Sentences with phrase «ones like the nature»

An important question is why were some journals, especially supposedly prestigious ones like Nature, vulnerable to coercion and manipulation?

I'd prefer more useful ones like the nature of the claim, the issue before the court and the disposition.

Not exact matches

Much like the flexible nature of the freelance economy, a myRA account allows savers the freedom to save at one's own pace.

He is renowned for his ability to «command a room and work a crowd,» not surprising coming from a one - time member of a hip hop band that opened for acts like the Wu - Tang Clan and Naughty by Nature.

Now let's consider a world where we obliterate journals like Nature and Science and that there's only the «one true journal».

It's not that I don't feel like I can, I can... but is that in the vocabulary of the one who I worship, if it's not then why would I as His Son want to take on what is not His, my Father's nature... The versions of the Bible I've read seem to think that words are powerful and speaking them is an action and can even change physics if used properly... Again, the scriptures speak for themselves and circumventing the topical study with christiany cliche come - backs doesn't answer or annul anything that the Word has to say on the matter.

Mormons believe the nature of the «Holy Trinity» to be that the Godhead is «one in purpose» just like a man and a woman are commanded to «become one» or «become as one» in the bible.

but if anyone truley had God in thier heart and had faith in the Lord... simply by folding your hands and asking God to enter your heart... (try it he will be there for you, and you will feel the joy of His love), then they would never do things like this... he obviously was not a person who loved God because No one with God in thier heart would want to do thing s like that... you HATE sin when you truely love God, No ones perfect though, even those who belive in God we all stray from our beliefs, its human nature and the devil takes advantage of this.

Pace Donald Sherburne's solution (viz. ditching God altogether, positing the multiplicity of actual entities as the only source of a plural «order, meaning and value»), one possible response might run as follows: in the primordial nature there are no general (fixed a priori) standards of value, there is only the capacity to offer «guidelines» relative to already individuated worlds, This, or something very like it, seems to be the solution implicitly adopted by Christian when he says of the primordial nature:

Like the religious objectors, scientists wishing to separate faith and reason — a minority, but a noisy one — claim that nature, which they often think of as self - subsistent rather than as created, can not be reconciled to God, whose existence they often deny.

This is a medication given orally which interferes with the metabolism of alcohol so that even one drink will cause a toxic reaction of a shock - like nature.

This obstinacy is like the infantile notion of a child, who in his lack of judgment even sets up a cleft in the father's nature; for the child imagines that the father is the loving one, that punishment on the other hand is something that a bad man has invented.

God does not create like an omnipotent consumer choosing one world out of an infinity of possibilities that somehow stand outside of and apart from his own nature.

In the balance of the essay, I have proposed an equivalence between prehension and primordial intentionality on the one hand, and subjective aim and act intentionality on the other Finally, I have suggested that, if we are to take the proposals in The Structure of Behavior seriously, Merleau - Ponty — along with the process philosophers — has refused to bifurcate nature and is willing to make intentionality, like prehension, a truly «universal medium.»

However, it should be realized that Santayana thinks this relation of substantial inheritance (like that of «lateral tension»), as an external one, is simply uncapturable in terms of essence, so that, as real as it is, no truth about it can quite capture its nature.

Baker reports about the response to one of his six - day preaching tour: «The men of four villages wished at once to cut off their top - knots, and asked for baptism forthwith... I said that faith and patience were the life of Christ's people, and that a profession of this nature could not be put on and off like clothing: they had better wait;... But they said, «You must destroy our devil - places, and teach us to pray to our Father, as you call Him, in Heaven, or some beginning must be made.»

Martin Luther presented the theology of Sola scriptura that the bible is the sole source to live and understand what Christianity is all about... but the bible itself does not come with a table of contents to prove that it is correct which is why the bible itself says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth... remember that the church existed before even the bible was even put together... To understand the bible you cant just rely on your own interpretation like the protestants often say... The truth is always absolute and hence the teachings of the bible HAS to be absolute which is why the church is said to be ONE in nature (in every sense of the word), HOLY, CATHOLIC (Universal in teaching in every corner of the world) and APOSTOLIC (roots dating back to Jesus himself)... Now figure out what is that one church... The church put together the bible and the holy spirit always protected the church against false teachings and 1600 years later came about the teaching of Sola Scriptura... Protestants... look within and see whats wrong with this teachiONE in nature (in every sense of the word), HOLY, CATHOLIC (Universal in teaching in every corner of the world) and APOSTOLIC (roots dating back to Jesus himself)... Now figure out what is that one church... The church put together the bible and the holy spirit always protected the church against false teachings and 1600 years later came about the teaching of Sola Scriptura... Protestants... look within and see whats wrong with this teachione church... The church put together the bible and the holy spirit always protected the church against false teachings and 1600 years later came about the teaching of Sola Scriptura... Protestants... look within and see whats wrong with this teaching.

