Sentences with phrase «as a question instead»

Everything we» know» or» believe» should be presented as a question instead of as facts.

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab.

If you think the situation is serious enough that your friend should talk to someone, it can be helpful to phrase it as a question instead of a recommendation («Have you thought of going to speak with someone about this?»).

Not exact matches

So, instead of worrying about it, concentrate on what you want to communicate, such as asking good questions, not engaging in time - wasting small talk, and looking people in the eyes.

Instead, utilize the limited time you have during your interview to ask meaningful questions, such as «What makes an A player an A player?»

Instead, Raz recommends assigning another employee to show your new hire around, field basic questions, make introductions, and act as a sounding board, which can go a long way toward alleviating that dreaded «fish out of water» feeling during the first weeks.

But as an entrepreneur, you might instead focus on innovation and creativity, helping you take new perspectives, question accepted practices and try different approaches.

Instead of freaking out she tried to treat the process as an education, tapping into her networks, facilitating introductions and figuring out the right questions to ask.

• StatMuse is available as an iOS app, but the voice platform will launch on Amazon Alexa in the next few weeks, which means you could ask your Echo a question and hear Peyton Manning's voice instead of Alexa's.

Brimelow did not respond to our questions, instead characterizing ProPublica as the «Totalitarian Left.»

As another school year begins, artistic - minded students (and their parents) are once again wrestling with the age - old question of whether one should indulge an enthusiasm for music, literature or other fine - arts subjects at school, or instead study something more... shall we say... employable?

You should instead take the time to consider the investor's questions and suggestions, and view the process as useful insight into his or her thinking.

Instead of focusing on exit interviews as people leave your company, why not ask some questions of people who have stuck around for a while?»

Wearing a dark suit and tie instead of his typical T - shirt and jeans, Zuckerberg remained largely unruffled and serious as senators questioned him.

Powell has in the past expressed a view that Fed communication «should do more to emphasize the uncertainty that surrounds all economic forecasts, should downplay short - term tactical questions such as the timing of the next rate increase, and should focus the public's attention instead on the considerations that go into making policy across the range of plausible paths for the economy.»

When books were read religion sedated the masses now instead being sedate is the religion of the masses and all together they no longer need dream and question and doubt and fear as they march through the regulated routines of their untroubled days.

C) Instead of asking stupid questions, would you like to actually converse on a topic, maybe also rationalize slavery as Chad and Chcoked are currently attempting to do?

In a New York Times blog, Ross Douthat notes that Pew created two nonbeliever categories instead of one: the much publicized atheist / agnostic category (which got 21 out of 32 religious knowledge questions right) and a much larger category of respondents who described their religion as «nothing in particular» (which got only 15 right — a bit below the national average of 16 correct answers).

To stop studying those authors as exemplars and to inquire instead into how they came to be revered and how others came to be reviled or ignored is to find ourselves caught up in the moral and political question of why this should be so.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't consider that sort of thing as a sound basis for deciding difficult questions when we have actual scriptural evidence to use instead.

I don't think the various Gospel authors had Jesus asking question to show he did not know, nor to say «my peace is in the questions» but instead as a mere rhetorical tool to make a point and tell what he thought the answers were.

And as Big Shiz, pointed out, yes, you're a racist if you even question that Zimmerman might have acted stupidly instead of as the biggest racist since Nathan Forrest.

God answered this vital question by sending His Son, Jesus, as the fulfillment of the most violent religious writings, to show us that He had nothing to do with the violence, but was instead dying along with us in the midst of the violence, taking our sin and suffering upon Himself, bearing our guilt and shame in His own being, all for the sake of those He loved.

I am using the term «dialectic» in its ancient and etymological sense, and it seems appropriate to describe the process by this word; for instead of an aprioristic, deductive method of procedure, the process was one of answering questions and objections as they arose, not in anticipation, and not as the unfolding, more geometrico, of a system implicit within a body of axioms or first principles which one needed only accept and then all the rest followed logically to the final Q.E.D..

So the question isn't «Where do you attend church» or «What do you do in your church service» but instead, «As a part of the church, what can you be doing to strengthen it?»

So instead of doing some thinking on your own and questioning the utter absurdity of some writer centuries after the death of Christ offering a «prophecy» that is completely open ended and can not be held accountable or reliable in any way, you just accept that as «truth»?

Instead, you prove yourself to be incredibly stupid by acting as if your questions are witty and show the evolutionary model to be incorrect.

