Sentences with phrase «book as an argument»

Motherhood, and the complicated relationship that exists between mother and daughter, is as central to the book as the arguments about genetic inheritance and learned behavior.

Let us turn now to the book as an argument rather than as a clue to the future.

Not exact matches

The more interesting arguments, however, centre around the idea of books as products.

The general argument, as reflected in the title of the book, is that unless we progress with people in mind, as opposed to in spite of them, the world will continue to be a very treacherous place to navigate.

As Harvard Business School lecturers John Neffinger and Matthew Kohutobserve observe in their book, «Compelling People: The Hidden Qualities That Make Us Influential,» when a discussion becomes an argument, it's no longer an exercise in logic and reasoning.

I find it funny that the Christian position, when met with any logical argument to discount the greatness of the Bible, can only cite more passages from the same book, as opposed to countering with a equally logical counter position.

The problem with your argument is most gods on this planet have rule books, you can't have the freedom to do as you want if you believe in those particular gods.

Waugh fans have long indulged friendly arguments about the master's greatest work; a recent re-reading of The Sword of Honour Trilogy (Everyman's Library) persuaded me (again) that these three books easily stand with A Handful of Dust and Brideshead Revisited at the summit of Waugh's achievement, even as they brilliantly lay bare the European cultural crisis that was vastly accelerated by World War I.

As James O'Donnell has written, «Memory has the power to supplant «reality,» or at least what mortals know of reality: indeed, the whole argument of this half of Book X is that it is through memory that, after the fall, we encounter a more authentic reality.»

Jennifer Wright Knust's book is research and argument thin, akin to what an embittered co-ed would have written as a senior thesis to graduate from her religious studies department.

There were a lot of arguments as to which books would go into the bible, the Catholic Bible.

The core argument of the book seeks to reassert the role of Christianity as making a necessary contribution to the construction of ethics that underpin our society and culture, and by extension, our law - making and justice system.

This book is a convincing argument for getting your kids dirty, and making sure they are outside — and it's benefitted me, as well.

The book does not really present «the voice of first millennium Christianity» or make much of an argument toward «restoring the great tradition» (as the subtitle suggests it might).

It is the argument of this book, however, that these various metaphors are not as useful for our time as still another: hearers of the call.

The Civil War as Theological Crisis by Mark Noll: This book is a stunning eye - opener that details the religious - based arguments for and against slavery in the buildup to the U.S. Civil War.

Greeley dedicates the present book to Tracy, offering it as sociological support for Tracy's argument.

Werner Jaeger, who has written the classic history of the idea of paideia, [2] pointed out in a later book on Early Christianity and Greek Paideia that Clement not only uses literary forms and types of argument calculated to sway people formed by paideia but, beyond that, he explicitly praises paideia in such a way as to make it clear that his entire epistle is to be taken «as an act of Christian education.»

The bulk of this scholarly volume treats the distinctive and different ways that the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican traditions adapted what the author identifies as the medieval model; the Catholic tradition, with its insistence that marriage constitutes a true sacrament of the new dispensation, thus serves as something of a foil for the book's extended argument.

The book not only offers a comprehensive argument defending priestly celibacy that answers many of the objections found today, it also acts as an excellent introduction to an important 19th - century theologian whose rediscovery can only be positive.

I have never before encountered a book that so effectively demolishes these seemingly convincing arguments as What Is Marriage?

I am sympathetic to the common - sense argument that the book presents — especially as it is remarkably well documented and proceeds with a lawyer's precision.

Just as the book powerfully exposes the myth that acceptance of gay marriage would have no significant social consequences, so too the authors could have made the further argument that, to varying degrees, all sexual unions outside marriage (as traditionally understood) are harmful to society.

As the author is conflicted, the argument is complex and frequently convoluted, but the book provides an intelligent and informative perspective on neglected aspects of America's racial politics.

John Warwick Montgomery, a lawyer and philosopher as well as theologian, provides perhaps the most comprehensive argument by a conservative in his recent book Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Apologetic for the Transcendent Perspective (Zondervan, 1986) He concludes that rights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significant ways.

