Sentences with phrase «simply means man»

Rightly understood, and with the reservations of which I have already spoken, the concept of existence in this sense is not open to any objection: it simply means man standing before God in judgment and grace.

Not exact matches

As the actor who redefined what it means to be The Man in Hollywood with films like «Pulp Fiction,» he simply put too much into the role, making the Octopus one of his least memorable characters to date.

Still, it's a depressing indictment of American society that she felt that simply going to a powerful man's hotel suite meant she had to have sex with him if he wanted to.

By dominate, I simply meant that they are way more than the men in numbers.

This is not to undermine your point, but simply to note that not all men or women mean or take it that way.

Meaning no disrespect to any religion, do you really think God created man to simply spend his entire life doing nothing but telling Him how great He is?

And because in its origin the word had meant not simply man's breathing but God's wind, it became the verbal agent by which man could say that his best life is inbreathed by God — inspired, as we say, using the same metaphor Latinized — so that ruach at last meant the Spirit of God inspiring the spirit of man.

(Mark 8:36) The meaning is simply: Of what use are all the possessions of the world to a man who must die?

The word which in the English Biblical translations is generally rendered «soul» or «spirit» usually means simply «life,» as in the well - known saying: «What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?»

The perception of Christ should never have been that of a man, but simply the word of God made physical as a means of fulfillment of the law.

The purpose is simply to expose what I've noticed to be recurring assumptions about what it means to be egalitarian, assumptions that do not reflect my own views as someone who believes men and women should work together, without hierarchy, to grow the Kingdom in the home, church, and world.

This does not mean, however, that man is simply like an ant in an anthill.

«For these men the term «monogamy» simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity... The term «open relationship» has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.

As pointed out there, «a son of man» means in Hebrew and Aramaic simply «a man.»

but on the third day using his Power of Resurrection rose from the dead to claim his seat next to God in heaven, I mean next to himself since he was also God and then told the masses that he died for their sins, though oddly enough being God he could have simply absolved them of their sins and he really didn't die because he lives and is coming back to judge man based upon the original sins... but not sure if that would work since man can clearly kill a God with wood and nails... I know, I know confusing and likely to be labeled heresy... but debates about nomenclature and religion... i mean story telling... just don't mix.

If God did not need man, if man were simply dependent and nothing else, there would be no meaning to man's life or to the world.

By «God», of course you mean the deity character in the collection of mythologies known as the bible and by «His Word», you clearly mean the words written by men (but of course they were magically dictated by the deity character because, despite its omnipotence, it was incapable of simply «poofing» «His Word» into existence in the same manner alleged for the rest of the universe).

One no longer need do and think just what had been done and thought, and the mythical meanings by which man had lived so long were now problematic rather than simply given.

Furthermore, the transcendence of the spirit over itself meant that man was not simply bound to the primacy of self - regard.

Update: By this I simply mean that some couples prefer that one person be more dominant - not necessarily the man, by the way - and I don't think that should be categorically condemned.

His disciples became known as «Oratorians» (which means «men of prayer»), his first meetings were known simply as «the Oratory», and Philip himself was tireless in encouraging his friends to pray, and devising new ways to make this easier for them.

Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule.

And because being in Christ is bound up with one and only one particular history — that of Jewish faith and of the man from Nazareth — it is simply not clear what it would mean to say that this perspective could in principle be gained by a7ny person anywhere with any sort of commitments.

But a just appreciation of God's general revelation of Himself should preserve the truth that Christianity has meaning for man precisely because it represents a fulfillment of the knowledge of God which is made possible through all the things which He has made, Nygren claims, of course, simply to be setting forth scientifically the fundamental Christian motif without arguing its truth or value against any other motif.

The term «Son of man» is used many times in the Old Testament to mean simply «man.»

That means abandoning one - size - fits - all attempts to address poverty and looking to the states, where a lot of the creativity in American government resides these days, for approaches that actually empower the poor, because they treat poor people as men and women with potential to be unleashed, not simply as clients to be maintained.

Jesus meant by the «kingdom of God» simply the rule of God in so far as it was and could be realized by men living under the normal conditions of human life.

The phrase «son of man,» Whether in Hebrew or Aramaic, might apparently he used to mean simply «man» or «a man.»

(Note: Stating that God existed first and simply modeled the first man after himself wonâ $ ™ t work, since I donâ $ ™ t accept the Bible as â $ œtheologically factualâ $, whatever that would mean for me.

(Note: Stating that God existed first and simply modeled the first man after himself won't work, since I don't accept the Bible as «theologically factual», whatever that would mean for me.

Also for a man to be shamed by having his head covered simply means that he should not emulate women.

The Kingdom of God is a reality here and now, but can be perfect only in the eternal order... The primary principle of Christian Ethics and Christian Politics must be respect for every person simply as a person... The person is primary, not the society; the State exists for the citizen, not the citizen for the State... freedom is the goal of politics... Freedom, Fellowship, Service — these are the three principles of a Christian social order, derived from the more fundamental Christian postulates that Man is a child of God and is destined for a life of eternal fellowship with Him... Love... finds its primary expression through Justice — which in the field of industrial disputes means in practice that each side should state its own case as strongly as possibly it can before the most impartial tribunal available...

