Sentences with phrase «only mean something to»

Many of the terms on labels only mean something to food professionals and so it is almost impossible for a consumer to understand all the ingredients listed.

A truly useless cycle, but the degrees only mean something to other people who think the book is real.

I don't like the rotation before a Cup final that only means something to the manager, but I'm not the manager so I get to criticize him after the rotations lead to an inevitable loss at Balaídos: 3 - 1 Celta.

Those words once only meant something to Buzz Lightyear, but now they might as well be a Braveheart battle cry echoed throughout Disney's Interactive unit and the Disney properties they have pulled into Disney Infinity.

Not exact matches

That means interleaving not only produces better short - term results, it also results in much greater long - term retention — which is incredibly important in the real world where the point of learning isn't to simply remember something long enough to pass a test.

To - do lists and comprehensive daily schedules are helpful, but you only make real progress towards a goal when it means something personal.

There's definitely something terrifying about revealing every detail of your productivity (or your procrastination) to the world, which means this hack is only for the brave.

Only then will your follower quantity start to mean something valuable to your brand.

That doesn't mean you should only reach out to contacts or do things for them when you expect something in return.

However, if you've convinced yourself that you're the only person in the room with something interesting or valuable to say, then you'll miss key opportunities to clarify, provide relevant examples and challenge the audience to dig deeper to extract greater meaning.

Without taking the time to think carefully about where your notions of achievement and purpose come from and what success means to you, you're in a terrible position to decide if this week's hot «how to be successful» advice applies to you or only to someone who thinks the point of life is something you actually don't value much at all.

For others, this could also mean taking something away, such as allowing consumers to only see items in a store that suit their personal tastes.

This means that ads for my lead magnet will only be shown to people who have been to my site, (hopefully) gained some value, but ultimately did not opt - in or buy something.

«Something else to highlight is that Bitcoin is not only a means of payment, but also a storage of wealth — an asset class of its own.»

Offering, operating, or participating in, any marketing or sales plan or program wherein a participant gives or agrees to give a valuable consideration in return (1) for the opportunity to receive compensation in return for inducing other persons to become participants in the plan or program, or (2) for the opportunity to receive something of value when a person induced by the participant induces a new participant to give such valuable consideration, Provided, That the term «compensation,» as used in this paragraph only, does not mean any payment based on actually consummated sales of goods or services to persons who are not participants in the plan or program and who do not purchase such goods or services in order to participate in the plan or program.

However, if you are a single doctor making $ 300,000 per year, did not have to address a meaningful debt burden, and only have $ 100,000 in investments at the age of forty, you have done something very wrong (most likely, you either lived at your means or traded stocks instead of thinking like an owner that made long - term investments) even if you have that same $ 100,000 in paper wealth because you had the skill set and personal opportunity costs to do so much more with your hand in life.

Or do we want the laws only to protect people and allow a place for personal choice — so that morality actually means something?

All of this is beside the point, however, because the default position in any belief is evidence — meaning, something exists if there is evidence for it, otherwise the default position is to believe only what has been proven to exist.

In context, the «Only Jesus can...» conclusion is really meant to state that only Jesus can do something about racism, since it's based on the premise that racism is only an inner probOnly Jesus can...» conclusion is really meant to state that only Jesus can do something about racism, since it's based on the premise that racism is only an inner probonly Jesus can do something about racism, since it's based on the premise that racism is only an inner probonly an inner problem.

Our lives are so short compared to the age of the universe, we need an eternal purpose to give our lives meaning... So, the only way I see to do that is to serve the purpose of something eternal, namely God.

Now if that means that I have to say only women should stay home or that a man is the only one allowed to work, then cast that label aside and find something else to call me.

So we need to add that something can be made present not only on account of the force of the words uttered by the priest but on account of what is called natural concomitance.4 This means that whatever is actually connected with the Body of Christ (or the Blood of Christ) is made present when the Body (or the Blood) is made present.

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:

Our book is meant t be suggestive only LOL God luck I have feeling AA will weather the hate as it has the last 75 + years and continue to reach out to those so desperately in need of sobriety for free LOL If you read this and want to get sober please try AA if it doesn't work for you find something that does.

No, the meaning of man, and the intelligibility of man, which must proceed as a factor from the very fact that man does exist, and must mean something, this intelligibility of man is related not to the Divine Essence as a claim, but only to the Divine Wisdom, as a principle of meaning for the whole of creation.

It is only when one loves life and the earth so much that without them everything seems to be over that one may believe in the resurrection and a new world; it is only when one submits to God's law that one may speak of grace; and it is only when God's wrath and vengeance are hanging as grim realities over the heads of one's enemies that something of what it means to love and forgive them can touch our hearts.

But this (by no means new) idea has been reduced to something untenable and quite contrary to Christianity: the notion that not only can morals be customized, but their articulation is somehow inimical to Christianity; that it is possible to know a Christ divorced from all morality.