But the argument that Professor Smolin attributes to Arkes is nowhere in the book; and what Arkes does argue for never appears in Prof. Smolin's review — in fact, Smolin writes as if he is oblivious to it.

That book defends the first and obvious meaning of publicness (viz., as meaning and truth available to all intelligent, reasonable and rational persons through persuasive argument) for the logically ordered questions of religion, God and Christ.

Nowhere does he set forth the argument of the book, and on natural rights jurisprudence generally, he uses Arkes as a kind of foil for his own reservations — again, without ever delineating Arkes» position.

It is difficult to summarize this argument without sounding triumphalist, but it would be a mistake to read Mead's book as a celebration of the glories of democracy and empire.

Ever since Thomas Kuhn popularized it with his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the notion of a «paradigm shift» has led to fascinating arguments about whether this or that break with previous scientific understanding counted as one.

The validity of the results of the reflection can be supported only by the book as a whole, but the structure of the book and of the argument can only be understood in the light of the a priori considerations as well.

Tom, it's so absurd that I have to respond every time I read this... and I pulled a page out of his book and copied it so I can paste it every time he does uses this as an argument... I suspect he really objects to the word «marriage» being used.

The argument of Kevin Phillips's provocative and disturbing new book could almost be rendered as a cliché: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Basing your arguments on quotes from books you yourself don't seem to understand is as valid as me quoting the back of the cereal box except the back of the cereal box usually has nuggets of truth!

Arguments based on your version of a book compiled from dozens of sources hundreds of years after the events they claim to relate and for many parts of which contradictory evidence is a «plenty (No historical evidence whatsoever of an Exodus, for example plus we now know the Egyptians did not use a slave - based economy for construction as one example.

[Dennett's] limited and superficial book reads like a caricature of a caricature - for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized Darwin's richness by adhering to the strictest form of adaptationist argument in a maximally reductionist mode, then Dennett, as Dawkins» publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable account into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine.

... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself.

Even though my book is about a specific topic — it's a gentle but provocative love letter to the Church about welcoming and affirming women — I approach it as art, not a message to be preached, or an argument to be made.

Instead, too many atheists simply regurgitate the «official» atheist position (ironic, given that this is what they accuse believers of doing vis - a-vis the Bible...), not only without having read the book recently enough to cite it accurately, but also not taking into account the most recent arguments supporting or undermining — not only by believers, but by atheist scientists as well.

Indeed, their full meaning is likely to become more apparent in the future than at the time of the book's first appearance, as thinkers from other world traditions engage its arguments.

The book's argument could be summed up as, «Here is how life could have come to be if there were no God.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

«Although the book was written against her now dead half - sister,» continues Gonzalez, «Elizabeth resented much of what it said, for its arguments based on anti-feminine prejudice could just as easily apply to her.

Peter Berger, in a fascinating preface to the book, asks not so much about the accuracy of Siemon - Netto's argument as about the reasons cliche - thinking about Luther and Lutheranism has continued in such an unchallenged way.

Growing out of a series of books and essays Kekes has written over the last several years - on the nature of moral argument, the problem of evil, and the conflictual goods and evils that make up life as we know it - Against Liberalism marks the author's most explicit broadside against liberal theory to date.

Like its predecessors, his new book is layered with statistical quirks and story twists, as the author crafts a compelling and ambitious argument designed to challenge and even change the reader's view of the world.

It is a sign of Plato's essential continuity with his Greek predecessors that his own definitive and most sophisticated meaning for soul is «self moving mover», and that when he comes, in the tenth book of the Laws, to construct the first formal proof for the existence of God in the history of western thought, a version of the cosmological argument, he will seek to establish the existence of soul as self moving mover.

Monster: The one you spelled out is this «Once I understood the Bible was not a good guide for morality, all of the arguments that were offered up as explanations or excuses for a book that is certainly evil by modern, civilized standards no longer held water.»

I saw in Mohler's review of the book yet another illustration of what I have described here; for as Mohler related the book's argument, there was precious little appeal to evidence, and considerably more to morality and emotion.

You are losing any arguments as you can only point to a book which has no answers... I ask you..