Sentences with phrase «other in a particular way»

The trick is to get accustomed to talking to each other in a particular way that allows you to find common ground and to make temporary compromises.

Not exact matches

Over the years, Virgin has competed well in markets where incumbents do business in a particular way for no other reason than «that's the way we've always done it.»

What sets the Basic School apart from other training institutions — and in particular, from an M.B.A. program, to which the Basic School in some ways roughly corresponds — is that it unabashedly favors breeding generic, high - speed, chaos - proof leadership over imparting specific skills.

In this particular case, the FBI did have other ways for gathering information about the shooters, but for whatever reason were unable to maximize that effort, and so they turned to Apple to do the work for them.

As previously referred to with regard to store cards, one of the ways in which rewards work well for companies is by encouraging loyalty, and by encouraging you to use that particular credit card more often for your purchases rather than any other credit card you may have.

LDS / Mormon is very different than a subset of Christianity (most Christians don't consider it Christianity at all), and therefore since it is not as well known as mainline Christianity (Catholic and Protestant), criticizing particular details (hair - splitting) is still useful on educating others on LDS beliefs — even if done so in a negative way.

But if we are talking about just the age difference and in their particular culture (if in fact the numbers that you gave are accurate, and I admit that I don't know one way or the other), then I don't know how, in that culture that there was anything wrong with it.

When someone is accused of «cherry - picking» verses from the Bible, it means that they have a particular doctrine or idea they want to teach to others, and rather than considering «the whole counsel of God,» they pick a choose a few select verses from various books of the Bible which seems to prove their point or present their case in the strongest possible way.

It is difficult to avoid the implication that what is authentic in Christianity is its «soul,» that is, the ways it agrees with other revealed religions, and that Christianity's «body»» all the ways it is distinct and particular» serve more to obscure than reveal the truth.

A church leader would have a good following of people in a particular town or city, and some other teacher would arrive in town, and begin to teach Scripture in a different way or with a different emphasis.

If some certain eternal object were actualized [for a particular actual entity], then all other eternal objects would be relevant in some way or other [to that entity]» (IMW 274).

To become is to relate to all, including God, in just this particular way and not in any other.

Schubert Ogden's theology as a whole is best characterized as an attempt to correct the «one - sidedly existentialist character» of Bultmann's theology1 by combining existentialist analysis with process philosophy in such a way that they mutually complement each other.2 This characterization applies likewise to Ogden's treatment of Christology in particular.

However, if we are humbly though critically ready to put up with the fellowship in its particular local manifestation, where and as we find it, we shall help to renew and strengthen it, at the same time discovering for ourselves the deepening of Christian discipleship and finding that we are enriched by other men and women who, like ourselves, are seeking to live in the Christian way, informed by the Christian faith, and supported by Christian worship.

Which particular approach we follow is not nearly as important as the need for us to faithfully confront the fact of our own good fortune and others» misfortune, and to share of what we have in a significant way.

Because of God's transcendence it would be mythological to refer to God's action in terms appropriate only to objects available, in principle at least, to ordinary sense perception.13 This especially means that one can not speak of God in terms of the categories of time and space; 14 i.e., whatever is predicated of God can not apply only to some particular time and space, but must apply equally to all times and spaces.15 Thus the implication of Ogden's criterion for non-mythological language about God corresponds to his statement of several years ago, that «there is not the slightest evidence that God has acted in Christ in any way different from the way in which he primordially acts in every other event.

5A reading of Bacon's New Organon reveals a more nuanced and less empiricist approach to induction than Whitehead (and other twentieth - century philosophers) usually give him credit, One text in particular refers to the ascent and descent characteristic of imaginative generalizations:»... from the new light of axioms, which have been educed from those particulars by a certain method and rule, shall in their turn point out the way again to new particulars, greater things shall be looked for.

This peculiar kind of hope itself opens up the possibility of a particular stance in the world: one of concern for others even at the expense of concern for the survival of our way of life.

