songs, celebrating with thanksgiving the gifts of forgiveness, acceptance and freedom.

Let there be no question about this: to judge Zarathustra as the Antichrist, and Eternal Recurrence as a demonic inversion of the Kingdom of God, is to set oneself against the radical secularity of the modern world, and finally to react with No - saying to the uniquely contemporary history of our time.

Now it has become an academic amusement in which the dogma that there is nothing outside the text repeats Haeckel's dogma that ancient and modern cosmogonies are only poetic fantasy, and at the same time clears the field for an exuberant and highly controlled preoccupation with intersubjectivity and intertextuality.

Already the modern traditional or orthodox Christian has made a wager incorporating such a risk: he has bet that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and thus he has bet that finally there is only a single image or epiphany of Jesus, regardless of the time or history in which it appears.

There are those in our time who believe that this is indeed the situation in which modern man finds himself.