Sentences with phrase «words as definitions»

The legal effect can be identical, but a subtle psychological bias can be introduced by selecting loaded words as definitions or terms.

Very small number of people use words as definition, free of context.

Not exact matches

For example, «Acura» has no dictionary definition but the word suggests precision engineering, just as the company intended.

General tokens are used along the traditional definition of the word, as a placeholder that can be exchanged for goods or services.

Section 3311 of the House version of the TCJA would have repealed the § 1221 (b)(3) election to treat self - created musical compositions as capital assets and — more important to the current discussion — would have added the words «a patent, invention, model or design (whether or not patented), a secret formula or process» before «a copyright» in the § 1221 (a)(3) exception to the definition of a capital asset.

2) So let's discard the word truth, because believers have found great joy in wasting time debating the definition of truth and shifting to «God's truth» as their counterpoint.

I also don't think I need to point out to you that using only part of a definition fundamentally changes the word and definition itself, so to take only parts out to prove what atheism does do as «religious» is flawed and destroys your argument.

You'll have to excuse Bill, his comments are completely irrelevant so often that we tend to think he got a dictionary as a small child with all the definitions moved up four words.

Islam, by definition, can not be modernized or, as in the case of Christianity, «reformed», since it is the immutable word of allah, and any attempt to do so would by blasphemous apostasy, which is punishable by death.

Alicia, do you know how the definition of the word «theory» as it is used in science differs from the way you probably use it in casual conversation?

Being a non-believer black - belt of of the nth degree I see knowledge of mythological trivia as important as believers see the understanding of the intricacies in the definition of the word theory.

As is so often the case, Christians have their own definitions for words that don't match what the rest of us understand them to mean.

Clearlly, your use of those words eliminate definition 1 as an option.

He says, e.g., «if memory is defined as «experience of the past,» then all perception... is a form of memory, by this definition of the word» (MMCL 442).

Most 12 year olds are not so stupid as thefinisher... most 12 year olds know how to use a dictionary and don't cry foul when confronted with the actual definitions of words.

My disagreements with the five points of both Calvinism and Arminianism iare not exactly with their theology or understanding of Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etc, etc..

The Whole Story series of the classics are the ones I always check out of the library, as their sidebar definitions, explanations of seldom used words, illustrations and interesting tidbits, not only intrigue, but make a classic story accessible to children who might otherwise become confused by the terminology of a different time era.

And yet, the definition would vary depending on the use of the word as either a noun or a verb.

At the same time, however, one must insist that this later definition of the Word is possible only as the result of an extended period during which the Word was essentially, if increasingly, so understood.

Because of the «ism» at the end, making it appear as if it were an ideology, and the fact that they do not understand the definition of the word... and many seek to use a «false equivalency» in a bid to bolster their failed arguments, too.

Vic You are getting as obtuse as Theo with your own definition of words.

It is a LIVING word, never intended to be accepted as a stagnant definition of anything.

I mention, only because my... paradigm (I'm not much on beliefs, in the usual organized religion sense)... includes a «Divine» of my own definition, that equates to something like «awe of life, love, and knowing that there is much we don't know» (< — sorry, not the easiest thing for me to get into words, hopefully that gets the gist of it) that I don't see as a «personal other», but, in my paradigm, I see that Divine as being systemic to everything, hence insights from what I learn / experience can be termed as the Divine acting.

Further, Johnson defines «religious» as «pious; disposed to the duties of religion» and «teaching religion,» with «to teach» taking such definitions as «to instruct; to inform» and «to deliver any doctrine or art, or words to be learned.»

Yet as Lynn says, we sometimes do have problems with word definitions...

The new Oxford English Dictionary neatly avoids the quicksand by attributing the word to the Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler, citing as the only definition Adler's technical and specialized usage, and then quoting a whole series of uses of the word that owe nothing whatsoever to Adler.

«Comfort» is a word with two definitions so different that it verges on being a contronym, that is, a word with two opposite meanings (such as «cleave» or «oversight»).

The common definition of the word as used in everyday conversation is «guess» or «hunch.»

As I've said before, believers love to twist accepted word definitions to justify their belief that mythology is reality.

