Sentences with phrase «only at a given point»

In our context, this means that the readers are related to one another not only at a given point in time but across the centuries as well.

Not exact matches

«I was given this book at the beginning of my manager journey, and the main point is that you're only as good as the team you surround yourself with.

One of my colleagues makes it a point to only meet one person at any given event and spends his time really getting to know that one person.

Venezuela's only hope at this point would be more assistance from Russia or China, two countries that have loaned large sums of money to the South American nation, a lot of which was given in exchange for oil cargoes.

Michael Hewson, Senior Market Analyst at CMC Markets in London, says Carney has gained a lot of «brownie points» for his handling of the financial crisis, given that Canada was the only G7 country that did not have to receive a banking bailout during the financial crisis that started in 2008.

But give credit where credit's due — Woodside was the only large oil & gas company in Australia to record a profit in 2015 and continues to operate with a strong balance sheet and sufficient buffer at a break - even point of US$ 28.40 a barrel.

The initial LA Times report «sparked widespread public outrage,» and so news that some California National Guard troops are receiving a waiver met with positive reaction among the public — but many point to the to repay their student loans, where veterans and soldiers are still being made to pay back their bonuses, since California is the only state given a waiver at this time.

This points out that everything that you explained as being only aplicable to god, which is an explanation given because no other explanation is seen, saying this is amazing so god did it, is nowhere near close to looking at these phenomena, observing and collecting the data on it and saying this is our best understanding of it to date.

At one point, for example, Carter describes beautifully the creedal portions of the Catholic belief in the sacraments, only to end by claiming that «the entire purpose of the sacraments was to give an outward sign of belief.»

Whiteheadians seem able to imagine such ecstatically spanned unities - across - time on the so - called «microscopic» scale of the «specious present,» but give up on the idea as the scope of the temporal disclosure space is widened to the scale of human lifetime and of generations.7 But worse than this from the point of view of Heidegger's temporal problematic, by submitting the ecstatic unities of their «specious presents» to the before / after ordering and metric properties of linear time, at least in terms of their mutually external relations and arrangements, they give back ontologically every advantage they gained from the use of an cc - static - temporal disclosure horizon in the first place, even though it was only the single horizon of presence.

Instead, he is making an ecclesiological point: At any given place, there should be only one Eucharist celebrated to which all Christians «in good standing» should be admitted.

(I apologize to those that dislike metaphors, but I almost can't communicate if I don't get to use them, and as insufficient as they at times are, they are very close to the language of what I believe, because you can't really explain or define someone into believing... you can only live out your beliefs in a way that you share with others, and when given the opportunity shine a light, or point a direction, or walk along with someone for a bit).

xx4zu1 - «the point that was made is that religion is the only thing that is given to you, in most cases, at birth that you can chose not to accept.»

The point about all these pontifications, I thought at the time, whether over the airwaves or in the print media, either by secular commentators or by the kind of Catholics the liberal media like to give a platform to because their views on the Catholic tradition are so similar to their own (it seemed by the beginning of the conclave that it had all been going on for ever) was — or so I reflected then in my simple way — that this wonderful free - for - all was the only chance for many of them to be heard at all on this subject.

At no point in this process does the incarnate Word or Spirit assume a final and definitive form, just as God himself can never be wholly or simply identified with any given revelatory event or epiphany, if only because the divine process undergoes a continual metamorphosis, ever moving more deeply and more fully toward an eschatological consummation.

One might well question, at this point, the validity of nonreligious interpretation, asking whether Bonhoeffer has given us any example of non-religious interpretation rather than speaking only of its importance.