It is, however, a special problem, both because some people pray in sickness who never think of doing so at any other time and because it unites in a particular way all the other types of petition.

Can we reconceive theological education in such a way that (1) it clearly pertains to the totality of human life, in the public sphere as well as the private, because it bears on all of our powers; (2) it is adequate to genuine pluralism, both of the «Christian thing» and of the worlds in which the «Christian thing» is lived, by avoiding naiveté about historical and cultural conditioning without lapsing into relativism; (3) it can be the unifying overarching goal of theological education without requiring the tacit assumption that there is a universal structure or essence to education in general, or theological inquiry in particular, which inescapably denies genuine pluralism by claiming to be the universal common denominator to which everything may be reduced as variations on a theme; and (4) it can retrieve the strengths of both the «Athens» and the «Berlin» types of excellent schooling, without unintentionally subordinating one to the other?

Remember that we are arguing about the viability of a certain way of conceiving the relationship between a particular actual entity, God, and other actual entities in the world.

Secondly I argue that the New Testament's seeing Jesus as example is a necessary correlate of what later theology calls his divine sonship (the other side of the «incarnation»), in such a way that those who downgrade the weight of Jesus» example, on the grounds that his particular social location or example can not be a norm, renew a counterpart of the old «Ebionitic» heresy.

You seem to have highlighted particular sins as though some are worse than others all sin leads to death not just the big ones because we all are sinners.All have gone astray none are righteous.I believe the worst sin is pride idolatry is the first commandment we set ourselves as Gods.Regardless of what the sin is, our hearts are condemned by our pride.It wasnt the sin of homosexuality or sexual deviance that destroyed sodom.It was there pride and it is one of our biggest stumbling blocks in our christian walk or it certainly was for me.We look at the story of the adulterous woman and we think adultery is a terrible crime but the story is for our benefit to show that we all are sinners that Jesus does nt condemn us but came to save us.And when Jesus says go and sin no more he was not only talking to the woman but everyone else that was around judging her for her sin its a universal message that we all need to see that we all are condemned because of our sin that Jesus came to save us and that we turn from our sin and follow him.Because he is the way the truth and the life.brentnz

It is its own value and meaning, and no other, which is affirmed, contrasted, deepened, and intensified in this trans - individual and even transpersonal widening of experience, for throughout the transformation it contributes its particular subjective pattern to the way that whole is being experienced.

An open society, on the other hand, is organized on the basis of functional pluralism, in which every person is classified in many different ways, each for a particular purpose, and in which no single general rank order is recognized.

Young people in particular often visualize their moral problem in some such way as this: on the one side is the ideal life with its purity, its self - forgetfulness, its fine awareness of things invisible, and on the other side are the primitive instincts — pugnacity, egotism, sensuality, the caveman within, and between these two there is an irreconcilable hostility.

Hence, if we situate the call of Abraham, as well as other special revelatory moments of the history of religion, within the wider context of cosmic evolution, this may help soften the «scandal of particularity» associated with any unique or distinctive summoning by God of a particular people to bear witness in a novel way to the divine promise and mystery that come to expression first in the very creation of the world.

Our expectations strongly structure what we see, but do not wholly eliminate unexpected sights... Our categorizations and expectations guide by orienting us selectively towards the future; they set us, in particular, to perceive in certain ways and not in others.

The other line of inquiry stresses ways in which such conflicts and dislocations in particular societies may exemplify patterns of a more general or systemic nature.

If the goal that makes a school «theological» is to understand God more truly, and if such understanding comes only indirectly through disciplined study of other «subject matters,» and if study of those subject matters leads to truer understanding of God only insofar as they comprise the Christian thing in their interconnectedness and not in isolation from one another, then clearly it is critically important to study them as elements of the Christian thing construed in some particular, concrete way.

On the other hand, B may prehend A in such a way that the fact that it is A which it is prehending is of paramount importance for the subjective form of B rather than the particular aspect of A by which A is objectified.

