Sentences with phrase «understood by context»

Not exact matches

By reviewing many different sources, I can pick up on more nuanced context, and that helps me understand how to apply what I've read and to spark inspiration.»

At the same time, by explaining your value proposition, you make it easy for your recipient to understand the context of the email without having to read through the other previous outreach and follow up emails in the thread.

And it will help developers personalize their experiences by leveraging Cortana's understanding of users» preferences and context, based on user permissions.

EQ capabilities, or emotional intelligence, to lead teams effectively by empowering others, understanding their personal context and building trust.

Gaining context through understanding, over time, the goals buyers are attempting to accomplish enables marketing to be driven by more than a campaign mentality.

It also understands the context of the commands given to it by the user (by leveraging IRIS) and acts accordingly.

Context on not only how businesses are impacted by changing technologies, but also getting new contextual understanding of how the individual buyer and human experience is changing.

if you really want to understand why, read the entire text that was quoted by One One in the context that leads up to those scriptures.

This will give you the necessary background by which to understand the context of the Qur «an.

As things have turned out, there are those that think that it's unChristian and unbiblical and that we're being boastful and arrogant, and those that understand that, in our context and times... we're living by the philosophy that we don't want to ask people to do something that we're not willing to do ourselves.

While the priesthood of all believers was used by the reformers to buttress an evangelical understanding of the church over against the clericalism and sacerdotalism of medieval Catholicism, the ecclesial context of this Reformation principle has often been eclipsed within major sectors of the Protestant tradition.

, in the name of your creator, who created man from a clot...», [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FUTtKFH-KU] so rather than quoting what the terrorists quote (who BTW are misleading muslims and opponents alike, by reading verses out of context), use your logic, use your intelligence, read and understand.

We understand the statement that «we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ» in terms of the substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ, leading to full assurance of eternal salvation; we seek to testify in all circumstances and contexts to this, the historic Protestant understanding of salvation by faith alone (sola fide).

Anyone who studies the new testament to try to understand the context of events of the Savior's ministry will learn that he was labeled a criminal by the Pharisees and Sadducees (who were the religious leaders that part of the world during that time) because they felt threatened by Jesus.

Clearly the same is continuing as delivered by individuals passing judgement on Him today based upon the actions of people claiming to be his followers or not having a clear understanding of what His words really are in context.

The present context is very helpful in understanding what Whitehead meant by the ambiguous term «genius» here.

Yet McGrath demonstrates that this single quote was torn badly out of context, and that Tertullian's real attitude was that «there is nothing that God does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason.»

I don't have formal training to back this up, but my understanding is that narcissism is a spectrum; that it's neither entirely inborn nor determined by upbringing (though influenced by both); and most certainly influenced by both long - term experience and short - term context.

In fact, those who understand it will see the event in its present context immediately following the first prediction of the passion and Peter's confession of that which never comes by observation of flesh and blood but only by revelation (16:17).

It would seem, therefore, that we can understand historically why persons find themselves talking in this context without supposing that they are forced to do so by the nature of things or by their apprehension of God as the cause of finite beings.

At the same time it involves receiving capacities to respond to that presence by understanding everything else, other persons, our shared natural and social contexts, and especially ourselves in distinctive ways, namely, in relation to God.

So the Supreme Court, when it practices judicial activism, undercuts democratic participation not only by substituting its own assertoric judgment for democratic deliberation, or by ignoring the plain letter of the constitution in favor of its own political inclinations, but also by understanding itself as a council of philosopher kings (versus really good lawyers) prudentially adjusting the fundamental nature of American democracy to fit the ever changing historical horizon that provides the context for its expression.

As I have argued in these pages and elsewhere, the «presumption,» by detaching the just war way of thinking from its proper political context» the right use of sovereign public authority toward the end of tranquillitas ordinis, or peace» tends to invert the structure of classic just war analysis and turn it into a thin casuistry, giving priority consideration to necessarily contingent in bello judgments (proportionality of means, discrimination or noncombatant immunity) over what were always understood to be the prior ad bellum questions («prior» in that, inter alia, we can have a greater degree of moral clarity about them).

When you do look at references to cannibalism in the Old Testament, you can infer from the context of Deuteronomy 28:53 - 57, Leviticus 26:29, 2 Kings 6:26 - 29 and Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:10, and Lamentations 4:10 that just as much as now people at time understood it to be an act of desperation, but it is never explicitly forbidden by God.

If so, I applaud Schmidt and urge us to give his words further meaning by realizing that to understand our own tradition, we will need to see it in a comparative context which includes both ourselves and others.