But, if we insist that the Logos was in the beginning and before the beginning, it means very simply that God was always like Jesus and always will be, and that Jesus did not come to change the attitude of God to men, but to show quite unmistakably what that attitude is and always was.

There are long passages in the beautiful book by Ramon Lull called The Lover and His Beloved (which for Lull meant God the Lover and man the beloved), in which the beloved simply adores the Lover, asking for nothing, wanting nothing, only loving.

It is my own belief that the explanation for the enormous sale of Honest to God is simply that great numbers of men and women who wish to be both modern and Christian found in that book a presentation of Christianity which on the one hand they felt was absolutely honest and which on the other hand (and for the first time) opened to them the basic meaning of what we may style «the religious question»: what man is, what his world is like, how one can find significance and dignity for living, and the like.

Calhoun means that there came a time in the life of man when no more people could survive in a given geographical area by simply living off the natural produce of the land.

Our Pope is simply following Christ's actions, which should have been what we endeared, not the powerful white man's dominating doctrine which was meant to control and manipulate.

Another complication is the possibility that Son of man could be used as a circumlocution for «I» in Aramaic, which could mean that the two forms in Greek are possibly simply translation variants of this Aramaic idiom.

The fact that man has a memory means that he is not simply contemporaneous or «modern».

As simple as that.All these young players will never develop under Wenger and to be honest i don't want him to spend any further monies, it will simply be a waste.I want this man out of Arsenal Fc and if that means we fall to mid table so be it.Achieving 4th place just keeps him his job and whats the point of that.The club needs CHANGE and with him in charge this will never happen.So we need to take some more pain before we get the gain

It has not been a good weekend for Arsenal as we have already seen Chelsea, Tottenham, Man City, Man United, Liverpool and Everton all secure three points, which means that the Gunners simply have to beat Crystal Palace this evening to keep pace with our rivals.

Many people believe that the number and nature of the injuries means that it simply had to be more than bad luck and as Wenger is the man responsible for almost everything that happens at the club, then he surely has to take at least some of the blame.

Nothing like one underachiever blowing smoke up the ass of another... we know that Ozil has some incredible technical gifts, but to be considered the best you have to bring more than just assists to the table... for me, a top player has to possess a more well - rounded game, which doesn't mean they need to be a beast on both ends of the pitch, but they must have the ability to take their game to another level when it matters most... although he amassed some record - like stats early on, it set the bar too high, so when people expected him to duplicate those numbers each year the pressure seemed to get the best of our soft - spoken star... obviously that's not an excuse for what has happened in the meantime, but it's important to make note of a few things: (1) his best year was a transition year for many of the traditionally dominant teams in the EPL, so that clearly made the numbers appear better than they actually were and (2) Wenger's system, or lack thereof, didn't do him any favours; by playing him out of position and by not acquiring world - class striker and / or right - side forward that would best fit an Ozil - centered offensive scheme certainly hurt his chances to repeat his earlier peformances, (3) the loss of Cazorla, who took a lot of pressure off Ozil in the midfield and was highly efficient when it came to getting him the ball in space, negatively impacted his effectiveness and (4) he likewise missed a good chunk of games and frankly never looked himself when he eventually returned to the field... overall the Ozil experiment has had mixed reviews and rightfully so, but I do have some empathy for the man because he has always carried himself the same way, whether for Real or the German National team, yet he has only suffered any lengthy down periods with Arsenal... to me that goes directly to this club's inability to surround him with the necessary players to succeed, especially for someone who is a pass first type of player; as such, this simply highlights our club's ineffective and antiquated transfer policies... frankly I'm disappointed in both Ozil and our management team for not stepping up when it counted because they had a chance to do something special, but they didn't have it in them... there is no one that better exemplifies our recent history than Ozil, brief moments of greatness undercut by long periods of disappointing play, only made worse by his mopey posturing like a younger slightly less awkward Wenger... what a terribly waste

Okay it may be slim as it means the Gunners have to win by five clear goals to top Man City on goal difference, but I simply refuse to believe that this is an impossible aim.

However, Arsenal simply capitulated during the second period and quick fire strikes from the likes Robert Lewandowski and Thiago Alcantara as well as a late goal from Thomas Muller meant that Arsene Wenger's men ended the game at the wrong side of a 5 - 1 hammering.

Feminism does not mean one thing to all people, unless you just simply want to say it means women should have the same rights as men (which is what it means to me).

I mean, there are simply all sorts of men and women with varying beliefs and parenting methods, but they all have something very important in common: they all want the best for their babies.

I happen to disagree with him on european issues but this doesn't mean he's any less of Tory than me, and it most certainly doesn't make him a traitor simply because he spoke out about something in which he believes against official party policy... this makes him a man of principle!!

I've talked about this before, but the body is simply not meant to consume the man - made fats found in vegetable oils.

The majority of people simply want to be as lean as possible without having to train a lot, which means cutting down to 8 - 12 % of body fat for men and 18 - 22 % of body fat for women.