Sentences with phrase «very same means»

Now Novell, his granddaughter, has had to experience the same horror, ironically surviving by the very same means — hiding in a closet.

there's a conception that if there are additional choices for a shopper then it'll be higher for them however it doesn't perpetually add that very same means.

Not exact matches

When an American says the same thing, he may mean that you have some very good bands.

While indulging in that plan to escape being overwhelmed can sometimes mean completely checking out and detoxing from all things «incoming» and tech - related, it can also mean using those very same thoughts and tasks to escape in a different way — and still be using your mind.

That means Metacritic scores — which can determine financial bonuses for executives at studios and publishers — are compiled by trade and industry press, all of whom often depend on those same companies for their very livelihood.

Still, he insists that not very much has changed since Trump took office; the wage minimums remain the same, which means that U.S. companies can theoretically onboard foreign employees, who generally are willing to work for lower salaries than U.S. workers.

In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration proposed rules to cap SPF values at SPF 50 + for that very reason, with EWG noting that FDA rules capping certain active ingredients mean that SPF 30 and SPF 100 products typically offer roughly the same amount of UVA protection.

We talk about the importance of diversity, but if diversity means having the same political views as the CEO, we're doomed to a very un-diverse business.

You want both to use the same maps, the same sensor technologies... That means the technology platform is very similar and we see that as an opportunity to bring the most focused and most comprehensive solution on the market.»

This situation occurs when an investor buys on margin, which mean the investor does not have the money to buy the stocks and so he or she will borrow the money and offer these very same stocks that he or she is about to buy as collateral for the loan.

(In other words, you're not heavily exposed to a major fail scenario for equities that means you burn through your capital very quickly, but by the same token you're not exposed to a major success scenario either).

However, if you are a single doctor making $ 300,000 per year, did not have to address a meaningful debt burden, and only have $ 100,000 in investments at the age of forty, you have done something very wrong (most likely, you either lived at your means or traded stocks instead of thinking like an owner that made long - term investments) even if you have that same $ 100,000 in paper wealth because you had the skill set and personal opportunity costs to do so much more with your hand in life.

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

I believe on the same things about the meaning of life and I am very thankful to my parents who taught me to love and forgive.

When one does a comparative analysis of various Bible translations, hell, sheol, pit, and grave, all mean the very same thing, mankind's common grave, ergo, «the wages sin pays is death» not eternal torment, similar to our own justice system.

So when they say Muslims and Christians don't worship the same God — they aren't talking theology (though they may ostensibly say they do)-- they simultaneous mean: our stories, our holidays, our worship, our customs, our songs, our politics and all that are very, very different.

Even though EV has considerably less influence now than Mars Hill, the fact that the system continues with the same leaders in place using the same patterns means that others are being abused spiritually at the very least.

You may not be able to dole out charity at the same level as a very rich person like Elton John or Chrissy Teigen, but you can build generosity into your own life in ways your means allow (brightpeak even has a free, quick assessment that can help you build charitable giving into your budget.).

To say that it is not moral for man to do it but then say it is moral for god to do the same (or even more extreme action) means that you believe in divine command theory (look it up) which is a very dangerous concept and the argument is full of holes.

The confession that «Jesus the Christ is Lord,» then, is the very meaning of the Church's being and, at the same time, it constitutes her pronouncement.

I appreciate Benson's reminder that these prayers are not meant to be said alone and indeed are very difficult to say alone: «One of the keys to the discipline of the prayer of the office is the realization that... we are joining our voices with a great multitude unknown to us who are marking the same office at the same time each day.»

You may not be able to dole out charity at the same level as a very rich person like Elton John or Chrissy Teigen, but you can build generosity into your own life in ways your means allow -LRB-

That is very human, but the Lord's parable is particularly meant to make us quite aware of how profoundly un-Christian it is at the same time.

This generates the assumption — which I take to be very misleading — that contemporary theological proposals ought somehow to be translations of the «meant» into contemporary idiom — translations that convey over the ugly ditch of long history the same self - identical «meaning.»

believing that the same, very personal, means by which his own life had been soundly established should work for all, and ignoring the need for structural changes in society.

Not sure i am convinced because how do you explain the verse an eye for an eye in the old testament there have always been consequences for wrong doing and stiill are for sin.If we believe the word then that word is from God not satan.As far as satan is concerned he uses violence as his tools of trade he works on our fears and is limited to robbing stealing and destroying he does nt have anything else.Violence confirms to us that there is a spiritual battle going on both on the earthly plane and in the heavenlys and the battle is over souls.The verse the kingdon of heaven is expanding and violent people take it by force is referring to that spiritual battle and as satan uses violence to expand his dominion so does God use violence to counter him.So what does he mean by that term for me i think it is saying that the the force of evil that satan uses or violence is overcome by a greater violence or force a more powerful one that being the Love of Christ.Through the cross we see that clearly portrayed and in our lives that very same battle is still happening right now for dominion be clear if we walk in the flkesh satan will have dominion over us but if we walk according to the spirit and abide in Christ we have freedom from our old nature.and satan.He can oppose us but he wont be able to influence us if we are in Christ.

