Sentences with phrase «own way of speaking»

Mastering this way of speaking, especially in high pressure situations or for longer periods of time, can't possibly be so easy, but still it's good to know that the basic principles of improving your voice are completely straightforward.

AI performance on 2018 - 2019 Android phones running on the Snapdragon 845 will be tripled, which will help voice assistants better understand more natural ways of speaking.

Partners must develop ways of speaking with each other that won't build resentment.

But as I learned, there are four very common fears that stand in the way of you speaking up, especially as a new hire.

------- So then, bob, when I take on others for their beliefs and use my way of speaking, I am an offender.

Thsi is a cowardly way, a fools way of speaking.

This way of speaking presumes a fraternal coexistence of the Slavic peoples — Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian — in a single «Orthodox Civilization.»

Certainly we would all agree that we need a way of speaking about what God is and does that is both sensible and faithful.

Theologians of nature, who take the evolutionary reality of the world seriously, also find it attractive as a noninterventionist way of speaking of God's agency in history and nature.

The pictures of a king and his realm and of the world as God's body are ways of speaking, ways of imagining the God - world relationship.

One way of understanding this language would be to suppose that this is simply a new way of speaking of «doctrines of.»

The language of mythology, or, as I myself prefer to say, metaphor, is the language which religion speaks; it can do no other, for religious faith is neither scientific formulae nor philosophical concepts, but a dramatic, poetic, symbolical way of speaking of the deepest realities and our apprehension of them.

Since God is He Who Is, that is, pure being, every attribute of God is only a way of speaking of his one act of existing.

These chapters have a naïve, symbolic way of speaking, well suited to the understanding of primitive people.

We can even say, in a certain way of speaking, that our Creator's whole point in making the world was that some of his creatures should share in his love.

This way of speaking about the authority of Scripture stands in contrast to how it is often spoken of among Christians, as a phrase invoked to shut down conversation and bolster one particular interpretation of Scripture.

The glory of God is a way of speaking of God himself.

My favorite shorthand way of speaking about what post-critical naivete is with a single line from a Native American storyteller, which I quote in a footnote at the end of Chapter 1 of Meeting Jesus Again for The First Time, so you may be familiar with it.

I want to claim the tradition for our side, if that's not too polemical a way of speaking.

Both ways of speaking are valid, just as the different ways in which the meteorologist and the person in the street speak about the weather are valid.

Hence «God's primordial nature» is but an imprecise way of speaking about the order of nature — a formal structure expressing the theory of extension in its most general form (PW 58/56).

Wolf That way of speaking is confusing.

It would appear that we do not have two different kinds of causation but two ways of speaking about a process, dependent on the speaker's perspective on a particular stage of the event - succession Supposing we are contemporaneous with an electron, we look at its present state in relation to its past, and we say «efficient causation»; if we look at its present state in relation to its future, we say «final causation.»

There he suggests that our tendency to call purposes unconscious is a misleading way of speaking, since they are in fact God's conscious purposes (see 207 - 209).

But at once I recognize the need to qualify such a way of speaking.

For ancient people, evidently, this was a natural way of speaking.

The speaker's drama in preaching is both a search for a language of lived experience and for a way of speaking sermonic texts that are «believable» at a time when coherent, theological frameworks have collapsed.

Each generation must struggle to create itself anew through words and deeds, and the chief instrument for personal and social progress is the development of new, enriched ways of speaking.

It may be the case that bringing in terms like «soul» and «psyche» confuse more than they help, but I am willing to run the risk to try to bring Whitehead's abstract terminology into contact with more ordinary ways of speaking.

In recent years I have reclaimed a very old and very important Christian way of speaking about God: the doctrine of the Trinity.

Radicals like Monique Wittig, who see the present systems as categorically exclusive, advocate inventing new ways of speaking and even new categories of experience.

Rorty uses the term «edification» to stand for «this project of finding new, better, more interesting, more fruitful ways of speaking» (PMR 360).

He stresses the need to create new ways of speaking which will heighten our sense of human solidarity by increasing our sensitivity to the pain of others and enlarging our sense of «us.»

It does not easily occur to us that this may be a way of speaking of one's self - understanding.

At best this is a symbolic way of speaking, and to understand it we must look at the whole God - world relationship.

In context, he refers to the «holy apostles» (Eph 3:5), as a way of speaking about the apostles who were called and sent by Jesus Christ to lay the foundation for the church by teaching and writing about Jesus Christ and the gospel (Eph 2:20).

Theologians who have quite properly protested against the notion that God was such that he needed to be made friendly and available to his creatures by reason of some event (in this case the death of Christ) which opened up for him this possibility, have failed to see that in this inadequate and often misleading way of speaking, there was an insight of which they should have taken due account.

Your refusal to notice your own immature way of speaking to others shows arrogance, and an unwillingness to really look at anything beyond what you see it as.

For example, he said that man's fall is locatable in no historical Garden of Eden, but it is a way of speaking profoundly about what has happened in every man's experience.

This way of speaking, we are now beginning to see, is too narrowly earth - centered and anthropocentric.

If Jesus thus employed a familiar way of speaking, not just casually but in circumstances which made it the vehicle of a partly veiled assertion of his vocation, then «Son of Man» came to be something like a self - designation replacing the traditional title of «Messiah» That is how the writers of the gospels seem to have understood it.

There are many ways of speaking inappropriately, of course — even harmfully — but it is always true that words fitly spoken are things of beauty and power that bring life and joy.

Rather we need a way of speaking of Jesus» authority that recognizes that this authority is based on the position we give him in our internal value system.

My own way of speaking of this matter is to insist that the doctrines of redemption and creation must be held together.

These were just misguided ways of speaking, for these speakers didn't realize that they were presupposing the classical view of the future as a domain of settled facts and then denying God knew it.

My approach shows what is wrong with Locke's flight of fancy that an unstructured material body might think, or Kenny's suggestion that our ways of speaking are compatible with our heads being full of sawdust, so that indeed bodily function is internal to normal mental function (pp. 336 - 339), so that thought and understanding while integrated with the imagination nonetheless transcend it, and transcend the body.

Indeed, Sölle claims that «political theology reveals for the first time the truth of existentialist theology, because it enables and does not merely postulate an existential way of speaking.

It offers a way of speaking about a source which spontaneously yields new intelligibility.

I certainly have no problem saying that a certain way of speaking is subchristian, but if my criteria would force me to indict Paul or Jesus, then the problem is clearly with my criteria, not with the terminology.

But such a confusing, if not self - contradictory, way of speaking is uncalled for.