And just so you all know, fish and chicken are NOT to be eaten either — why you ask, why the definition of the word meat may be of service here — meat: The flesh of an animal as food.

As you may know, highlighting a word or passage on the Times website calls up a question mark that users can click for a definition and other reference material.

«Trinity» did not originally mean, as it does for some later, that there are three kinds of revelation, the Father speaking through creation and the Spirit though experience, by which the words and example of the Son must be corrected; it meant rather that language must be found and definitions created so that Christians, who believe in only one God, can affirm that he is most adequately and bindingly known in Jesus.

@Damian Knight, stop hiding behind definitions of words such as murder.

We must not forget the words Jesus took from the prophet Isaiah as the definition of his mission: «The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.

As someone else who has come to understand Jesus as the best definition of the «Word of God», do you know how and when that phrase came to refer to the Bible instead of JesuAs someone else who has come to understand Jesus as the best definition of the «Word of God», do you know how and when that phrase came to refer to the Bible instead of Jesuas the best definition of the «Word of God», do you know how and when that phrase came to refer to the Bible instead of Jesus?

Though he prefers the older word «piety» — with its deep rootage in Roman history and Calvinist theology — J. I. Packer offers a succinct positive definition of Christian spirituality as an «enquiry into the whole Christian enterprise of pursuing, achieving, and cultivating communion with God, which includes both public worship and private devotion, and the results of these in actual Christian life.»

The contemporary NEED to be tolerant and not the traditional usage of the word (accepting that someone else's view be heard) we have a new definition which is framed as being only able to say that their claim is as valid as any other.

according to the definition Alan Miller is using (whatever words you may use to define your beliefs) as a Christian who pursues his own path through the bible rather than attending services, you are in the religious camp.

They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in their mohammad's mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not «submit nor surrender», as per the definition of the word «muslim».

What spoke to me through this story, is how much this pastor knew the people in his church (you and I have the same definition of church, however I'm using the word here as it applies to this group of people I feel the problem in many churches today (and why dialogue during sermons wouldn't go over well) is that the pastors do not take the time to invest in the people they are trying to teach.

Theologians influenced by positivism, whose adherents saw reality as strictly that which can be experienced through the senses and knowledge as that which can be obtained through a narrow definition of the scientific method, and linguistic analysis, which purported that the only proper function of philosophy is the study of the usage of words and sentences, also treated science and religion as separate realms, distinct «language games,» each with its own set of rules.

So I propose — arbitrarily again, if you please — to narrow our definition once more by saying that the word «divine,» as employed therein, shall mean for us not merely the primal and enveloping and real, for that meaning if taken without restriction might well prove too broad.

Recently, however, some pulpits have discovered that this very definition of words, that is, as signs to point to verifiable information, has made highly questionable the legitimacy of even using the word «God».

Just as it would be impossible to replace with definitions such words as» home,» or «light,» or «music,» or to make the meaning of such words clear to someone who had never himself experienced the realities to which they point, so it will always be impossible to replace with definitions such terms as «the grace of God in Christ,» «peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,» or the great story in which these phrases have their only possible context.

Admittedly, definitions of the word «insist» include «to want», tho arguably from my side, as act not as motivation.

In other words, science by definition has boundaries, and when they speak as scientists, people simply can not address the question of whether or not anything exists outside of nature.

You mean thinking «outside the box» as in twisting word definitions to suit your personal agenda?

Singular psyches are better conceived, in the view I have been sketching, as fleeting nodes in a multi-layered semiotic network whose connectivities are both ensured and characterized by shared modes of symbolization, or signification, such as language supplies.24 Here the «We» often claims the last word, but so long as some vestige of radical imagination remains, singular psyches are not subservient to public customs, institutional definitions, entrained instincts, ingrained habits, and soon.

When a Lutheran and a Catholic each talk of faith, does each define the word by some comprehensive abstract system, or by the complex associations the word has in a great range of shared biblical texts, such as Romans 1 with its talk of faith as that by which we live, I Corinthians 13 with its association of faith with hope and love, and Hebrews 11 with its definition of faith as assurance and conviction?

I admit what we are both talking about here is theoretical, but I also know niether are facts as the definition of thhe word would require.