I think it takes a superior attitude, a lack of empathy, a strong does [sic] of condescension...» I was reading this aloud to my daughter, and she picked up on the very same thing I did: (after asking about the meaning of condescension) that you are exactly what you are describing.

Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to do these things let alone live and do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,

He writes in book The Meaning of Marriage, «The gospel is this: We are more sinful and flawed than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope.»

So if you ask a human how can space end, but at the same time never end (ie both very logical) they don't understand either, that does not mean there is a god, that just means our brain is not smart enough or developed enough to fully comprehend start and end.

First of all, some of these voices convey the impression that such distancing is the very goal for which we should strive, and not a means to our more authentic re-engagement of this same society.

It also means that those very same people would not need food or water for the first 72 hours of a disaster.

That same secular world with its nagging empirical criteria of meaning and validity remains in power in academia and among the middle and especially the professional classes — and we who try to do theology are still ourselves very much a part of that same world.

Persons who say they believe in evolution, but who have in mind a process guided by an active God who purposely intervenes or controls the process to accomplish some end, are using the same term that the Darwinists use, but they mean something very different by it.

But, then, there is something else that he very well could say that would render his apparently contradictory statements consistent — namely, that, although such terms as «absolute» and «relative,» or «necessary» and «contingent,» explicate the meaning of more than one logical type, and thus apply to entities within these different types in correspondingly different senses, rather than in simply the same sense, they nevertheless apply to the different entities within any single type whose meaning they in some sense explicate, not in different senses, but rather in the same sense.

Go look up for yourselves secular studies on how much an average (this means typical, as opposed to your very ILLOGICAL use of anecdotal evidence to draw conclusions or simply spouting the same thing you read in a combox somewhere) Christian gives of his own time and treasure to charitable causes versus an average atheist.

In this sense, the foundational assertions of Christian witness and theology, as distinct from their constitutive assertion, are all assertions about God; and this means that, in the very same sense, the concept expressed by «God» must be as indispensable to Christian theology as to the witness of faith en which it is the reflection.

When speaking of something language also speaks of itself, pointing to its ground which is taken away from it, and by this very fact given: this is signified when we say «God» even though we do not mean by this the same as language as a whole, but the ground on which it rests.

It does not matter if we say Gott in German or Deus in Latin, or El in the Semitic languages or teotl in Mexican and so forth, though it is, of course, a very obscure and difficult question how we can know that all these different words mean the same thing or person, for in this case we can not simply point to a common experience of what is meant, independent of the term.

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.

The very fact that the name of this Messiah means «God saves» shows that no matter what Jesus was like as a person, the correlation of these texts and language, written at different times and in different places all communicate the same message: Jesus was the Son of God, the Word made flesh and thus, one can not deny it, he had to be telling the truth.

But, with the same stroke, the very question of the meaning of such expressions as wholly other, transcendent, and beyond, as well as act, word, and event, is avoided.

Just as theologians have said that the revealed God remains the hidden God, so we can say that the power of the age to come in our midst means that signs of the kingdom, very real signs, are revealed to us while at the same time the kingdom remains hidden and is yet to be revealed in all its glory.

Yet at the same time, an unbridled, completely laissez - faire capitalist system can he as destructive to human life and to human value as any communist system might be, for unbridled capitalism will inevitably grind to that point where the capitalists are very few, owning all the means of production, and the masses are many, and they are being exploited.

Both produce the same result but use very different means.

It has become very easy after the seventeenth century to situate the whole notion of meaning or value in the same context as secondary qualities.

These writers believed themselves to be inspired by the Spirit and called as teachers, and their writings, argues Wright, «were not simply about the coming of God's Kingdom into all the world; they were, and were designed to be, part of the means whereby that happened... Those who read these writings discovered, from very early on, that the books themselves carried the same power, the same authority in action, that had characterized the initial preaching of the «word.»

Note also in the reading that this is the word, it is what God said to Moses; that the quality of divine compassion and mercy and grace here comes through as it has not previously in Exodus; that this is a recital of faith in the nature and purpose of God (see the emphasis upon the divine «I,» even more pronounced in Hebrew, and compare the same feature in Joshua 24); and that all of this is an expansion of the single, simple, eloquent theme which opens and closes the recital: «I am the LORD,» conveying in the very name all the essential meaning of the divine Life.

But I am beginning to gather from statements in Muray's paper — such as that Hauerwas thinks «there is an unchanging core to the tradition» (86), which he means as a criticism — that Muray's anti-essentialism affirms that in fact there is nothing very definite to Christianity at all, meaning, I should think, that it is either everything or nothing — which in the end comes to the same thing.

With this aim in mind, homosexual marriage and the right to adoption for same - sex couples appear as nothing more than a means for exploding the foundations of society, making possible all kinds of unions, finally liberated from an ancestral morality, and therefore definitively doing away with the very notion of sexual difference.