Upon careful analysis, at least ten such points become apparent: (1) Blake alone among Christian artists has created a whole mythology; (2) he was the first to discover the final loss of paradise, the first to acknowledge that innocence has been wholly swallowed up by experience; (3) no other Christian artist or seer has so fully directed his vision to history and experience; (4) to this day his is the only Christian vision that has openly or consistently accepted a totally fallen time and space as the paradoxical presence of eternity; (5) he stands alone among Christian artists in identifying the actual passion of sex as the most immediate epiphany of either a demonic or a redemptive «Energy,» just as he is the only Christian visionary who has envisioned the universal role of the female as both a redemptive and a destructive power; (6) his is the only Christian vision of the total kenotic movement of God or the Godhead; (7) he was the first Christian «atheist,» the first to unveil God as Satan; (8) he is the most Christocentric of Christian seers and artists; (9) only Blake has created a Christian vision of the full identity of Jesus with the individual human being (the «minute particular»); and (10) as the sole creator of a post-biblical Christian apocalypse, he has given Christendom its only vision of a total cosmic reversal of history.

That distinction is a half - truth at best, and it misses two important points: the widespread reading of such books not only tells us something important about the overall religious temper of our times; it may also give us a clue to one possible theological expression of the future.

Morality is absolute, it is only societies interpretation of that morality at a given point in time that wavers.

Ethicists must look not only at the Israelite context but also at the moral values of the surrounding culture or cultures on any given moral point, for often the biblical position is taken in direct response to some contrary moral behavior.

For the moments we are weak, we can rely on his strenght; at the points where we seem to be giving up, he, in his fears and questioning, clung to his only thruth: I am the beloved son of God, on me his favour rests.

only reason y i say this is because of Santification, once we give our life to the Lord, we streight way (so to speak) begin the process of Santification, this is Christ making us like him, and this Is SUFFERING It does nt happen over night, but for the duration of our time here, as you have said, its sort of like sin being done unto us, and we are handleing it just like Christ did, (with Love) of coarse with the help of the Holy Spirit, This Does NOT feel Good At ALL since our soulful flesh is Corrupt, (but our spirit is saved) This is were your trails and tribulation, your own desire, and All play apart, Now Moment by Moment we choose by our own will, And Jesus helps in these times, as he was tempeted, but without sin, The devil can do nothing but try and decieve the Christian into thinking that he has to work for his salvation as you have said, this thing here is about your Inheritance In Christ, Its gonna be some show nought broke christian in Heaven, because their trying to set of for themseleve trasure on earth, and their is going to be weeping and gnat of teeth, but it wont be, because of their going to Hell, It will be cause they miss out on what they could have had, and it is Devistation, cause they waste so much time, and they wont be able to attend the wedding, supper of the lamb, they wont be, getting the position over city, galacy, ectt... just check it out some of the points i have made, God Bless you!

At no point in this process does the incarnate Word or Spirit assume a final and definitive form, just as God himself can never be wholly or simply identified with any given revelatory event or epiphany, if only because the divine process undergoes a continual metamorphosis, ever moving more deeply and fully toward an eschatological consummation.17

There are four affirmations about Jesus Christ that historically have been stressed in Christian faith: (1) Jesus is truly human, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, living a human life under the same human conditions any one of us faces — thus Christology, statement of the significance of Jesus, must start «from below,» as many contemporary theologians are insisting; (2) Jesus is that one in whom God energizes in a supreme degree, with a decisive intensity; in traditional language he has been styled «the Incarnate Word of God»; (3) for our sake, to secure human wholeness of life as it moves onward toward fulfillment, Jesus not only lived among us but also was crucified for us — this is the point of talk about atonement wrought in and by him; (4) death was not the end for him, so it is not as if he never existed at all; in some way he triumphed over death, or was given victory over it, so that now and forever he is a reality in the life of God and effective among humankind.

