«However, when
such language is used as part of a campaign of rudeness, aggressiveness and intimidating behaviour, as in this case, then the panel finds that this behaviour crosses into the realm of conduct that is unbecoming of the model of civility to which we aspire in our legal profession.»
Ayer would respond that even if
such language is used, it would have only «emotive» meaning.
Not exact matches
This can
be done by creating an in - house team of native
language customer service representatives, finding a third party that offers
such a service or even
using email translation software to help support customers who can't correspond in English.
The company has raised more than $ 230 million in venture capital since its founding, from investors
such as Sigma West and Ignition Partners, and
is using that money to rapidly expand its business outside the U.S.. It
's well on its way: DocuSign
is available in 43
languages.
Wells Fargo's chatbot will
use artificial intelligence to respond to natural
language messages from users,
such as how much money they have in their accounts, and where the nearest bank ATM
is.
Google also introduced PlaNet, which identifies where a photo
was taken without
using geotags — instead relying on landmarks and clues
such as types of vegetation,
languages on signs, architectural styles, and the side of the road cars
are driving on.
If you
are hiring an expert,
such as a computer programmer or a lawyer, ask them to explain a particularly complex concept
using everyday
language that a non-expert can grasp without
using jargon.
That
's the first time the G - 20 has
used such language since 2013.
Yet you don't seem to realize that the only reason you have to
use such extreme
language is because there
is no rational grounds available to settle
such disagreements, because nobody can point to what the market would have done, since it
is unobservable.
What separates decentralized applications from standard applications
is the infrastructure of their back - end servers, omitting the
use of programming
languages such as Rails or Django in favor of blockchain technology — removing centralized hosting services and putting power and voice back in the hands of its users.
«I wasn't
used to thinking in
such a deep, literary
language, especially a
language to God.
Then there
is the FACT that you continue to
use inflammatory
language such as «lack of intellectual honesty,» «too busy,» and «naive» and my developing THEORY that your arrogant attitude may
be what
is preventing both riches and fame from making their way into your life.
my
use of the 15th century switch in
languages was just an example of the uproar
such acts can cause common folk... but that
was clearly lost on
such common folk on you... read much?
BC doesn't think he
's wielding a club, but
using degrading and dehumanizing
language, making demeaning assumptions, and holding out the threat of eternal torture for honest disagreement — regardless of the source of
such «wisdom» —
is absolutely an example of club wielding.
I always try to
be cautious though about
using language such as, «Now you guys have got it right!
You cessationists (based on the
language you
used I
'm assuming that
's the position you hold) love to talk about a «completed Bible», but here
's the irony, if you profess to have
such a strong faith in this Bible, you must walk it out.
The difficulty we have
is that much of the
language we would wish to
use has
been corrupted
such that it
is ambiguous, so tolerance and human rights can now
be used to suppress Catholic beliefs and the freedom of Catholics to teach.
In
such a materialistic society, the Church MUST reclaim the strong
language used by early church leaders to warn of the potential dangers of wealth, and we MUST
be more careful of proclaiming all wealth as an undisputed blessing from God.
Indeed, [d] expresses the same tension between order and novelty that
was already expressed in the lines that precede it, except that the tension
is expressed, in [d], in a technical
language (with terms
such as physical feelings and intellectual feelings) that
is not
used in the immediate context.
Thus perhaps we should conclude that Whitehead
uses «perception» in an extended sense, like many other terms he appropriates from ordinary
language,
such that one need not
be conscious to have perceptions in the mode of CE.
The point
is rather to suggest how difficult it
is to «know how» to
use such a
language.
To speak, then, of the «God - hypothesis» may
be to
use a misleading kind of
language, to put up the wrong frames of reference and to suggest that we look for God - answers to questions where
such answers would
be out of place.
Those who have had basic courses in the biblical
languages and
are willing to devote 20 minutes a day to
such language study should gain enough
language ability to base their sermon text study on the original text, and they should have enough linguistic skill to
use the best of the great philological commentaries, which often cite words from the original
languages.
When we
use such a vocabulary, we find ourselves thinking about the world in different ways — and sometimes, at least, we may find common ground with other Christians from whom we
were divided when our only
language was that of contemporary politics.
What
is needed
is not a revision of the
language of faith or an updated «theology» but a reordering of our emotions, passions and attitudes
such that we will have a
use in our own life for the beliefs of Christianity and the
language of Christian faith.
There
are, for example, signals
used in animal communication, nonconventional signals which include some gestures, and single - word sentences
such as the word «Tree»
used by children in the early stages of
language acquisition.
