Sentences with phrase «about the courses here»

You can find out more about the courses here.

I highly recommend checking out more info about the course here!

Check out more information about this course here: http://www.nwei.org/discussion-course-books/climate/.

Read more about the course here.

You can find more information about our course here: Positive Parenting First Five Years

Not exact matches

(See Sy's great analysis here; Natasha Singer, likewise, had a good discussion on such issues in the New York Times last week — and, of course, we at Brainstorm Health Daily have written about them many, many times.)

To help inspire my fellow golf - lovers who spend more time in the office than on the course, here are 10 quotes about golf that can easily be applied to corporate life.

Then, of course, there's the company that has long inspired design - envy: Apple — and the raging debate about whether it has lost a step in the years since iconic CEO Steve Jobs passed away (see our feature here).

But here's the thing: It's all downhill from here, raising questions about the timing of Trudeau's boasts about his ability to direct the course of a $ 2.1 trillion economy.

If you are interested in learning more about Ruth's blogging course, check out her sales page here: Elite Blog Academy.

As always, if you have any questions about trading just email me here, and if you want to learn more about how to trade with price action then checkout my price action trading course for more info.

You can see what the course is all about here (but only buy from the discount link below).

It is just about impossible, of course, to predict with any precision how all of this will unfold from here.

Rob Artigo: And, of course, Tough Things First is the name of your book and it's important to note right here that if you want to learn more about these traits and other aspects of entrepreneurship, the book, Tough Things First, is a great way to go.

I want to talk about some of the issues involved here from the perspective of a central banker — whose primary focus is, of course, monetary policy.

Over the course of my writings here about investing, I've focused quite a bit on the topic of diversification and asset allocation.

Josh here — now, of course, there will be people at the table who don't care about these facts.

But of course, you don't have any integrity, so you'll continue to post here for free and then bit @h about the bias.

Here is a show about a diverse group of students nay friends who make their way through Spanish and anthropology courses in terms of relying on each other as a study group.

yawn... of course we all have subjective biases... i'm honest about mine... and really, what is the point of having the samed tired debates here... you already have your opinion made up, won't truly listen and will hear anything i say through that lens

There are bigger questions here about discipleship, leadership, and the purpose of the church, of course, but I'll leave it there.

I'm passionate about the topic, personally, of course, but in all of the conversations I've had since Jesus Feminist came out, I've come to realise that it's even more important than I could have dreamed to speak the truth here and teach the truth in our communities.

Of course not, but that's not what we're talking about here at all.

The suggestion here is that the dominant interest unifying every course in a theological curriculum ought to be the interest guiding one of the three sorts of theology (constructive, critical practical, or apologetic), that is, interest reflected in one of the three ranges of questions congregations invite about their construals of the Christian thing (What is it?

On the unity side, the proposal here is, quite simply, that a theological course of study would be unified if every course in it were deliberately and explicitly designed to address centrally one of the three questions about the Christian thing in and as Christian congregations (What is it?

One day, about two weeks into the course, after having observed all of this squabbling going on back and forth, he came up to me after class and said, «I think I'm beginning to understand what is going on here.»

When most people today hear the sentence «You must believe the gospel to be saved» what actually goes through their mind is this: «Here are the things you must believe in order to go to heaven when you die» (And of course, everyone has a different idea about what we must believe).

I am not talking about who posts comments here, I am talking about those who constantly attack me and other Christian posters for stating our Christian belief in the course of discussion.

Of course, it says the books were discovered between 2005 - 2007, and here it is, 2011, and we are just now hearing about it, so it will probably be another 20 - 30 years before we hear anything else...

The difference here of course has nothing to do with trustung what «men» have written, it has to do with faith in whatever diety you believe... If you accept that there is a diety responsible for inspiring someone to write about them then really it is not the person writing but the diety writing through them... so your argument from that perspective is moot...

Here is a show about a diverse group of students nay friends who make their way through Spanish and anthropology courses in terms of relying on....

His view is that Paul basically gave himself free reign here at the start of his teachings to the gentiles (see also 1:1 a: «Paulos, apostolos ouk ap anthroopoon, oude di anthroopon, alla dia Iesou Christou, kia Theou patros...») and then started preaching his own theology heavily influenced by his own biases and preferences — not that any of the writers were ever completely exempt from it of course, but still the writer felt Paul was quite fundamentalistic at times about certain things he had some clear opinions about, e.g. about relationships and women's position in the church etc, which he then propagated as part of the gospel.

Here is something Einstein wrote about god — «It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.

What is happening here is a mashing together of texts to make the point about continuity between the then and now - the now, of course, related to those Christians who are in agreement with the arguments of Cyprian.

Of course, this is not all that Christians believe, or even the major part of what Christians believe, about Jesus Christ; but for our purpose, it is enough now just to admit at least that much, to see here life given in love to the point of complete surrender of self, to agree that the ages witness that this is healthy life, this is wholeness, and then to turn to oneself and ask the very simple but very searching question, «How do I measure up to that standard?»

«as we discuss different religions as we do here on the blogs, making strategic evaluations about people and groups, without over-generalizing and labeling them, is a useful and valuable skill to have»... Of course that's true.

You Said:» «as we discuss different religions as we do here on the blogs, making strategic evaluations about people and groups, without over-generalizing and labeling them, is a useful and valuable skill to have»... Of course that's true.

Much could be said about this topic of course, but based on some of my favorite commentaries, I've identified three influences that, for the purposes of our discussions here, should be introduced — Purim, Persia, and Patriarchy.

We mean here, of course, beliefs about Jesus.

«And, of course, nothing [is said] here about avoiding tribulation.»

We debate endlessly about Peace, Democracy, the Rights of Man, the conditions of racial and individual eugenics, the value and morality of scientific research pushed to the uttermost limit, and the true nature of the Kingdom of God; but here again, how can we fail to see that each of these inescapable questions has two aspects, and therefore two answers, according to whether we regard the human species as culminating in the individual or as pursuing a collective course towards higher levels of complexity and consciousness?

Here, of course, is where my long - standing hypothesis about the nature of Whiteheadian societies comes into play.

Here it saw four problems: uncertainty about the ultimate «goal or end of theological education..., the overloading of the curriculum, the extension of requirements, and the loss of unity among so many specialized courses».

It will not be so much a source of information about what here and now is the only correct and legitimate course of action.

The difference here, of course, is that we are talking about priests, who presumably are a moral notch above the general population.

Which is, of course, one of the points we have to keep making about Pius XII, who had to make excruciating decisions about what to say and what not to say, because people would suffer and die if he said the wrong thing, but who receives from his critics no such understanding as Roosevelt receives here.

@cactus and me11 - very good reply but I remember hearing someone talking about these time studies and making the statement that since no records from that long ago were kept so time stamping is an educated guess, of course their guesses are usually right but they intelligently left the door open to possible errors here.

This is of course patently absurd, but then we're talking about Protestant Evangelicals here.

Such an impression will of course be misleading, the consequence of taking the printed record too seriously, and it will not be total: Here and there in the general excited buzz, there will be visible an outcrop of the unchanging reality beneath, some out - of - date old cleric still raising a stubborn voice about the love of God, the burden of sin, the pain of Christ, the love of our neighbor, the pilgrimage of this life, and the Four Last Things.

Here is the culmination of Israel's thought about natural law: a glorious day should dawn when man's jungle impulses would atrophy, when right would triumph deep in human nature, and society would pursue its happy course in a state of «anarchy,» of «no law,» because everyone would do the high and noble thing through his love for it, in obedience to the unwritten law inscribed on his heart!