Tommy God has already forgiven you for your sin the moment you asked Jesus into your life and confessed him as Lord.From that point he paid for your sin in full past present future.It is not sin that stops us from being with the Lord so you are saved.The problem you are experiencing is the battle for your life in the here and now satan is out to destroy you and he knows our weaknesses.If you are honest there were already issues in your life that you struggled with and never got the victory over.So where do you go from here as i found myself in the same situation i was a christian but walking according to the flesh.God does nt change his mind he always loves us but because of our choices we distance ourselves from God.The issue is that we like sin thats our wicked hearts and to be fair we cant change our nature only Christ can do that our old nature must be crucified with Christ.The stumbling block is our pride we have to admit that we cant do it For me that was terribly difficult i was so independent thinking i could do anything but the truth was a made a real mess of things.I sense you are at a crossroads and are feeling desperate and confused.So as a brother in the Lord you need to confess your sin to God and tell him that you are weak -LCB- we all are -RCB- and that you cant do it in your strength -LCB- None of us can -RCB- but ask him to send the holy spirit to help you deal with the temptations and the sin that you struggle with and he will help you to change your life he will empower you as he did me.Rather than look at who you are look to Christ and walk in him and he will make you a new man and sin will not have dominion over you.Jesus came to set us free from bondage.Having once been a slave to sin i know what it is like to have been set free by the power of God and that is what Christ is offering you today.All it takes is a desire to change or repent and admit we cant do it and trust him to give you the strength to walk in him regards brentnz

Wrong enters the picture only at the point where this entirely natural and necessary self - concern becomes the controlling interest, so that others are given no place in thought and practice.

«I immediately pointed out that not only is a prayer at a public ceremony unconsti - tutional, but to force someone to give the illusion of religion when the individual does not believe in any religion is blatantly wrong and very illegal,» the soldier said in an e-mail to the foundation.»

If, as we shall be arguing in a moment, we may be sure of «objective immortality», the taking into God's life of every good that has been achieved in the creative process; and if, as that understanding of the world order implies, one of the goods is the agency by which these given goods have been achieved, including at this point the human agent as a peculiarly significant focus — may it not be the case that not only the good which has been achieved but the agent who has achieved it (himself good, despite defect and the instances of his failure in this mortal existence) will be preserved beyond the «perishing of occasions»?

We need to only recall at this point the words of Jesus: «I have come to give life, and life in abundance» (John 10:10).

However, the Roman Catholic Church is not wholly consistent at this point, for the papal Encyclica casti connubi gives approval to family limitation not only by abstinence when both parties consent but by intercourse at those periods when conception is least likely to take place.

The point is, the definition which is given of a scientific object at any given point in history is not inviolable, so that the only change possible would be to add something («organizing relations») to it; what happens is that the definition itself is changed.

It is the purpose of this volume to present certain studies of the gospel at the point where the oral tradition was being crystallized in writing; and for this reason we shall pay chief attention to the Gospel of Mark, though the other early source or cycle — Q, the «Sayings Source» — will also engage our attention now and then, But we can not deal with that source in detail at present; indeed, we shall not have the time to deal adequately with Mark, and can study only some of its leading features and the problems to which these give rise.

At this point in history, it really was only a matter of time until we were given an app to help us fast.

They will get only a tiny bit bigger in the oven at this point, but still, give them some space so they can form their nice crusts.

Wenger is just too stubborn is the problem.we have a very strong chance of winning it this season (bpl) but if Wenger had gotten two outfield players in d summer (a fwd and cdm) we would have been sitting at d peak with at least 9 points off the rest d rest by now.but alas his egocentric stubbornness and blind loyalty to some average players in d team is giving us heart aches.however I still see us winning d league this season only that we'll b doing it in a cinderella story way

Lets run Manu at the point because he had 0 pts, 0 from 6 shooting or Bertans 5 pts in 20nd mins or Anderson 5 pts in 17 mins, all these guys over 6» 5 and taller that can't score we should break 60 by the end of the game Two of your Munchkins score 30 pts at around 50 % shooting, let Murray run the point sorry he is no where near ready and to be honest I don't think he has what it takes to be the future PG, the only thing I could agree with you is not playing the 3 together (Mills, Parker, Forbes) and giving White some minutes

Purdue opened as a 17.5 - point favorite at CRIS and the public is heavily fading the Boilermakers with only 18 % of spread wagers giving the points.

