Sentences with phrase «whatever kind you have»

I used smaller green lentils for this dish as they cook up quicker, but you can use whatever kind you have handy.

1 1/2 pounds russet potatoes (or whatever kind you have on hand, even sweet potatoes), cubed (I leave the skin on for nutrition and color contrast)

I've opted for coconut milk yogurt to keep this breakfast bowl both vegan and paleo - friendly but you can use whatever kind you'd like (I like to use sheep or goat milk yogurt if I'm not doing dairy - free).

Not exact matches

Here's a crazy idea when it comes to wireless roaming: how about Canadians being able to use their one and only cellphones with the same single numbers in whatever countries they want at a reasonable cost without having to jump through all kinds of hoops?

But the beauty of Burning Man is that all attendees can have whatever kind of experience they want.

Loncar argues that, unlike companies that abuse their prerogative to dictate whatever list prices they want in the U.S., Novartis has actually pulled off the kind of scientific innovation that the biopharma industry claims as its beating heart.

These are older debts that have been sold by whatever company or creditor that incurred them and so I don't know what kind of impact they truly will be having.»

That means that the stem - cell therapies have to be converted into whatever cell they're meant to be (heart - muscle cells, neurons, and so forth) before going into the body, rather than using different kinds of stem cells to treat the condition.

It beats the daylights out of the best phone app because you don't have to stop doing whatever you're doing while you wash your hands and find your phone and open the right app and - sorry Alexa - the simple barcode also has all the detail and specificity that you really need for this kind of order built right in so that you don't have to spend time teaching Siri or Alexa the entire taxonomy of the Safeway snack aisle.

The best accidental side effect of running a website and writing articles for Seeking Alpha is that it occasionally allows me to stumble into friends I haven't to in a while — the kind of people that you enjoyed being around, but then life happens, and for whatever reasons, things happen and you fall out of touch.

They decided their combined access to data about how consumers make choices, along with an understanding of the intricacies of health insurance, would inevitably lead to some kind of new efficiency — whatever it might turn out to be.

China and Singapore, by the way, are nondemocratic capitalistic societies, and so it's actually easier for those types of governments to make wholesale change than it is in our case, so they can make the types of systems that we've been talking about, or they could decide to mirror Singapore or whatever, and everybody just kind of has to take it.

I still see the logic of buy - and - forget for certain kinds of portfolios, particularly if you want to be a stock picker for whatever reason and yet you only have limited time, interest, or application.

Anyway, if we're missing ideological (or whatever you want to call it) diversity we sure have lots of all the other kinds, including, I'm sure, plenty of sinners like me, and even, I would be willing to bet, a few saints.

We would not tolerate this kind of secrecy and deception and would want to maximize whatever precious time we had left with our families.

You have every right to «believe» whatever you wish, but claiming your «faith» to be some kind of «fact» or «proof» is blatantly false and quite dishonest!

Yea, all kinds of people have owned slaves and donated to charity for whatever reason.

Allah, or Yahweh, or Christ, (whatever anyone wants to call God) I do not believe, would require that kind of kil ling.

«I kind of feel like I would accept whatever label gets thrown at us,» she says.

Whatever impulse his followers have had to labor for the amelioration of human life in ministering to the sick, the weak and helpless, the ignorant, the poverty - stricken, the imprisoned by any kind of chains, owes its primary origin to the love of God for persons as this was manifest in Jesus.

While I would not identify my position with the extremes of pragmatism, it is, nonetheless, a healthy reminder that religious truth, whatever may be the case with other kinds of truth, involves issues of value, of consequences, of the quality of lived existence.

Acceptance of one's self, of others whatever their creed, color or nationality, helping the less fortunate, kind words to lift those who might be having a bad day, a simple smile while recognizing another's existence... the list goes on and on.

Jon Sobrino has written that as long as there is suffering, poverty, exclusion and premature death on an immense scale — which is ever more the case in Latin America — there will be need for a theology (whatever its name) that poses the kinds of questions posed by liberation theology.

Millions of parents are stuck buying whatever Disney coughs up, because every other kid at school has Lion King or whatever other kind of merchandise.

Whether Rama or Ravana ruled, whatever political authority structures came into being or disappeared, they had but minimum impact on the life of the various village communities; they continued to live in some kind of internal self - sufficiency according to their different traditions, with Custom as the real King.

But we were absolutely encouraged to have whatever belief we wanted, there was never any kind of dialogue that was imposed on us.»

not only do so - called «leaders» have to just become a part, but the other members of the community (whatever kind of community it is) need to accept the so - called «leader» as a part.

If in fact, by people giving out of love, it somehow helps those in Ja - pan that «do» have some kind of a particular faith, whatever their religious beliefs are, i.e...

Mr. Sullivan has no interest whatever in reconstructing a Catholic sexual ethic, or any other kind of ethic that might propose constraints or moral orderings on the satisfaction of sexual desires, apart from a few narrowly defined causes of possible «social harm.»

We all have one really kind friend who just agrees with whatever we say.

