Sentences with phrase «nothing about nature»

«Although this implies nothing about the nature of the object that was exchanged, we wish to express our deep and serious concerns about Justice Girouard's credibility during the inquiry and, consequently, about his integrity.

Herbert said nothing about the nature of Rhee's actual policies.

I know nothing about nature but I think as one gets old he / she becomes simpler but reverse is the case for Arsene, as he is getting old he becomes more and more stubborn.

I know nothing about nature but I think as one gets old he / she becomes more simpler.

Jenkins also cautions: «Mere numbers say nothing about the nature of faith or the quality of practice.»

But it tells us almost nothing about the nature of the divine existence in itself.

There is nothing about the nature of «the good» which explains why enjoyment is better than suffering, or why enjoyment plus intelligence is better than simple enjoyment, or why it is better to be aware than not to be aware.

I am no theologian but it seems to me that it implies nothing of the sort; indeed, ID theorists have gone to great lengths to point out that evidence of design tells us nothing about the nature of the designer.

These creeds say nothing about the nature and content of God's foreknowledge.

Although it comes up early in almost every open discussion or Q / A session concerning final punishment, the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus says nothing about the nature of hell or what happens to those who finally go there.

Your are making two fundamental logical errors, while also showing that you know nothing about the nature of serving in the military

Not exact matches

If nothing else, these and other similar incidents make it obvious that Facebook needs to do far more when it comes to being transparent about when and why it removes content, especially when that content is of a journalistic nature.

Nothing about knowing Allah for example, would expand my knowledge of nature or the Cosmos one iota.

Atheism says absolutely NOTHING about the cause, nature and purpose of universe, mankind or purposeness.

Jeremy it just hit me like a bolt of lightning i am so excited about this thought that salvation has nothing to do with eternal life but is speaking of losing the ability to be an overcomer in Christ.Having been there as a carnal christian i always believed in Jesus but i felt i did nt have the power to live a christian life so i felt like a hippocrite i was still subject to sin and sinful desires.So in that sense i had never received salvation because i had never been an overcomer in the first place.So i can see how a christian could lose there salvation having once walked by faith but that does nt effect there eternal life in Christ.Just so others know i am now walking by faith and am an overcomer i know what it is like to experience the power of the holy spirit and to not be overcome by my old nature that is what Jesus wants us all to experience rather than being a victim of the enemy.Whether we are an overcomer or not does nt effect our eternal life.brentnz

There's nothing intrinsically special about us in a universe that is blindly obeying the laws of nature.

He did nothing but became aware of archetypes and does absolutely nothing to discredit the meaning behind why we need to have these stories that tell us about ourselves and is the psyche trying to describe its own nature.

The footage serves as a plausible facsimile of the war as defined by the Pentagon; it tells viewers nothing about the origins and nature of an enemy that Republicans and Democrats alike have been ignoring for the last ten years, out of deference to the demands of Big Oil and in the hope that a world of six billion people might wake up one morning, consider the odds, and start bowing to Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, and the Goddess of Democracy.

He said that nothing the children are fed on TV and in their games, etc. is nurturing them «spiritually» (he probably is thinking about nature).

It proves nothing whatsoever about the nature of this «prime mover.»

I refuse to read the article based on the premise of the subject line and especially given divisive nature of how CNN is / has been conducting itself as the so - called purveyor of truth especially int he field of religion which it knows nothing about but instead, chooses to try to sway readers» opinions based on a very secularist or antagonistic approach.

Whitehead's teleology is then descriptive of the event's process of actualization; it says nothing about the event as striving to give rise to a specific character determined beforehand by its essential nature (PW 188/207), nor is it in conflict with physical determinism (PW 206/226).

Correspondence, in the sense specified, is the nature of truth, the meaning of truth; yet the test of truth that we most frequently employ in connection with the past is the test of coherence: historians and archeologists have nothing available to them that is not given in the present — this book, the reliability of which must be evaluated; this artifact, the significance of which must be construed — and coherence is the final test of their theories about the past built up from the givens of the present.