In one sense the discovery of human individuality was necessary for the development of human rights, the economic individualism orientated to profit and free market produced the modern economy; the separation of human being from nature coupled with the autonomy of the world of science helped the development of technology; and the autonomy of different areas of life like the arts and the government, each to follow purposes and laws inherent in it, did make for unfettered creativity in the various fields.

This could happen only if the guilty person were by nature endowed with extraordinary stupidity, and presumably by shouting in antistrophic and antiphonal song every time someone persuaded him that now was the beginning of a new era and a new epoch, had howled his head so empty of its original quantum satis of common sense as to have attained a state of ineffable bliss in what might be called the howling madness of the higher lunacy, recognizable by such symptoms as convulsive shouting; a constant reiteration of the words «era,» «epoch,» «era and epoch,» «epoch and era,» «the System»; an irrational exaltation of the spirits as if each day were not merely a quadrennial leap - year day, but one of those extraordinary days that come only once in a thousand years; the concept all the while like an acrobatic clown in the current circus season, every moment performing these everlasting dog - tricks of flopping over and over, until it flops over the man himself.

While classification freed directors to use explicit language in marvelous films like Platoon and Something Wild and has allowed films like Out of Africa and Children of a Lesser God to explore the complex nature of human sexuality, it has also given us a series of slasher films — Friday the 13th, with its many parts; The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, parts one and two — and films like Brian DePalma's artistically significant but deplorably explicit Body Double.

It [the realism] arises from a conviction that there is no mere analogy, but an inward affinity, between the natural order and the spiritual order; or as we might put it in the language of the parables themselves, the Kingdom of God is intrinsically like the process of nature and of the daily life of men... Since nature and supernature are one order, you can take any part of that order and find in it illumination for other parts This sense of the divineness of the natural order is the major premise of all the parables... 132

akhan: «The closeminded Christian worldview is one that promoted ideas like the heliocentric nature of the Universe.»

The closeminded Christian worldview is one that promoted ideas like the heliocentric nature of the Universe.

Like her sister Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the Coptic and Syriac churches, the Armenian Church holds instead that Christ has one combined human - divine nature, in which the human and divine nonetheless remain distinct, a position known as miaphysitism.

From another perspective if satan was his father it is to easy to apportion the blame to him i couldnt help it as my father is satan the truth is every one of us has sinned and fallen short and so we are responsible for our actions just the same as Cain.The devil did nt make him do it he influenced his evil thoughts no doubt but the decision to kill his brother was his alone.Its the same arguement because of my parents because of my upbringing i couldnt help myself we all need to take responsibility for our own actions.If we are honest we choose to sin because we like to sin that is our nature our hearts are deceitfully wicked.Whats the answer repent and submit yourselves to God so that he can give us new hearts that do nt want to sin but want to please God.brentnz

Throughgrace and through nature (for God has made them one economy and one identity in the humanity of Christ) Christ (whether passible on earth or impassible but living in His Church, His Sacraments, and His People) is an «ecological» influence if you like, which reaches, especially through us men, into every aspect of creation.

The merman has lifted her up in his arms, Agnes twines about his neck, with her whole soul she trustingly abandons herself to the stronger one; he already stands upon the brink, he leans over the sea, about to plunge into it with his prey — then Agnes looks at him once more, not timidly, not doubtingly, not proud of her good fortune, not intoxicated by pleasure, but with absolute faith in him, with absolute humility, like the lowly flower she conceived herself to be; by this look she entrusts to him with absolute confidence her whole fate — and, behold, the sea roars no more, its voice is mute, nature's passion which is the merman's strength leaves him in the lurch, a dead calm ensues — and still Agnes continues to look at him thus.

This cumulative impact not only creates a certain «like it or lump it» impression, but it virtually invites the undecided critic to dismiss Barth for being hopelessly unyielding and for claiming to know more than any creature can about the nature and purpose of the one God.

When one is dealing with basic, metaphysical questions, like the nature of the self, there are two general strategies to follow.

Your view is one of a fitting nature, you see a time in history that fits some of what is in the book and then claim the prophecy is taking place now... like the end times last week — yeah cause we are all dead right now!

