Sentences with phrase «particular things as»

Apparently Obama seems to like the concept of «climate change» and his funders no doubt want him to said particular things as pay - back for the funds he got when he ran for office.

Such experience no longer regards purely particular things as do the senses, but rather through intuition finds the universal genus behind them all — indeed, experience is «the universal now stabilized within the soul,» according to Aristotle in Posterior Analytics.

I don't like classifying myself as any particular thing as I find it's restrictive, yes almost all of what I eat is technically vegan and gluten free, but I don't like being defined as a certain thing because I don't want to feel like I'm «failing» because I add honey to my rye bread or eat a barley salad because it's the healthiest thing on the menu!

Not exact matches

Regardless of what people think of you at any particular moment, one thing is certain — you're never as good or bad as they say you are.

Earlier this year, FindTheBest, a comparison engine that helps consumers find things such as the best deals on hotels or great recipes for particular food allergies, found itself served with a cease - and - desist letter for the technology it uses to create matches on searches.

Just consider every time things get complicated or unclear as a flag that you need to study that particular section again.

It turns out that even those who stress particular negotiation behaviors and attitudes see those things not as hollow gambits but as the natural performance traits of the smarter negotiator you must become — by way of better preparation, rational thinking, and so on.

You have to have a good understanding of such things as the law (labor law in particular), finance, accounting and technology.»

I think they have 85 plus percent, it was the latest study of ad dollars, so how do you view the duopoly and also in things like Google in particular, they're not — they can't escape this brand safety issue either, they have a lot of issues with YouTube as well.

As far as we know, he never made any particular effort to smooth things over with Cruz, or make him feel like he'd won somethinAs far as we know, he never made any particular effort to smooth things over with Cruz, or make him feel like he'd won somethinas we know, he never made any particular effort to smooth things over with Cruz, or make him feel like he'd won something.

While it's vital to remember that generational stereotypes don't apply to every member of a particular population, it is true that many millennials are motivated by different things than their older colleagues were as they entered the world of work.

On the other, you want things that are particular enough to your demographic that at the end of it, you get actual active subscribers rather than people who will just cancel as soon as they realize they didn't win.

One thing to be aware of in doing research on a particular product or person is that there is a trend out there of having plants write positive reviews as opposed to actual consumers.

It may be somewhat useful to make comparisons to that period of time to see how certain interest rate sensitive asset classes such as junk bonds, REITs, dividend - paying stocks or bonds performed, but my guess is that particular environment doesn't do a great job of showing investors what a typical rising rate scenario would look like (assuming there is such a thing).

Suffice it to say, opinion is, um, varied when it comes to cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin in particular, as is who supports it and who thinks it's the worst thing to hit trade since COD and damns them as well as uses and accepts them.

For one thing, if (a) you had taken 225 million orangutans distributed roughly as the U.S. population is; if (b) 215 winners were left after 20 days; and if (c) you found that 40 came from a particular zoo in Omaha, you would be pretty sure you were onto something.

@fimilleur from time to time mankind experiences the presence of God, there have been and continue to be events that testify to the presence of Him.The multiple gods you continually point to have an unique difference from the God who first revealed His presence to ancient men i.e. the Hebrews.The particular gods you mention roman etc. are all man made and in many instances men themselves i.e. hercules, but even the ancient greeks realized the limitations of their understanding and included an «unknown» God in their worship structure.many cultures did likewise, having a glimpse of God but not the fullness of understanding that was given to the Jews.Whether or not «we» believe, does not alter the fact that God exists as an unique being, whether or not «we» acknowledge Him «we» will stand before Him.You do not choose to understand, but we are actually standing in His presence right now as He is much bigger than the doctrines and knowledge man ascribes to Him those things you find so questionable are the misconceptions and misrepresentations of God made by men throughout history.

In other words with all the things going on in the world this long winded ambiguous rant about the religious beliefs of a horror writer whose name I've barely heard mentioned in the last decade is being presented as the most important information people need to know at this particular time.

One is not so much indebted to a particular mind in imitation of that mind as he is an inheritor of truth about reality insofar as that mind has cogently expressed it and turned one to desire the truth of things.

And if this be so, our work as educators and as advocates of a well - functioning American educational system is to develop citizens who are at home in the canons that comprise the formal reality of their heritage, who are equally at home with the varied individual things that comprise the material reality of that heritage and of their present life, and who are able to devise constantly new frames that are adequate to both, that marry ancient canon and novel particular in a new canon which integrates as fully and complexly as possible all its participant elements.

In fact, I would argue that church - as - performance is just one more thing driving us away from the church, and evangelicalism in particular.

He's usually a lot more nuanced about things... so please don't interpret this as a critique of him as a theologian or pastor, just a discussion around this particular idea that doubt is the result of a guilty conscience.

We have seen, too, that violence by its very nature is without limits — that there is no such thing as a tiny dose of violence for realizing this or that particular purpose.