It
is astonishing to hear even people of high achievement and excellent reputation
use mean and foul
language on many occasions, as though
such effusions had no real significance,
being mere sounds which
are dispersed as soon as they
are said.
But of course the creedal statement, hallowed as it
is by centuries of
use during the celebration of the Eucharist, can
be understood only when it
is seen as a combination of supposedly historical data, theological affirmation put in a quasi-philosophical idiom, and a good deal of symbolic
language (with the
use of
such phrases as «came down from heaven», «ascended into heaven», and the like).
Using such language is part of the discourse of debate to show someone how rediculous their position, but
is not intended to harm anyone.
When a person
uses such language, his assertions do things, provided that they
are not misplaced and do not misfire.
Therefore, preachers who become conscious of the social function of the
language of the sermon can
use language in
such a way as to encourage social effects that
are appropriate to the gospel.
It would, for instance,
be quite legitimate to
use such language in refuting a pantheistic conception of revelation.
The
use of
such language is neither in whole nor in part a properly scientific or historical
use.
If therefore the gospel
is to
be made intelligible, it must
use a
language such as men
use when they speak of events with an ultimate existential and cosmic significance.
Under
such editorship, the church's
language would
be «cleaned up,» striking all symbolic and mythological
uses as pre-literate, primitive, and meaningless.
And when their common
language,
used to do business in a technically preoccupied age,
is shaped to the paucity of dimensions necessary to
such business, the roundness and the depth become silent for want of verbal counterparts for the felt but inchoate self.
An Emergent definition of relevance, modulated by resistance, might run something like this; relevance means listening before speaking; relevance means interpreting the culture to itself by noting the ways in which certain cultural productions gesture toward a transcendent grace and beauty; relevance means
being ready to give an account for the hope that we have and
being in places where someone might actually ask; relevance means believing that we might learn something from those who
are most unlike us; relevance means not so much translating the churches
language to the culture as translating the culture's
language back to the church; relevance means making theological sense of the depth that people discover in the oddest places of ordinary living and then
using that experience to draw them to the source of that depth (Augustine seems to imply
such a move in his reflections on beauty and transience in his Confessions).
One thing I know for sure
is that I've got to
be less judgmental of those who choose to
use such language to honestly express their gratitude to God.
That
is, religious
language makes cognitive claims which go beyond practical and attitudinal
uses, but
such claims
are more modest than those of all - inclusive metaphysical systems.
The God who thus turns to man
is numquam otiosus — there
is no difficulty in
using such Reformation
language here, for in Luther and the confessional documents the situation
is fundamentally similar to that in St. Paul.
The Christian educator needs more than this, for he
is asked to provide education in Christianity for others, not only to describe what it has
been and
is, but to
use language in
such a way that the learner will come to an understanding of the nature of Christianity and hopefully will discern the presence of God in his own life and commit himself to the Christian way.
What he attacks in Ogden
is the belief that there
is any trustworthy
language about God at all, either analogical
language or retranslations
such as the odd one Ogden
uses: God as «experienced non-objective reality.»
Is the New Oxford Review so desperate for subscribers that it must
use such language?
As I tried to show in my first book (Capek 1969) as well as in some of my articles,
such theories, when closely analyzed, can not
be even stated in a self - consistent
language, since they
use alternately and surreptitiously two incompatible temporal descriptions.
Here
's another, scarcely less oratorical in character, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: the title of this document (another wonderful example of Vatican bogus academic
language when what
is needed
is a competent journalist
used to writing informative headlines)
is «Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons» (2003): The Church
's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that
is evident to right reason and recognised as
such by all the major cultures of the world.
Likewise this phenomenon has drawn much attention from the mainstream media, who seem eager to point out the apparent discord that religious believers would flock to
such a controversial figure, one who flaunts his past moral failings, publicly
uses indecent
language, and «isn't sure» if he
's ever asked God for forgiveness.
It
is possible therefore — and it
is entirely legitimate — to engage in the metaphysical enterprise with the
use of
such languages as we possess.
He declared that vast majority
are lost... even
using language such as a hotter place in hell for those like them.
To claim that church and wife
are one and the same
is to also say that Jesus wasn't skillful enough in his
use of
language to avoid confusion in the minds of regular people and so must
be interpreted by the professed learned
such as yourself in order for us mere mortals to grasp their true meaning, thereby revealing a flaw in this god's claim of
being all - knowing and all-wise.
I
am ** NOT ** trying to
be shocking or coarse here but to just make an intellectual point by
using such language: The idea or concept of erect penises, throbbing clitorises, moist vaginas, explosive orgasms, the lust / desire / craving for physical / sexual pleasure and more....