Sentences with phrase «true meaning of a statement»

Interpretation: The explanation of the true meaning of a statement or written document; a translation.

Not exact matches

In his latest statement, he suggests that he was merely combating the rumors of an affair: «Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage.

In the first chapter, he reclaims the word dogma from its popular pejorative meaning, defining it as an accurate statement of what is true, and setting out the relation between philosophy and theology that frames the rest of the book.

Faith means believing a set of statements about God, Jesus, and the Bible to be true, often literally true.

FAITH: * now means believing a set of statements about God, Jesus, and the Bible to be true, often literally true.

Most important are the notable series of statements Francis has been making on topics which bear directly on the family — the proper formation of conscience, the prophetic nature of Humanae Vitae, the true meaning of the sensus fidelium, and the need for bishops to preach the truth about the indissolubility of marriage, in season and out.

By such a statement we do not mean, of course, that the same span of time follows as precedes that event — this is only very approximately true and will become increasingly less true as the centuries pass.

This statement is to a considerable extent true, if one understands it correctly to mean that Christians throughout the ages have been largely ignorant of and not interested in «what can be known of Jesus of Nazareth by means of the scientific methods of the historian».

I think that this is a true statement about revelation; and it is also partly true that when Christians speak of «faith» they mean primarily «faith in» or «trust in» someone: in God, who is personal, in Jesus Christ.

Does Whitehead's statement, or apparent statement, that all entities are all in all translate a fuller or truer meaning of his earlier statement that God and the World stand over against each other?

«21 Faith, he says, for the Hindu does not mean dogmatism, implying that for the Christian it does.22 But a Christian would have no difficulty in subscribing to the statement that «it is not historically true that in the knowledge of truth there is of necessity great intolerance.

Marking the document by a bishop who had to remember the real purpose of certain statements might expose its true meaning so others would see the truth.

Also not knowing the true intention of the artist, which even if his / her intentions were to taunt, does that mean public art should be destroyed for making a statement...?

The statement says: «We are persuaded that faithfulness in our generation means declaring once again the true story of the world and of our place in it - particularly as male and female.

This statement is meant as a law of nature: It purports to be true in every case there ever could be.

One literally can not imagine a limit to the human imagination» @Chad «very true, of course that doesn't mean that Abraham Lincoln wasn't real... Blanket statements are pretty worthless when evaluating the historicity of a particular claim (which is why anti-theists tend to stick to that)»

It is a single vision of creation fulfilled in the Incarnation - probably the most profound statement ever made of the true meaning of Christianity.

A logical analysis of the use and meaning of words, it was said, led to two types of language: (1) tautologies, where what is said is logically true, as in mathematics or in such statements as «a rose is a rose» or «I am I,» and (2) synthetic or nonanalytic sentences, in which the meaning is its method of verification.

Bob... I'm not really sure if yr response to the Bonhoeffer quote is becuz you think it unreasonable or simply,» too doctrinaire», or as you say» religious speak» But, I take the statement to mean that the only hope for true community is the death of the «human wish for «community and therein lies the same paradox that is at the heart of the Christian message..

But easy to say negative things when your an addict of negative making negative statements we did nt win everything every year tottenham has been behind us till this year for 2o years mu went through 3 managers then got mourinho and he said hi i see you have billlions of dollars to spend why do nt you buy a team ill smile for three years make some dumb comments win a title chelsea not yet mu cause you spent more money than anyone else has except those city folks recently and play fall asleep football i mean wenger is great and haters gonna hate cause thats all they know to do they'll hate till we win the title then be happy for a day once its confirmed then say well we did nt win champions leauge or vice versa cause they re a negative addict they nead their dose to disassemble true success

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

The reason for my change of mind is that the growing injury list that now includes Tomas Rosicky and Mesut Ozil means that the statement by Arsene Wenger reported by Sky Sports the other day will now almost certainly come true.

What do you mean by «public view of layoffs are «company has issues, will not resolve them», but then say «layoffs mean the previous statement can't be true.»

Which doesn't necessarily mean the statement isn't true, but is usually a death knell marking the beginning of the end of what once made that particular island or beach so great.

However, this seemed to good to be true, and while the possibility of it being released later in the year is hard to swallow considering it was meant to be a launch title, it would fall in line with Sony's statement that they went back to the drawing board.

«I made a statement in the conference along the lines of «We'll have micro-transactions in our games» and the community read that to mean all our games, and that's really not true,» said Electronic Arts chief financial officer Blake Jorgensen.

This is part of Monckton's trick of counting the true statements in Spencers interview, just because they are pedantically true, doesn't mean they actually support the argument presented (counting irrelevant statements such as Dr Spencers qualifications is another example of inflating the count).

Both statements must be made true if the heartbreaking loss of life in Dallas is to have any meaning.

to be true it has to be empirically falsifiable,» What i said was that for a «statement to be true it has to correspond to reality and this means being subject to a process of verification / falsification.

I merely made a trivially true logical statement:» physics implies mathematics» Of couse as every logician knows, the truth of this statement is not equivalent to the truth of the statement «mathematics implies physics» what is what would mean the stupid claim you mentioneOf couse as every logician knows, the truth of this statement is not equivalent to the truth of the statement «mathematics implies physics» what is what would mean the stupid claim you mentioneof this statement is not equivalent to the truth of the statement «mathematics implies physics» what is what would mean the stupid claim you mentioneof the statement «mathematics implies physics» what is what would mean the stupid claim you mentioned.

So logically, if the proposed adjustment is in the ballpark, it would mean that one of the following statements must be true in order for the IPCC statement to still hold:

Also, whether your own statements on Facebook were true, false or neither (e.g. statements of opinion) is irrelevant to the culpability or liability of the people providing the tip to your employer, so long as their description of your posts made to the employer were substantially accurate or to the extent that they were inaccurate were accompanied by a means by which the employer could determine what you actually said without relying on their second hand account.

We emphasize that this means that a lawyer can never make a «true but reckless» statement about the conduct of a member of the protected class.

Defamation of public figures is governed by the «actual malice» standard: the person making the statement must either have known that it was false at the time they said it, or must have been acting with reckless disregard for the truth (meaning they had serious doubts that the statement was true at the time they said it).

Enduring love can be recognised by both parties and will be said in a genuine and meaningful way at the right moment, for the right reasons and it not a saying that is just said for the sake of it but for the true meaning behind the statement.

A Latin term meaning «been sworn» referring to the portion of an affidavit in which a person has sworn that the contents made in a written statement by the signer are true.

Bottom line is unfortunately these guests don't pay rent and being the capitalist I am I am not much on free rent so in true real estate lingo and all meaning of the statement....