It is simple confusion to think otherwise, and Johnson's recent effort (see FT January) to construe presumption - against in terms of worries about the inherent morality of war, or about the nature of prima facie duties, amounts to nothing more than the blowing of thick clouds of smoke.

If we engage in the «de-mythologizing» of the Revelation to St. John the Divine, as we must also «de-mythologize» the creation stories in the book Genesis in the Old Testament, we realize that what is being said is that as human existence and the world in which that existence is set has its origin in the circumambient, everlasting, faithful Love that is nothing other than God — we recall Wesley's hymn, quoted a few paragraphs back, that «his nature and his Name is Love», and Dante's great closing line in The Divine Comedy about «the Love that moves the sun and the other stars» — so also the «end» toward which all creaturely existence moves is that very same Love.

His point was not to deny (or affirm) whether nature comes from a creator but only that such a statement explains nothing about the mechanism by which species are transformed over time.

First, I would speculate that neither stuff, as we know it, nor God was around at «the beginning», but some aspect of nature that we know nothing about, but that is just speculation.

18 Segundo emphasized that any «conception of God, which [206] views him solely as some immutable, self - sufficient nature without any real interest in what he himself brought about, is nothing but the rationalization of our own alienated societal relationships.»

The teacher said it was just a song about nature - «nothing religious about it».

For instance, a fellow who says there is no order in nature — nothing like laws of nature — that's not good common sense, because every living animal wants to make expectations about the future on the grounds that there are legitimate expectations about it.

There is nothing good, nor natural about denying part of what nature made you to be.

He wrote, «I can not understand what meaning can be assigned to the distance of the sun from Sirius if the very nature of space depends upon causal intervening objects which we know nothing about» (R 58).

There was nothing of the nature of impulsive or thoughtless action about our Lord, but only...

That proves nothing more about the existence or nature of God.

God's horrific, undeserved treatment of Job — who of course knows nothing of the wager — raises fundamental questions about the nature of God.

There is nothing about unanswered prayer that contradicts the nature of God.

They were simply about how to appreciate the character and nature of God, and grow closer to him each day, even among people who'd like nothing more than to see us fail.

I like to treat it with a delicate hand, nothing fancy here, just some lime zest and tequila to help it shine, these tacos are all about the buttery nature of the lobster topped off with some fiery salsa.

However, Wenger like Scarlet (and my wife) is a procrastinator it «s in his nature and there is nothing he, or anyone else can do about it.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Obviously, I know nothing about the likely Accrington line - up other than the increasingly cosmopolitan nature of football sees players from France, Benin and St Lucia feature in the League Two side's squad.

There's nothing we can do about that of course — it's just the nature of the beast — but it's interesting to note that FFP doesn't factor in clear regional differences of wealth in each country nor does it factor in the differing tax laws of each country.

Congratulations Laura There's nothing like learning about nature than to see it in front of you.

«There's nothing to worry about,» said Doug Taron, the curator of biology at Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum and an administrator with the International Migratory Dragonfly Partnership.

Always remember it is one of the most beautiful things nature intended, so there is nothing to be embarrassed about.

As Gabriel listens to the new parents justify their inaction to nature's most basic impulse, nothing about the situation seems remotely normal.

If you are experiencing depression during pregnancy or in the postpartum period, it is essential that you remind yourself that you are not to blame for how you are feeling and have done nothing wrong to cause the depression, that you are not alone because there are a growing number of health care providers who are understanding more about the nature of this disorder and because there are avenues to seek out emotional support, and finally, with the proper treatment, you will get well.

It's Mother Nature, and there's nothing that can be done about this.

Being a «beauty queen» is nothing to brag about because «beauty» is a matter of perception (as beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, and is a gift given by Nature that no mortal human being has any hand in fashioning or overturning.

The man is nothing if not ambitious, but his grandiose pledges and claims about drawing inspiration from nature seem too good to be true.