A Quote by Christian Nestell Bovee

It is invidious to distinguish particular men as adventurers: we are all such. — © Christian Nestell Bovee
It is invidious to distinguish particular men as adventurers: we are all such.
There are those who keep out of mischief, and there are the adventurers, ‘ he said. “We racing drivers are adventurers; the more difficult something is, the greater the attraction that comes from it.
Dads are most ordinary men turned by love into heroes, adventurers, story-tellers, singers of songs.
Of course, if you photograph the behavior of women and men at a particular time in history, in a particular situation, you will capture differences. But the error lies in inferring that a snapshot is a lasting picture. What women and men do at a moment in time tells us nothing about what women and men are in some unvarying sense - or about what they can be.
Regardless of the medium, be it television or feature or documentary, I'm not gonna distinguish and worry about my particular canon, whatever that means.
The democratic rule that all men are equal is sometimes confused with the quite opposite idea that all men are the same and that any man can be substituted for any other so that his differences make no difference. The two are not at all the same. The democratic rule that all men are equal means that men's being different cannot be made a basis for special privilege or for the invidious advantage of one man over another; equality, under the democratic rule, is the freedom and opportunity of each individual to be fully and completely his different self. Democracy means the right to be different.
Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting in a particular way.
Almost everywhere men have become the particular things which their particular work has made them.
But under it all they were men, penetrating the land of desolation and mockery and silence, puny adventurers bent on colossal adventure, pitting themselves against the might of a world as remote and alien and pulseless as the abysses of space.
We can distinguish three groups of scientific men. In the first and very small group we have the men who discover fundamental relations. Among these are van't Hoff, Arrhenius and Nernst. In the second group we have the men who do not make the great discovery but who see the importance and bearing of it, and who preach the gospel to the heathen. Ostwald stands absolutely at the head of this group. The last group contains the rest of us, the men who have to have things explained to us.
Without feelings of respect, what is there to distinguish men from beasts?
There are constraints on what counts as "Reformed." It's more than a name or a label. It's about belonging to a particular theological stream or tradition, which is shaped in important respects by particular thinkers and their work, particular arguments and ideas, a particular community (especially, particular church communities, denominations, and so on), particular liturgies or ways of worshipping and living out the Christian life, and particular confessions that inform the practices of these communities.
States are doomed when they are unable to distinguish good men from bad.
I don't distinguish between men and women. This is irrelevant to me, and I don't think in these terms.
Non-Christians seem to think that the Incarnation implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity. But of course it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed. They that are whole need not the physician. Christ died for men precisely because men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it.
The men in my life were wonderful, but they were very artistic and very creative and they were adventurers like myself. So it wasn't right to settle down with them.
Example is the softest and least invidious way of commanding.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!