Therefore, to great numbers of people, doing wrong means only doing something at which they may get caught.

To be a Methodist was only nominally or regionally important, but to be Protestant meant somethinTo be a Methodist was only nominally or regionally important, but to be Protestant meant somethinto be Protestant meant something.

I think the theory (maybe paradigm wd be better) cd have the potential to unify, but only if opposing factions can step away and recognize the model to be truthfully reflecting something that's common to all seekers of truth and meaning The first question shld be: Does the model faithfully picture the reality we experience.

And this naturalism means that something basic to the church's confession about Christ is missed — the fact that the history of Jesus is what it is only because it is rooted in God's being in a direct and immediate way.

Only The Times report was something of a throwback to the old kneejerk Popeknocking days: «Critics,» wrote one Richard Owen, «said that putting a Ratzinger - Bertone alliance at the top of the Vatican hierarchy meant that the Church would be in the hands of «arch-conservatives» at a time when many Catholics, especially in the Third World, are calling forreform.»

As for the Atheists, I see why you'd probably get annoyed, but instead of making a negative billboard, make something positive like what atheists represent - because making a billboard like this is only going to get negative responses and people are going to continue to stereotype atheists as mean, ignorant people.

When man regards nature only as something to be exploited for immediate gain without concern for the whole good it is meant to serve, he loses even his capacity to make full use of nature.

Organized religions are often meaningless because they try to confine this something larger and greater in terms that only mean something in our simpler universe.

there's really no room for the concept of an independent entity possessed of «will» in a worldview shaped by cause and effect; the only place for «will» to retreat to is the zone of true randomness, of complete uncertainty, which means that truly free will as such must be completely inscrutible [sic]... Statistical laws govern the decay of a block of uranium, but whether or not this atom of uranium chooses to fission in this instant is a completely unpredictable event — fundamentally unpredictable, something which simply can not be known — which is equally good evidence for the proposition that it's God's (or the atom's) will whether it splits or remains whole, as for the proposition that it's random chance.

Moreover, the fact that, with the exception of Paul, only those who had already been followers of the earthly Jesus are reported to have seen the risen Christ appear to them, suggests that the Easter message was not something which could be pressed home by means of any objective proofs.

This means that if something happens to him it becomes important for his subjective salvation only if it is freely understood and accepted by a free subject in a very special way.

The only argument against it I've seen seems to be, it's mean, so there's no way God could have done it, because God is «loving,» or something to that effect.

But what Jesus meant was that only he who loses himself in devotion to something greater than himself really lives.

In a sense this is the key not only to understanding something of the Trinity (what grounds the «possibility» for the Trinity is that the One who understands or expresses God must be God) but also to why its full meaning is beyond us.

So for Christians to believe the actual, absolute, eternal lake of fire «hell», well if they only knew they were making something literal that was always meant to be figurative.

not sure i said this before or not, i have been on cnn.com for over a year — anyway — i have been going to random churches, temples, really place that worships any form of the of abraham and others — i have yet to get anywhere but where i started from — which is what i am, what i am meant to be, and what i was... only this has been gained — gained is a gift of a word for i knew all of this before i started and so i view my time as wasted only for this the reason of getting somewhere — i did meet many great people with great views but all required the very real existence of god which was something lacking and why they had a constant failure yet what they called «keeping the faith» att itude type results... something was missing or missunderstood — your take?

Perhaps — and this is something only the performance of genetic ontology can decide — genetic ontology is capable of better explaining to us how beings are always understood in the natural development of the human subject, whence our concepts of Being come, under which mode of meaning these concepts stand, and what their relationships are to historical ontologies.

You should rebuik what ever is making you feel that way towards receding something that means no harm but only good to you.

David after forty plus years in and out of churches hearing and reading even studying and dissecting (if that matters) For me, and that is the only one I ever speak for, if it is a song, a scripture that I may recall, a line in a movie or something one might share here, its only those that breath hope, light the way, give courage, inspire, and comfort to me as an individual that have meaning.

For Derrida, signification can occur only if every element present in the presence of being is «related to something other than itself thereby keeping within itself the mark of the past element, and already letting itself be vitiated by the mark of its relation to the future element, this trace being related no less to what is called the future than to what it is called the past, and constituting what is called the present by means of this very relation to what it is not...» (MP 13).

Why is something meaningful only if it has the ability to retain meaning for the future?

It is by the flesh of the world that in the last analysis one can understand the lived body (corps propre)-- The flesh of the world is of the Being - seen, i.e., is a Being that is eminently percipi, and it is by it that we can understand the percipere: this perceived that we call my body applying itself to the rest of the perceived... all this is finally possible and means something only because there is Being.

A symbol only means something - whether at the discretion to be ignored or not - if someone knows what it means.