During the discussion which followed, James Crenshaw questioned how such an interpretation was possible, given Qoheleth's basic «pessimism» toward life, while John Priest argued instead that Qoheleth might best be understood as a «cynic.»

I am using it exactly as taught by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, where we ask questions in order to encourage people to compare themselves, even judging themselves, by God's moral standard instead of man's.

As with other fields of sociological research the question has been asked if there is good enough reason to treat socioreligious phenomena separately instead of handling them in the traditional disciplines (theology, philosophy, anthropology, etcetera).30 Yet, as against such doubts, the work done by modern scholarship has proved the right to an independent existence of «sociology of religion.&raquAs with other fields of sociological research the question has been asked if there is good enough reason to treat socioreligious phenomena separately instead of handling them in the traditional disciplines (theology, philosophy, anthropology, etcetera).30 Yet, as against such doubts, the work done by modern scholarship has proved the right to an independent existence of «sociology of religion.&raquas against such doubts, the work done by modern scholarship has proved the right to an independent existence of «sociology of religion.»

Instead, I intend only to treat the one question as to what is involved in the emergence of the rational consciousness.

Even if Lowe was right to take this remark as downplaying Bergson's influence, it is the sort of question one gets from graduate students who may be overly eager to trace down connections instead of dealing with ideas, and Whitehead was never much for worrying about these sorts of things either.

Instead, the decision as to what our question is must be made first in much more general terms, and only then can we institute a comparison.

So they began instead to question Jesus himself, to see if he would claim to be Messiah in order that they might present him to Pilate as a royal pretender to the Jewish throne (of Herod).

«65» In the paragraphs which follow, it becomes clear that behind Wallis's question is his belief that traditional evangelical thought has failed to deal with our fundamental human nature as social beings, choosing instead to center on the solitary individual vis - à - vis God.

«Inappropriate» got thrown around a lot that day, as questions were immediately raised as to why Nunes didn't share this information with Schiff and the rest of the House Intelligence Committee, instead opting to share the news with the press and President Trump himself — a potential subject of his investigation — first.

And then instead of you answering my questions, you come back with a bunch of other Biblical quotes which mean nothing as I already explained.

In any event, in a closely parallel discussion of the very same question, of how problematic terms like «know» or «love» as applied to God are to be classified, he in no way appeals to psychicalism, but argues instead that, although they are «in such application not literal in the simple sense in which «relative» can be,» they nevertheless «may be literal if or in so far as we have religious intuition» (1970a, 155).

Instead of stopping with an indignant question such as, «Why doesn't someone do something to help these victims of society's neglect?»

Proove what you have said... Read about «eternal marraige», «free agency», «missionary work», and «spreading the gospel»... as well as any other question / statement you might have... and get it from the horses mouth instead of from some second hand account before you post comments about something you just don't understand... make sure you post the whole article you found by way of link and not just paraphase to make it say what you want it to say.

as a whole, to say something insightful about Kayla's question, but instead, we're given another joke and we move on.

The new self of each moment partly includes the old experiences through memory, although Hartshorne does not exclude as inappropriate some talk of an old self with new experiences, provided it is clearly understood that the old self is contained within the new experiences and not the converse.4 Furthermore, he reasons that, if human experiences were the properties of an identical ego instead of the ego's being the property of the experiences, then to know an individual ego would mean to know all its future; and, therefore, we could not really know the individual in question until his death.5

Instead, in appreciation for colleagues whom I respect and cherish, I identified myself as the «loyal opposition,» who would raise questions in the hope of improving a document that I probably could not endorse.

Instead of regurgitating the classic evangelical lines, when confronted with these logical problems / questions, are you actually able to explain it in your own words, as if you've thought about it yourself, and not just attended bible study?

Stated differently, the question is whether what are referred to as past actual entities are in fact actual entities instead of merely entities.

Justices Stevens and Ginsburg thus used the fact that D&E abortion is horrific, yet clearly protected by Roe and Casey, not as a reason to question Roe and Casey, but instead to belittle as «irrational» or anti «Roe any attempt to prohibit the killing of a child partially delivered outside of the mother's body.

If we resist regarding disagreements on such questions as a moral failing, and instead look more carefully at the data together, we will make more progress.

Instead I have proposed that we view the christological question, with Tillich, as changing from period to period.

Instead of answering the question (as Pascal - Emmanuel Gobry says, a perfectly inoffensive one in itself), he recites, and in escalating fashion inflates, his scholarly credentials.

As I understand it, the passage in question is not in the earliest manuscripts... and in the manuscripts that have it, it is placed in different locations — even in different gospels (Luke instead of John).