Sentences with phrase «own ordinary sense»

god (s): Hebrew word # 430 «elohiym (el - o - heem»); plural of OT: 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: [usages of the word in the] KJV — angels, exceeding, God (gods)- dess, - ly), (very) great, judges, mighty.

Here I have to propound a paradox (in the ordinary sense of the word).

[7] «God» is not in the ordinary sense either a common or a proper name.

Its events belong to the sphere, not of history in the ordinary sense, but of the supra - historical; they can not be objects of historical research because they are discernible only by faith.

Such chronicles have always been fraught with ambiguity and the possibility of misinterpretation, however, and such reckonings have generally been disapproved by the church; Origen and Augustine, among many others, both argued that many of the ages chronicled in the OT are simply of unknowable length, and went on to note that the «days» of the creation story simply can not be «days» in the ordinary sense of the term as the sun isn't created until the fourth «day».

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.

Such aesthetic sensitivity, he suggests, can be learned, although it can not be taught in the ordinary sense of teaching.

«2 In fact, it was often used as a mere synonym for eros (passionate, though not necessarily sensual, desire) or for philia (liking or caring for another person in the ordinary sense).

This assumption does not require any belief in «absolutes» in the ordinary sense of known values that are independent of time and circumstance.

The first five of these types of natural occurrence are easily accessible to sense perception (aided perhaps by instruments of observation), the sixth, however, is not available to ordinary sense perception.

So the point of Whitehead's example in the above passage would be that in talking about the membership of the complex structured society which is a total man, in the ordinary sense of the term, one is referring not to a subordinate society, such as the enduring object which is the life, or soul, of the man, but to all the individual actual occasions in all the subordinate societies and subordinate nexus which make up the man.

Faith is not, in the ordinary sense, knowledge, and it is futile and dishonest for moderns to act as if things were otherwise.

You can not find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense.

In the first place, by no means all the functioning of the unconscious is «mental» in any ordinary sense.

I, for one, have rather definite views about a range of political topics, but politics, in the ordinary sense of the term, is a small part of subjects addressed in First Things.

«Whether transcendence is conceived of in a technical philosophical sense (as that metaphysical realm above the rational) or in an ordinary sense (as that phenomenon or experience found within the natural world, but which appears to point beyond that world) the meaning is about the same» (op.

Aspiration is more than hope in the ordinary sense which Cicero defines as expectatio boni (expectation of the good), insofar as one can hope for something while sitting around in an armchair doing nothing to bring it about.

However, it is far from obvious that the ordinary sense of self - transcendence counts as evidence of an ontological transcendent realm or that self - transcendence provides «pointers» to or «signals» of such a realm, as Berger would have it (A Rumor of Angels [Doubleday Anchor, 1969], pp. 55 ff.).

Still, manifestations of pride, at least in its more ordinary sense of conceit or presumption, have been discernible from the outset.

What we shall be considering is the relatively close - knit unit or group, composed of a few people — normatively, of course, a family in the ordinary sense but also other possible associations that involve the presence of a person with several others, so that there can be an expression of belonging, with mutual love and concern, sympathy, and understanding, and hence the opportunity and occasion for enrichment and growth in each of the participants.

Both of these points have to do with what King terms «Dualistic Transcendence»; and, at this point, I wish to state only that I do not regard such transcendence as false in a literal or ordinary sense, nor do I believe that a genuine dualistic transcendence is to be found outside of the Christian tradition.

To be sure, in the earliest tradition Jesus is sometimes called a prophet, but the term is apparently used in its ordinary sense and is soon displaced by messianically significant terms.

This statement is altogether in line with the words quoted from Acts as representative of the primitive view:» God hath made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ,» In each case a son of man in the ordinary sense is spoken of as becoming the Son of God in a unique sense.

I am using the word «person» in its ordinary sense to designate an individual possessed of self - consciousness and will [whatever be the essential nature of personality].

These interpreters hold that Jesus used the phrase only in its ordinary sense of «man,» and that some community in which the Gospel tradition was being formed, itself thinking of Jesus as the apocalyptic Son of Man, read that meaning back into Jesus» words.

With the sole exception of a single allusion to Jesus» last supper with his companions, nothing which could in the ordinary sense be called an act of Jesus or an incident in his career is so much as referred to, and in only a few highly dubious passages are his words quoted.

(I use the term «duration» here in the ordinary sense of a stretch of time rather than in Whitehead's technical sense of a cross section of the universe.)

The identity of power with vulnerability is a great stumbling block to our ordinary sense of what is rational.

In the ordinary sense we have more «Government» than ever, i.e., massively expensive regulatory bureaucracies micromanaging ever more details of people's lives and livelihoods.

I'd say instead that I take the Bible in its ordinary sense, that is, I try to take the things recorded there with the precision I think the writer intended.

If someone disagrees with the obvious sense of a passage, ask them for the reasons they think the text should be an exception to the otherwise sound «ordinary sense» rule.

This is exactly what I'm after when I say, «I take the Bible in its ordinary sense.»

Whitehead's speculations lead him to deconstruct ordinary sense - experience into two elements.

That's exactly what Peter did because he took Jesus» command literally, in its ordinary sense.

Whitehead believed that ordinary sense experience is in fact an integration of perception in the mode of presentational immediacy and perception in the mode of causal efficacy.

Obviously there is no «hearing» in the ordinary sense, and God's «pleasure» must be equally metaphorical.

So Whitehead's reply to Berkeley is, in effect, that matter really does matter in the ordinary sense of the word, since whatever acquires material existence is always capable of influencing by means of signs the becomings of subsequent «things.»

* Tro is translated here and in the following three pages as belief or «faith... in a direct and ordinary sense,» as distinguished from Faith «in an eminent sense.»

His reply is that they are not laws in an ordinary sense at all.

It has no immediate contemporary, since it is historical in the first degree, corresponding to faith [belief] in the ordinary sense; it has no immediate contemporary in the second degree, since it is based upon a contradiction, corresponding to Faith in the eminent sense.

Since creativity has no characteristics, we can neither point to it nor define it in any ordinary sense.

Now faith has precisely the required character; for in the certainty of belief (Tro is translated here and in the following three pages as belief or «faith... in a direct and ordinary sense,» as distinguished from Faith «in an eminent sense.»

So transferring the existential valence of existing to «actuality»» has the logical effect of reducing our ordinary sense of «existing» to that of «self identity» and so picture the act of creation as one of adding existence to already constituted individuals.

What has here been said applies to the historical in the direct and ordinary sense, whose only contradiction is that it has come into existence, which contradiction is implicit in all coming into existence.3 Here again one must guard against the illusion of supposing that it is easier to understand after the event than before the event.

Faith is here taken first in the direct and ordinary sense [belief], as the relationship of the mind to the historical; but secondly also in the eminent sense, the sense in which the word can be used only once, i.e., many times, but only in one relationship.

That most such feelings are not conscious in any ordinary sense of «conscious» is no argument against this position.

Each one has its own meaning in a brief and ephemeral sense, but meaning in the ordinary sense is built up out of patterns of sense which emerge moment by moment in the course of a myriad of microevents happening and vanishing and passing on the meaning they briefly achieve.

These phrases remind one of Whitehead's contention that religious truth must be developed from knowledge acquired when our ordinary senses and intellectual operations are at their highest pitch of discipline (RM 123).

Hasidic prayer, however, was not always prayer in its most ordinary sense.

The word «teacher» suggests instruction in the more ordinary sense, a setting forth, perhaps in somewhat more objective fashion, of the facts of the tradition and the truth of the gospel, the inculcation of true beliefs, the encouraging of appropriate ethical impulses and conduct.