The truly creative ones, like Whitehead, are also creators of mythopoeic concepts.25 This requires facing up to certain political responsibilities, assuming that the general aim is to improve our collective understanding of and attitudes towards each other and towards nature.

Our world has good and evil, electrons have positive and negative charges then there is man with two natures one like Cain the other like Able.

She noticed a lot of issues, not to mention what it's like to have an awesome giving nature to make the mediocre ones with no trouble learn about specified tricky issues.

To stop sinning is impossible for us on the one hand but is possible in Christ so what must we do for a start we must accept Jesus and we must be born again.Our old nature must be crucified and we need to walk by the spirit of God.But is it a reality yes definitely because the word says that sin shall not have dominion over us.The victory is found in Christ not in ourselves because we can not do it in our strength so we humble ourselves before God in our weakness so that by doing so allows the holy spirit to empower us to do what only he can do.In that way we become overcomers more than conquerers.I am seeing the reality of what Christ can do with a sinner like me as he moulds me in the person i was destined to be in him.

They are different because they believe about the human nature of Jesus and not the divine one like the church of Arabic Saudi long time ago.

Bishop Azariah of Dornakal, in theologically justifying the rejection of the reserved minority communal electorate offered by Britain to the Christian community in India, spoke of how the acceptance of it would be «a direct blow to the nature of the church of Christ» at two points — one, it would force the church to function «like a religious sect, a community which seeks self - protection for the sake of its own loaves and fishes» which would prevent the fruitful exercise of the calling of the church to permeate the entire society across boundaries of caste, class, language and race, a calling which can be fulfilled only through its members living alongside fellow - Indians sharing in public life with a concern for Christian principles in it; and two, it would put the church's evangelistic programme in a bad light as «a direct move to transfer so many thousands of voters from the Hindu group to the Indian Christian group» (recorded by John Webster, Dalit Christians - A History).

One sentence runs: «Still, all the while like warp and woof, mechanism and teleology are interwoven together, and we must not cleave to the one nor despise the other; for their union is rooted in the very nature of totality.&raqOne sentence runs: «Still, all the while like warp and woof, mechanism and teleology are interwoven together, and we must not cleave to the one nor despise the other; for their union is rooted in the very nature of totality.&raqone nor despise the other; for their union is rooted in the very nature of totality.»

But few of us would endorse those elements of tradition that baptize patriarchal oppression, endorse violence against women, oppress lesbians and gays, exalt perpetual virginity as the superior state, or declare that heterosexual rape is a lesser sin than masturbation (on the view that the latter act contradicts nature while the former act, while also sinful, is in accordance with nature) The postbiblical tradition, like Scripture itself, does not provide one coherent, consistent sexual ethic.

One of Hasker's attempts to improve the defensibility of traditional free will theism involves making its view of nature more like that of process theism.

Lindbeck's «rule - theory,» too, helped me to think about the very nature of the ecumenical councils, like the one Lindbeck attended, as akin to «following a rule,» and unfolding the treasure of the riches that the Church has received from Christ and his apostles.

Croce contrasted the «democracy of the eighteenth century as mechanical, intellectualist, and abstractly egalitarian, whereas the «liberalism» of the early nineteenth century was personal, idealistic, and historically organic: «The democrats in their political ideal postulated a religion of quantity, of mechanics, of calculating reason or of nature, like that of the eighteenth century; the liberals, a religion of quality, of activity, of spirituality, such as that which had risen in the beginning of the nineteenth century: so that even in this case, the conflict was one of religious faiths.

It was still tasty, but kind of like dry oat bars (like those Nature Valley ones we get in the US).

If you are one of those people who isn't a fan of the «frog spawn» like nature of the chia pudding then simply place in your food processor for a good 5 minutes until it resembles something much more like that familiar pudding like texture we all used to love as kids.

To sub for cocoanut oil, if you can't or don't want to use cocoanut oil for whatever reason you could probably use whatever solid fat thing you like (e.g. Nature's Balance spread) at a one - to - one substitution without any disasters, tho depending on the results you might decide to add a bit more or less the next time you make it.

If you like piña coladas... escape with this recipe, which will ramp up your energy levels with pineapple, one of nature's best sources of manganese, a trace mineral that is essential for energy production.

It's almost like one of the laws of nature was reversed or something.

The entire process felt like second nature, incredibly familiar to one I've done many times making homemade mole sauces and ground chile salsas.

One of my readers once said they're like nature's sour patch kids.

And for writing the plain truth I will now get more dislikes than likes; proving the one eyed nature of so many fans.

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