In particular, we may note that there are three points at which the Kingdom teaching of the synoptic tradition tends to differ both from Judaism and from the early Church as represented by the remainder of the New Testament: in the use of the expression Kingdom of God for (1) the final act of God in visiting and redeeming his people and (2) as a comprehensive term for the blessings of salvation, i.e. things secured by that act of God, and (3) in speaking of the Kingdom as «coming».

By engaging people in the effort to understand God by focusing study of various subject matters within the horizon of questions about Christian congregations, a theological school may help them cultivate capacities both for what Charles Wood [2] calls «vision,» that is, formulating comprehensive, synoptic accounts of the Christian thing as a whole, and what he calls «discernment,» that is, insight into the meaning, faithfulness, and truth of particular acts in the practice of worship (in the broad sense of worship that we have adopted for this discussion).

Larry Arnhart, in particular, seems to have blurred this fundamental distinction, for he quotes Aquinas («Conservatives, Darwin & Design: An Exchange,» FT, November 2000) as saying that «natural [emphasis added] is that which nature has taught all animals,» when Thomas actually said that «those things are said to belong to the natural law [lex naturalis] which nature has taught to all animals.»

Consider the array of questions that arise when we ask, «How do we best understand this particular congregation as «the Christian thing» in concreto?»

In this second sense, being «universal» is not opposed to being a concrete, particular thing, since it is the particular itself which is related to others in manner sufficiently great to be qualified as universal.

per · son · i · fy transitive verb: to have a lot of (a particular quality): to be the perfect example of a person who has (a quality): to think of or represent (a thing or idea) as a person or as having human qualities or powers

Systematic theology aims to formulate not only critical but constructive proposals that comprehensively integrate both the ways in which probes of the fruitfulness, truth, and fittingness of the witness envision the «Christian thing» as a whole and the ways in which these probes discern particular instances of the «Christian thing.»

It is thus crucial to the communicative enterprise to take an egocentrism - avoiding stance that rejects all claims to a privileged status for our own conception of things as bound to our own particular historical position in the world's processual scheme.

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?

In particular, the denial that epistemology is wholly prior to ontology; the denial that we can have an absolutely certain starting point; the idea that those elements of experience thought by most people to be primitive givens are in fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned interpretations; the idea that our interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itself).

It is this latter idea, that the nature of a particular thing consists wholly in the universals which it exemplifies (and therefore can not contain intrinsic reference to any other particular thing), which Whitehead sees as the ground for taking solipsism seriously.

It is because he fears that speaking of pure essences as existing will encourage assimilation of their status to that of efficacious particular things that he insists that so long as they stick within their own eternal realm they only have pure being.

In particular, Ukrainian Catholics resent what they see as bullying and duplicity on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly the Moscow Patriarchate, topics frequently covered here at First Things.

Whitehead then identifies the leading characteristic of mathematics, not just of arithmetic, as that subject which «deals with properties and ideas which are applicable to things just because they are things, and apart from any particular feelings, or emotions, or sensations, in any way connected with them» (IM 2 - 3).

An abstract or ideal thing that has no reference to «particular feelings, or emotions, or sensations» is what Whitehead later would define as an eternal object (see PR 44).

The first thing they did whenever they wished to stop at a particular place, was to erect a tabernacle or temple to their false god for the duration of the time they expected to stay there, and they built this temple in the middle of the site on which they had established themselves, the ark being placed upon an altar such as is used in a church, for the idol wished to imitate our religion in many ways, as we shall afterwards show.10

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.

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.

Contrary to popular belief, doing away with government endorsement of a particular religion is not the same thing as seeking government endorsement of atheism.

The background assumption of this book means, finally, that so far as its content is concerned the best hope of saying things of general relevance to persons involved in all types of theological schooling today lies in making some particular and fairly concrete proposals that may turn out to be directly pertinent only to a few types of theological schools but may provoke and help other persons in other types of schools to think through these issues for themselves.

People are not so much things as they are events or a particular kind of series of events.

The God of unlimited intelligence has a virtually infinite amount of contingency plans that will be enacted just in case things unfold a certain way, and each and every one of these contingency plans are just as perfect as they'd have been if God had foreknown as a certainty that things would unfolded this particular way.

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.»

In arguing against the possibility of attaining to a neutral standpoint on matters of concern to religious persons, one begins with the axiom that all human activity — and so, by extension, all scholarly activity, all religious activity, and all interaction among serious religious persons — both implies and evinces a commitment to some particular metaphysic, some view as to the way things are and as to how human activity should proceed in that context.

Just which members are so bound will depend upon variables specific to particular communities — such things as the authority structures in place, or the function of representative intellectuals.

If we are a bunch of atoms randomly headed to nowhere in particular, that is not a basis for thought, discussion, or the very concept that there can be such a thing as morality.

It's interesting to think about morals and how we are such moral creatures.There are very few conversations, especially when the subject is about a particular behavior in ourselves or others, that don't involve a value judgement.We're even willing to bend the rules as to what is right / wrong... sometimes stealing and lying can be good things....