Sentences with phrase «point in history did»

The Attorney - General stated that «being unable to meet the required standard for a determination of native title at a particular point in history does not mean those Indigenous people do not have strong relationships with the land and with each other.»

Not exact matches

At one point in history the idea was to create tips and tricks and tools and technology to help us get our to - do list done faster so we'd have margin or space left over.

In front of a crowd of eager ears, the entrepreneur recounted this time in the company's history to prove a point: You don't know jack about your customers — until you meet them face - to - facIn front of a crowd of eager ears, the entrepreneur recounted this time in the company's history to prove a point: You don't know jack about your customers — until you meet them face - to - facin the company's history to prove a point: You don't know jack about your customers — until you meet them face - to - face.

Steve Ketchum, executive director of Sound Point, told Bloomberg that in Puerto Rico, «there are no obvious great economic difficult situations... We are comparing Puerto Rico with some of the worst situations of sovereign debt in history and it simply does not make sense to us, especially since Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States.»

And the way that you do that is different at different points in history.

One of history's most famous investors is fond of pointing out that it doesn't matter how great returns are — if there is a single «zero» in the multiplication, you lose everything.

Thank you for pointing out that our individual opinions regarding what may or may not have happened at some point in human history about two thousand years ago, that our individual opinions regarding the credibility (or lack thereof) of gospel accounts in terms of their accuracy and historicity, do not trump what actually happened (or didn't happen) in human history about two thousand years ago.

Funny, this article points out that prayer, according to Obama, is a part of american history, thus we are to assume that we should continue doing it becase we've done it in the past... We also used to own slaves, ride horses and use candles to light our houses.

You're assuming that at some point in the history of the world NEW genetic information was added to a living thing (which doesn't happen) and then it happened over and over together with the power of natural selection until we arrived at modern man.

@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.

Of course, all that Paul VI did, as Anscombe among many other unapologetic Catholics then and since have pointed out, was reiterate what just about everyone in the history of Christendom had ever said on the subject.

As a matter of fact, if you go, I don't know, to a museum, you might find some of the proof of those other histories (outside of the tiny point christianity occupies in thousands of years of human history).

History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history...History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history...history... Elaine

A Resurrection of his physical body, such as is implied by the empty tomb and by some of the stories in the Gospels of his appearances, would point towards a docetic Christ who does not fully share the lot of men; unless, indeed, bodily corruption were to be regarded as being bound up with the sinfulness of man which Christ did not share (but, unless we accept an impossibly literalistic interpretation of Genesis 3 as factual history, it is impossible to hold that physical dissolution is not part of the Creator's original and constant intention for his creatures in this world).

The other side of this is whether Milbank can do justice to the particularities of history, such as the practice and teaching of Jesus in its Jewish context, and the complexity of crises, conflicts and points of tension.

Let me point out that this attitude — contrary to those who consider it a great new thing in human history — does not seem to be at all new.

It raises a question that all thoughtful Christians must at some point address: How do we identify the true tradition of Christian teaching throughout history, and what part does the Church play in that tradition?

The defense of traditional marriage doesn't, Roberts insists, rest on «partisan and fideistic grounds,» but can point to patterns inherent in «creational order» and the witness of history.

I shall begin to do so in the following chapter where our starting point will be history rather than cosmology.

Gwinyai Muzorewa quotes with approval a fellow African — E. B. Idowu — as saying, «There is no place, age, or generation which did not receive at some point in its history some form of revelation» (ODA 9).

I read a lot of Calvinist literature in English and literature classes and in history class the closest thing I saw to anti-Christian sentiment was a comment about how Islamic scholars in West Africa criticized Christian teachers for doing exactly what the Islamic scholars had been doing (the hypocrisy was clearly pointed out).

As C. S. Lewis pointed out in his reflections on the Hegelian versus the Christian approach to history, history does have an ultimate telos, but that is known to God alone and therefore any human attempt to explain it fully is doomed to failure.

Sometimes I wonder if perhaps the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous have, at some point in its 76 year history, contained individuals who possessed the ability to do great things — cure cancer, revolutionize politics, or contribute other great things to society — but whose minds became so polluted with AA propaganda that they shut off their own brilliance and chose to spend the rest of their lives «making their sobriety their number one priority» and believing humility to be more valuable than fulfilling their potential and allowing their greatness to shine.

Are we still at this point in history where people are being ridiculously unaccepting of scientific fact to the point where they are even referencing studies that they can not come up with a source for simply because they do not exist?

All the data points to a big bang very early in our observable universe's history, but we don't know why.

The fact is that Abelard was trying to say, with his own passionate awareness of what love can mean in human experience, that in Jesus, God gave us not so much an example of what we should be like but — and this is the big point in his teaching — a vivid and compelling demonstration in a concrete event in history that God does love humanity and will go to any lengths to win from them their glad and committed response.

I'd also point out to the enlightened atheists who want to bash Christianity because of what it did during the Dark Ages, that atheism, in an age of enlightenment in the 20th century, probably resulted in more mass deaths than all of human history combined.

The USA is vastly different at this point in time in this respect — although if you look further back in history — there might be more peaceful solutions — i do not know.

Bishop Stephen Neill did not exaggerate when in 1962 he referred to Strauss's Life of Jesus (1835) as a «turning point in the history of the Christian faith».

