Sentences with phrase «own kind of language»

This kind of language increases the likelihood that the person will answer positively.

Define the kind of language and comments that are unacceptable and may cause users to be blocked from your community.

«I don't think there's a place for that kind of language in any part of society, not in locker rooms, not in football players» homes, not in anyplace.

Same kind of language.

To get at that you'll need to use the right kind of language, whether it's a guarantee, testimonials or some other tactic, to assure people you have what they need.

Tell them what they will gain from it, and use the kind of language they will find familiar.

This is not the kind of language we are used to seeing on U.S. company websites when the jig is up.

However, Mr. Zuckerberg insisted that the company does not discriminate against Republican employees and that its definition for what kind of language should be kept off the platform was rooted in common sense.

The great disagreement among people is over the meaning of perfected dignity, even if they do not use this kind of language.

And how do you even defend yourself against such a barrage when someone thinks it's their human right to foul the air with any kind of language they «damn well» please, anytime they feel like it?

I see it as the work of God's Kingdom, (although my brother might not use that kind of language) and his life is coming to a remarkable wholeness.

That's the kind of language that could get a person killed.

i understand why we use that kind of language.

To be perfectly honest, I'm a little uncomfortable using this kind of language to describe the publication process.

This morning, The Today Show's Savannah Guthrie asked DeVos about the remarks, saying, «I wonder, as the education secretary, who's in charge of what our kids learn, what do you think of that kind of language?»

In this situation it is helpful to discriminate between the kinds of language which are used in Christian discourse.

A study of the linguistic principles of India in connection with Bible translation make clear that the New Testament Greek and the Indian languages stemmed from Sanskrit are two different kinds of languages.

To speak, then, of the «God - hypothesis» may be to use a misleading kind of language, to put up the wrong frames of reference and to suggest that we look for God - answers to questions where such answers would be out of place.

There he develops a distinction between ordinary language («It was very cold») and two other kinds of language, each of which transforms ordinary language in the interest of certain purposes.

Mathematics, which is actually another kind of language, was included among the subjects carried over from ancient times.

It clearly follows that the study of manners, one of the most powerful and commonly used kinds of language, is of considerable importance.

«These are the times to expect this kind of language and discourse about God, these are the endtimes and the Enemy is working overtime»

This is a possible procedure, as there is only one truth, which is intended by both kinds of language, and it is a necessary procedure, as the New Testament material assuredly contains perceptible truth.

Manners are a kind of language, a «language of the act,» which often conveys meanings more effectively than can words.

We are very sad on your comments mohamed do nt write anymore or you will be tracked we do not accept this kind of language dear ALFATAH greetings from our side will keep in touch

I just don't know if you're allowed to use that kind of language on nakedpastor.com... unless you're using oxymorons.

This kind of language is typical mystical / contemplative language.

This kind of language, they say, is «anthropomorphic.»

Bultmann, then, must be taken seriously by all religious teachers, for even young children need to identify the kinds of language - games they are playing.

With the arrival of the new translation of the Roman Missal there is, as one would expect, much talk about the kind of language we use to express our relationship with God.

The Church needs to see that women — and men — will not stand for this kind of language, as it is degrading, hurtful, and not even remotely biblical.

While Bultmann in some sense agrees with this, Ogden says, his employment of Heidegger's philosophical system makes the second kind of language virtually impossible.

If «God - talk» is at least a possibility, we need to ask questions about the kinds of language that have been and can be used.

It can perhaps be useful to say something about the kind of language employed in this document and, indeed, in all the documents of the Council.

The kind of language he used in preaching judgment to come may be illustrated from i Cor.

ttm, I don't like to use that kind of language.

Is there, as Ramsey indicates, «some kind of language - map by which, in some way, to understand the whole Universe»?

And how many of the people you've observed using this kind of language called themselves Christians?

But that kind of language works better in campaigns than in governance; eventually, you have to talk about things as they are, not just as you feel they should be, and so it was inevitable that the radiance of his oratory dimmed a little once he took office.

Then he went on to outline the outrageous happenings at Augsburg, and to indulge in the kind of language the delicate Melancthon so detested: «They thought that when they brought the Emperor in person to Germany, all would be frightened and say «Gracious Lords, what is your wish?»

Is it the kind of language theology professors at Catholic universities would use?

When people wonder what sorts of things they can and should pray about, and what kind of language and words to use when communicating with God, it is often not enough to just tell them that they can have a conversation with God just like with any other person.

What kind of language are we using when we try to address God?

Now, in making this contrast between two quite different kinds of language about God I am not suggesting that the elaborate dogmatic formulation is worthless: still less that it is ridiculous.

«You realize that he is using a kind of language that's so infused with religious symbols that one wonders how the church can speak, when its language is so taken over by the culture,» he said.

I've known Christians to be called parasites, invoking the kind of language used towards Jews in Nazi Germany.

Let us examine these arguments and worry a little about the kind of language - structure within which they are presumed to be formulated.

Recently, Reformed pastors like Mark Driscoll and John Piper have revived this kind of language, Driscoll explaining that the Gospel begins with «God hates you, and it's going to go really really bad forever,» Piper concluding that natural disasters like the Asian tsunami and presumably the Haitian earthquake are acts of judgment by a holy God on an unholy people, stern illustrations of what we all deserve.

Is it the same kind of language as that in which we say, «The battle of Hastings was fought in 1066» or «Water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen»?

Underlying this kind of language is without doubt a view of redemptio as redintegratio, the recovery of an original perfection that has been lost; this is the synthesis that seeks to reconcile the incompatibles of the priestly theology, for which Eden is something lost, and the prophetic, for which it is something that has never been found.