Quotessence
Home / Quotes / T Quotes

T Quotes

Browse famous quotes beginning with T. This page is a child index of the full Popular Quotes A-Z directory.

All T Quotes

“The first boycott was against a candy factory that owned a well-known chain of stores in several districts. The Committee had discovered that this factory was producing candy made of sugar swirls, in which - in a certain light - one could make out the word "God." The Committee released a statement calling upon people to boycott the factory, since allowing the name of God to be eaten and digested was the ultimate denigration of religion's place in society and thus warranted a country-wide campaign.”

“The first building she reached appeared to be an old barn. Only one young guard stood before its bolted door, staring at her with wide eyes, holding up his sword in defense, She heated his sword and he dropped it, his expression barely changing, as if he had been expecting that. She held up her two swords to his throat, but they were two heavy, so she dropped one and held the other with both hands. "Where are the two Bayern boys kept?" The soldier shook his head. BURN HIM, prompted the fire. The excitement of burning was simmering in her, heating her up for more action.”

“The first business of philosophy is to account for things as they are; and till our theories will do this, they ought not to be the ground of any practical conclusion.”

“The first casualty in any war is the truth. In World War II, I was part of a group of people who used to meet once a week with the sole purpose of analyzing the news and trying to work out what we weren't being told. We thought that we were clever, but we had absolutely no idea what was really going on. It was only years later that we learned the true story.”

“The first cause of the Universe — no matter how you name it, God or something else — could only created a physical substance but not the reality itself. Although reality can be associated with the physical world, reality and the physical world do not coincide. Only the brain can create reality, -- for that reason, reality is an individual phenomenon, being dependent on the physical characteristics of the individual brain, such as the brain-design, neurodynamic activity, etc. -- reality cannot be created by God, or something else. Reality cannot be a universal phenomenon, that is, can be the same for everyone. What happens in the brain causes the conceptualization of the outer world and creates a mental image of this world in the brain. You see, sense or perceive the outer world only through this mental image within you. You cannot be sure of the characteristics of any physical object, because your mental apparatus has a strong influence on the interpretation of signals coming from that object. You characterize something ‘so-and-so’ not because it is inseparable attribute, but because the chemicals acting in your brain cause you to do it, creating appropriate mental apparatus inside you in that moment. The reality cannot be immutable, it is changeable as well as the outer world. The reality changes over and over again, but it does not change symmetrically with the change in the physical world, and not only because of this change. Your reality is changing within your lifespan because of chemical changing inside your brain more than due to merely changing of the outer world. You cannot control the physical world’s changing, but you can do it with respect to your reality, to a considerable extent, influencing for what is going on in your brain in different ways, ranging from nourishment and sexual satisfaction in life to meditation.”

“The first century money changers were in the temple, but they didn't have the spirit of the temple... They were out of sync with the whole purpose of the Lord's house. "The atmosphere of my Father's house," Jesus seemed to say, "is to be prayer. The aroma around my Father must be that of people opening their hearts in worship and supplication. This is not a place to make a buck. This is a house for calling on the Lord.”

“The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did these two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might nevertheless be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. If Matthew speaks truth, Luke speaks falsehood; and if Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood: and as there is no authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even in the very first thing they say, and set out to prove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they say afterwards. Truth is an uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory. Either then the men called apostles were imposters, or the books ascribed to them have been written by other persons, and fathered upon them, as is the case in the Old Testament. Now, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood between them (as these two accounts show they do) in the very commencement of their history of Jesus Christ, and of who, and of what he was, what authority (as I have before asked) is there left for believing the strange things they tell us afterwards? If they cannot be believed in their account of his natural genealogy, how are we to believe them when they tell us he was the son of God, begotten by a ghost; and that an angel announced this in secret to his mother? If they lied in one genealogy, why are we to believe them in the other? If his natural genealogy be manufactured, which it certainly is, why are we not to suppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured also, and that the whole is fabulous? Can any man of serious reflection hazard his future happiness upon the belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of falsehood?”

“The first Chinese star, they call her, and it's the qualifications that are crucial. First. Chinese. A star may play only him- or herself, but she is supposed to play a race. How can she be herself and represent millions, both at once? And who does she represent them to? To themselves or others? "Who does she thinks she is?" an outraged Nationalist critic has demanded. She wishes she could say. Not a star, then. A star gives off its own light. Another celestial body, a moon, reflecting others' light.”