I would reject as uncalled for and unsound the skepticism of those scholars who hold that we have no trustworthy indications whatever as to the character, the teaching and the career of Jesus of Nazareth, but I would be inclined to agree that there are not many particular points where we can feel absolute assurance, We can be sure that Jesus said a certain kind of thing, but not that he said just this thing or that.

«If you can only win or succeed or build or plant or whatever your particular brand is, by lying to get in, lying to stay in, lying to earn the support of your neighbors, lying to gain access to this place or that place, then you model, teach or just outright instill or replicate the kind of modalities that you want the next generations to embody and they don't have a ticket home,» he says.

Whatever the size or type of building we constructed, we would ultimately end up with some kind of large, monolithic building surrounded by an ocean of parking.

It has been prepared to say, and to find varying kinds of theological support for saying, what their Christian insight should have compelled it to say in any case: that any human being, anywhere, who has shared in love, sought for truth, created or admired beauty, lived bravely, served goodness, stood for justice, and has thus responded, as far as was possible under the circumstances in which he or she lived, to whatever of divine reality has been made known, must somehow be included in the company of the faithful.

Finality is probably an unfortunate word to use, but whatever term is chosen, what has just been said is the only kind of finality or decisiveness or speciality that we are called upon to defend.

This is the kind of censorship necessary for television, he says, «and, whatever the justice of [Rooney's] punishment, he can take comfort in having served as a sacrifice to the cause of public tranquility.»

Not at all, but here I am looking for a job to pay off the financial debt I made thinking I am sort of called, to eventually f (o) und family, and going starting tomorrow on a full - time two week course on how to write job applications, so me explaining the sinfullness of suicide, and regarding many persons on this planet me motivating them to endure whatever crappy situation (often for profit and / or gain of someone else) even tho they would be better off leaving such situation / s if possible (kind of Moses), seems rather pointless.

In Diuturnum Illud, Pope Leo XIII rejected the idea that government is legitimated through consent and argued for a parallel between paternal and political authority, since «different kinds of authority have between them wonderful resemblances, since, whatever there is of government and authority, its origin is derived from one and the same Creator and Lord.»

What they show, I think, is that whatever may be the ultimate meaning - status of the function «X is a powerless actuality» and Premise X, Griffin is clearly supposing that they have some kind of surface meaning — enough to permit an investigation of their logical connections to one another and to the claim that actual beings are completely determinable.

i think as long as you have a church family who is there for you in the hard times, sincerely there for you, in a «hold me together while i fall apart» kind of way... then it does nt matter how ofter you meet formally at the church or whatever.

However, the religious being less smart than a teenager from Kansas and her little Scottie (or whatever kind of dog Todo was) have their eyes clenched tightly shut, and refuse to look behind the curtain because they've built their world - views around the existence of OZ, the great, and mighty and terrible.

The ultimate random reinforcement is the one imposed by reality, that they who survive can assign whatever meaning to that survival, unchallenged by the notion that it could just as easily have gone the other way, and no force, no spirit, no god or force of any kind was supervising the battle, or caring about its outcome, or either of the combatants.

Granted this difference, It would seem that there is a remarkable correspondence between the biblical insistence on the living God who is active in nature and in the affairs of men, and the recognition by process - thought that the world is a dynamic process of such a kind that whatever explanatory principle or agency there may be must be of that sort too — it also must be dynamic and processive.

Yet we are not delivered into the hands of the vitalist who would wish to introduce some kind of mysterious psyche or entelechy or spirit (or whatever equivalent term he might use) as an addition to the process.

Then I asked for my favorite, brewed chai, «In a really big cup, whatever it is called» and got another foul look and the sad information that I could either have another kind of tea or the spiced «milk» product they call Chai Latte.

Part of the problem is that we are all too often trying to sell something, telling people that finding Jesus will miraculously makes their lives perfect — and perfect being defined as getting whatever you want and never having to worry about anything — far from the kind of Christian life we are called to.

And I bet none of those healed had any kind of health insurance with huge rip - off insurance companies who charged them ridiculous premiums and then said they wouldn't cover whatever their illness was, or had limits on what they would pay, or gave payoffs to crooked politicians to keep people from getting decent health care at reasonable prices, or forbade them from buying the medications they needed from anywhere they were available, or even had forms to fill out.

Katie must have known very well the anguish and misery that lay behind the words, understood how her husband was making the greatest gesture he could of protest against a life which had become finally too burdensome: «To my kind and dear mistress of the house, Luther's Katherine von Rora, a preacher, a brewer, a gardener, and whatever also she is capable of doing.

The Church authorities, whatever they were planning about his own personal case, had shown no interest in the kind of radical, all over reform which he was now asking for.

Contrast this with the genuine church teaching of Pius XII: «This anti-Christian hedonism... promotes the desire to render always more intense thepleasure in the preparation and actualisation of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law could be reduced to the regular accomplishment of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in whatever manner done, remains justified by the effusion of mutual affection, sanctified by the sacrament of marriage...» [11] In fact, it would be hard to distinguish Popcak's «One Rule for Infallible Lovers» from the kind of reduction described by the Pope.