During a pivotal five - game winning streak late in the season, he scored at least 20 points in each game, including a career - high 33 in a 116 - 109 win over the Toronto Raptors, which gave the Nets a four - game lead over the Washington Wizards for the last playoff berth with only four games remaining.

Priority should be given to the league at this point, that's the only competition that should be our biggest focus.

At this juncture of season pretty much a moot point, who really cares what we do, only mentioning cause don't think media given near enough coverage as to why daft Wenger ever pulled Sanchez from up top in first place.

These young guns will only get a chance to prove themselves at top level if and only if arsenal make massive signings that will give us a major trophy... if we are for example leading the league in like seven points in February, then we can afford to give them some minutes on field but they wont get game time on the current team cz the manager realizes that the club needs trophies and hez running out of time so i even doubt he will use them in capital one cup... Good luck boys

@ 007 good point man but this is purely based on everyone's view on what factors they judge greatness in my perspective greatness is not only about winning I agree sir Alex was the most successful manager in the history of bpl but if u see the team he left behind then u will certainly doubt his legacy this is just opposite with arsene after giving us the hint that he might be leaving at the end of next season the other statement he makes is to leave a platform for incoming manager so that he can do well.This is the difference between him and arsene.

Claude Puel has seen his new Southampton side struggle to only gain one point from the first three games of the season, but he believes his team is better than that and will give Arsenal a run for their money in Saturday's game at the Emirates.

His goals, his work rate his pressing when usually he is the only one doing it is amazing he deserves better than what this manager can give him, better than what this club can give him at this point In time.

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

Going into Sunday, therefore, Norwich City in particular will be looking at their game with their mouths watering as the game which they are undoubtedly favourites for gives them the opportunity, not only to take 3 points against their most fierce rivals, but also to close the gap to just 4 points on promotion placed Sheffield Wednesday.

now we are putting all our eggs in the miki basket by signing auba hoping to recreate the dortmund connnection, Auba a player better than laca but so similar it makes no sense spending that amount of money especially with all the cracks in the team, but hey lets do that and get rid of giroud our only option B upfront to accomodate miki a player who is 29 and at the lowest point of his career, building a team around him shows me that sad state we our in, we take what we are given and try to make the best of the situation and that's all of us from the board to the manager to the players all the way down to the fans.

Well im not in a wonderland he has his failings as we all do and great teams find a way to win good teams sit where we are 6 -5-4 but thats besides the point and it would be nice if your aunty had bolocks cause then we d be second but ive watched the games were an offensive team most the time although were terrible in the pissing rain but for the most part the game plans have worked weve created chances quality scoring chances one after the other problem is for me the finishing unless we sit back with 9 man behind the ball or ten when you push forward you will give up a goal if you lousy forwards fail to finish the set ups have been there this year but our strikers have failed to kill the games if we create quality chances and grab leads in the first 60 minutes like we have for the most part and in those games those games should of been killed even if we give a goal or two alongside the strategy but we failed to hit multiple should be goals we tried laca we'll see abou auba although hes a bit lazy so far but we'll see but we've lacked that quality in front goal a player the chances have been there im looking at the failure of the strikers and maybe that is his fault but monreal has scored as many goals recently as our strikers and thats sad our defenders or a midfielder will score and our stikers cant tally one in th first 60 mins of a game alongside them then were tired for last 40 give them hope there still only down one and we rue our missed chances while they push thats where iv been frustrated with this season not the tactics but the finishing

If a coach has three really good point guards, that's great — but only one can play the point at any given time.

KEN - Your point is totally relevant and very difficult to disagree with your view.What the Spuds wouldn't give to have 3 FA Cups and 3 Charity Shields in 4 Seasons.They Are maniacal at the moment at having won nothing (and don't worry - they will go all SPURSY and win nothing this Season.So of course you are right - but only up to a point.