After much thought and discussion we ended that particular session with the idea that we all really need to work at 2 things: to be convinced in our own minds (not to say that we can't change our minds and be convinced a different way) and to cut each other some serious slack as it relates to the «gray areas.»

Third, any particular set of contrasts is related by a two - way but asymmetrical necessity; for example, to exist is to be in some actual state or other, but to be in any actual state is to exist.

At the same time, though, our own particular way of putting questions to the sources that are believed to contain a revelatory word will cause other hidden riches in these classic sources to go unnoticed by us, and it is the merit of Barth's theology to have emphasized this point.

My reflections arose, as I have indicated, in part from formative books and teachers, but they also grew out of grappling with Scripture (one of the lightning bolts here was the simple but profound insight of realizing once again the ineradicable connection of form and content — for instance, what is said in a parable can not be said in any other way), and with the complex business, endemic to academic theologians, of, as Kierkegaard would put it, becoming a Christian (not in general or for someone else but in particular and for me).

A good example: I've been playing a videogame of late with a combination Greek / fantasy pantheon in which the player - character is a very faithful servant of a particular goddess, knows other gods exist (because killing them / beating them up is the main plot of the game), and winds up with an ally who can clearly see that the gods exist but only cares about following himself — so there's a mix there of misotheism with a few of the gods (they are there, but they're evil), faithful worship (serving a good goddess), and nay theism («You gods are selfish jerks, I'm going my own way!»).

We ask if these characteristics, rather than being somehow connected in a particular way to Jesuits, are not rather widespread ills of priestly and religious life in this age, to which the Society of Jesus, like many other orders, is not immune.

Concerning Rahner, Vass quotes a commentator thus: «He denies that these sacraments are in any way unique in causing grace, or that they are always more effective than other «merely sacramental activities»; something which is not strictly speaking a sacrament might in particular case «work» better in actuallybringing grace to the individual than a sacrament does.»

CH: Human beings, unlike the other animals, look ahead in a definite way and, because they have a language, they can generalize beyond any particular limit.

One way Wesley says he has received help in dealing with his particular struggle has been through reading about the unfulfilled desires of others and how they have dealt with them.

As essayist Katha Pollitt points out, the tendency to ascribe «particular virtues — compassion, patience, common sense, nonviolence — to mothers» is an overdone, and in some ways oppressive, cliché; telling yourself that toilet training a string of two - year - olds is good for your soul may keep you away from other worlds.

The gospel always comes wrapped in a particular language, particular customs and traditions and ways of doing things, particular unwritten rules about politics and religion and the family — in other words, in a particular culture.

Instead, Whitehead states that thought originates from the way a particular fragmentary sense experience impresses us in relation to other experiences.

The information environment is created by the particular ways in which members of a certain society communicate with each other.

Almost all of us have been catechized — the Christian word is appropriate — in such a way that we have a meta - appetite, an appetite for disciplining both our own appetites and those of others into particular configurations.

To act zestfully for justice I need to believe both that some approximation of justice is possible in the particular situation and also that the attainment of justice can pave the way for other values.

For if the ethical (i.e. the moral) is the highest thing, and if nothing incommensurable remains in man in any other way but as the evil (i.e. the particular which has to be expressed in the universal), then one needs no other categories besides those which the Greeks possessed or which by consistent thinking can be derived from them.

When someone fails to understand grace, they will also most certainly fail to understand mercy, and this is reflected in the way they perceive and respond to other people... most especially those outside their particular camp.

But there are those for whom the transition can be made in other ways, and there is in particular the existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers, who debated this issue with Bultmann, (K. Jaspers and R. Bultmann, Myth and Christianity [1958].

Survey research in particular, through the work of Gerhard Lenski, Joseph Fichter, Charles Glock, Rodney Stark, and others, was beginning to shape the ways in which sociologists thought about religion, on the one hand, while on the other hand Parsonian theories, speculative and comparative work in the classical tradition, and some of the newer perspectives of phenomenology posed challenges to empirical positivism.