And for you and many others who are having a tough time understanding what love looks like in the context of our family, maybe we'd be a little less hurt, a little less disappointed, a little less wounded by our family if we truly internalized that a loving God came to earth and was «called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.»

This realization does by no means imply assent, for the normative quest is excluded; rather it enables the interpreter to understand the phenomenon in the context in which it belongs.

Bob doesn't understand the basics of reading comprehension 101 by putting the scriptures into historical context.

In any case, we can largely understand prophetic man in terms of two factors: the total physical, social, and historical context in which he lived and his personal will as that by which he transcended that context and determined the form his life would take within it.

Thus to say that a philosopher, even when he is Heidegger, all by himself sees what the New Testament says, is to appear to have no sense of historical context; certainly not the kind of contextual sensitivity which the cultural anthropologist has come to understand and value.

Instead of believing with Hartshorne that man's convictions about the ultimate character of reality can and should be determined by allegedly neutral logical principles, the understanding here being argued is that man's thinking about God is and should be governed by a vision emerging in the context of faith, a vision that is itself decisively conditioned by its rootage in history and in the prereflective levels of consciousness.

All observed causal patterns and structures, however detailed and complex, have further environmental contexts, still, to some extent, to be unveiled by the development of time and of human understanding.

The interpreter has to look for that meaning which a biblical writer intended and expressed in his particular circumstances, and in his historical and cultural context, by means of such literary genres as were in use at his time, To understand correctly what a biblical writer intended to assert, due attention is needed both to the customary and characteristic ways of feeling, speaking and storytelling which were current in his time, and to the social conventions of the period.

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying regarding the waffle, but, yes, all of scripture is in fact «cultural» — it is placed first and foremost within the cultural context of the readers (the original, intended recipients) and any proper understanding of it and interpretation of it in our culture today must first understand how it would have been received and interpreted by those it was written to.

But if we interpret the expression by its context and are charitable, «eternal event» in Christ can be understood to be an event having two characteristics.

The editorial comment makes clear that, seen in the proper context, the resurrection of our Lord is relevant to the full understanding of what is accomplished by the celebration of theEucharist.

This book is, by far, one of the better books I have read dealing with the issues surrounding Genesis 1 and how to understand them in light of their original context.

Elsewhere Cobb is careful to specify that both God and man are best characterized as living persons consisting respectively of societies of actual occasions (CNT 188, 192).1 In the present context, consequently, it is clear that we are to understand God to be present in man in the same manner in which one actual occasion is present within another and that this presence concerns the aims at the fulfillment of a concrescing occasion in a living person by the occasions or «prehended data» in its past.

Almost a century and a half after Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria and his brilliant student Origen were self - consciously affirming, not that Christianity was like paideia, not that it could simply make use of received paideia, but that Christianity is paideia, given by God in Jesus Christ, turning on a radical conversion possible only by the Holy Spirit's help, and taught only indirectly by study of divinely inspired Scriptures in the social context of the church understood to be in some ways a school.

It is less than the church because it is a product of the church and can be understood only in the context which the life of the church provides; it is greater than the church because it is, by and large, the only record we have of the events which not only brought the church into being but also through which its reality must be continually renewed.

They refuse to understand that so much of religious teaching is shaped by the context of the society in which it originated.

Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as «proof» that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved.

Black American politics is still largely inspired by religion and often led by clergy, usually of charismatic and evangelical bent; black political rhetoric can not be understood except in the context of biblical thought and imagery.

God is not that hard to understand in his communication to us... it is only hard when people forget to use context, when people like AMericans forget the Bible was written by mostly Jews in a different country and culture and time.

In the context of a university, for example, revelational knowledge does not conflict with but can properly be understood as assisting the autonomous search for truth undertaken by the various disciplines.

Understanding Prophecy by Bandy and Merkle takes the various sections of prophecy in Scripture and presents them in their literary and cultural contexts, providing a brief summary of the various views and interpretations that are available for each section.

One topic that I believe can be greatly facilitated by understanding it in a larger context is the question of sectarianism.

Only in some such context can we be prepared to understand what Whitehead might mean by speaking of matter - of - fact entities as the salvation of reality.

We understand the pluralism of our social context in part because it reflects the variety of ways in which we understand our own experiences.The problem of being the church is acute for us not only because we must live side by side with those of other religious communities, but because the church is only one of the communities in which we live.

To understand is always to understand in some cultural context, in terms provided by the culture's conventional practices and traditions.