And in exploring the wide implications of it all, he noted «the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible» (VS 101) and warned us, as he had done in an earlier encyclical, that «As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism».

We can not here embark on the doctrine of God, but I would wish to affirm both God's transcendence in one aspect of his being and his temporality in another aspect, and to say that God does act within our temporal history, and that the response of faith itself a part of history, affecting what follows — is a response to the ontological reality to which it points in saying God has acted.1 I affirm that God so acted within the wider event «Jesus Christ,» and in particular in his resurrection.

Although this is not the place to do the history in great detail — others have done it, and excellently — it will be useful to hit the high points.

Or they just plain don't want to read the Bible, or our history, or perhaps not even the Big Book and its earlier manuscripts (Compare the facts in: Turning Point: A History of Eahistory, or perhaps not even the Big Book and its earlier manuscripts (Compare the facts in: Turning Point: A History of EaHistory of Early AA.

Here, even more than in Hosea, the mythological interest in resurrection is absent, for the scene being described by Ezekiel has nothing to do with an unseen supernatural world, but refers to a future event in the sphere of human history to which Ezekiel points his people forward in hope and confidence.

Because ancient man did not draw such a clear line of distinction between myth and history, it was possible for the myth of the end - time to hold a particular kind of reality for him which it can not hold for us, and there is no point in attempting to disguise this difference.

And history doesn't, because of our sinfulness, point to any kind of perfection in this world.

It may have started out as a way to explain what people did not have the scientific knowledge to explain at one point in our history, but then it was learned by some that religion was useful in controlling the masses and bending them to their will for good or ill.

By inerrant I mean, as the word suggests, without error; such that if God were interested in directing an inerrant account of the life of Andrea Yates it simply could not say «the woman heard God say that she should drown her children in the bathtub» but would have to qualify it with «the woman believed that she heard...» Without that qualifier, it would not be inerrant, it would not be «untrue but historically accurate» if God did not actually say it then saying that he intervened in human history at that point would be incorrect.

The idea that Linus, Cletus, Clement, and the rest were successors of Peter is of course a retrospective interpretation from the vantage point of a later stage in church history, but this does not mean that it is false.

This only happens occasionally in the book but prevents the reader sharing in the deeper revelation and love of God that is occurring at that point in salvation history, especially in light of the New Testament, and raises the question that if the person in Scripture who is experiencing this unique relationship with God didn't really understand God, then how can we?

Strauss overstated his thesis, but he opened up such a problem for Christianity thereafter that Bishop Stephen Neill, a moderate scholar, wrote in 1964 that «this book marked, as few others have done, a turning point in the history of the Christian faith».4

The flood was a failure, but it did enable some things to be setup, so that more attempts could be made, at a later point in history.

We fail in our responsibility to history when we do not permit ourselves to see Civil War memorials from a Romantic point of view, and when we fail to recognize the phrase «lost cause» as a shorthand for a morally complex, tragic understanding of the South's defeat.

Yet, as the evangelists point out, the other aspect of the identification is equally important: the Christ of faith can not be separated from the historical Jesus, if we do not wish to find «a myth in the place of history, a heavenly being in the place of the Nazarene».

We do not stand on any Archimedean point from which we can, in a detached way, survey the totality of history.

While Carl E. Olson needs to rethink a few details in his revisionist account of the history of dispensationalist thought» including the role of Fuller Seminary» he does score some interesting points against the movement's popularizers.

Creation didn't just happen at some distant point in past history and destruction won't happen at some fixed point in the future.

Therefore they do not want to hear that God is magnanimous in the dispensing of His love, or that His dealings with men are not limited to one blind alley which comes to a sudden halt at one point in history.

My last point and Im out... Throughout our great nations history... we always found a way to fight through national issues and come up with solutions... Giving the problems we have now to people in the 50's and 60's... and they may actually come up with a solution... if you earnestly care about making a change... start at the lowest levels of government... go do something... find out costs... expenses... how to get more health care to people... do things like that... quit waiting on the government to provide all the answers... its not the way this country was founded... and not the way we get through problems... If you or ur family does nt have insurance... get a job that can provide you that... instead of hoping the government will do so... If you or ur family lacks access to education... move to an area that excels at it... education is invaluable... Do something about your problem... and quit waiting for the next big lotto.do something... find out costs... expenses... how to get more health care to people... do things like that... quit waiting on the government to provide all the answers... its not the way this country was founded... and not the way we get through problems... If you or ur family does nt have insurance... get a job that can provide you that... instead of hoping the government will do so... If you or ur family lacks access to education... move to an area that excels at it... education is invaluable... Do something about your problem... and quit waiting for the next big lotto.do things like that... quit waiting on the government to provide all the answers... its not the way this country was founded... and not the way we get through problems... If you or ur family does nt have insurance... get a job that can provide you that... instead of hoping the government will do so... If you or ur family lacks access to education... move to an area that excels at it... education is invaluable... Do something about your problem... and quit waiting for the next big lotto.do so... If you or ur family lacks access to education... move to an area that excels at it... education is invaluable... Do something about your problem... and quit waiting for the next big lotto.Do something about your problem... and quit waiting for the next big lotto...

The philosopher does not work in a void; even a cursory glance at the history of philosophy would point out that the masters of modern philosophy have been men who had assimilated all the material of the sciences of their time.