Sentences with phrase «book does»

And this book does good too: part of the proceeds will be donated to Elephant Nature Park in Northern Thailand, where Lisa spent time volunteering last December.

Online, the recipe calls for 4 eggs rather than 2 eggs as the book does, but comparing all these measurements, you can see why I think the book has some serious typos.

The book doesn't have much Irish moss in it, but the recipes that do have it have a gelatin alternative.

Although this book does contain its share of sweets and desserts, it is loaded with savory dishes as well such as Sesame Pecan Chicken, Tempura Shrimp, Cajun Chicken Fingers, and Turkey Stuffing.

I'd love to have this book it does seem so wonderful, currently saving my pennies... and I love this shake it looks so good!!

The book does not disappoint!

This recipe comes from her just - released second cookbook, The Pretty Dish, which proves that a book doesn't have to be all kale salads and juice cleanses to inspire you to change the way you cook.

This book does a great job of explaining different grains and vegetables and the few recipes I have prepared from it have all been delicious.

Her new book doesn't seem to disappoint, thank you for the giveaway!

Her book does not disappoint.

Just because you can read and memorize a book does not mean you know more than the average christian!

Arthur Waley says, «I think we are justified in supposing that the book does not contain many authentic sayings, and possibly none at all.

Just because hate and bigotry is written in a holy book does not mean it's okay to push or demonstrate those values publicly.

This book does not shrink from those realities.

The book does not aim at a systematic discussion of the church's roles in community mental health.

To some degree, Gregory's book does participate in an older Catholic antimodern tradition, even as he takes this tradition to new levels of sophistication.

The book does contain useful information on the 1940 fall of France, and it satisfactorily recounts the conflicts created by the Dreyfus Case, Action Fran?aise, Algeria, and Vietnam.

So the book does not go deep on any subject, not even the cross.

The book does not display, for example, the wounded zeal of John Patrick Diggins» Lost Soul of American Politics.

In fact, for fundamentalists the biblical book qua book does not really exist; rather, the Bible is an unsystematic anthology of individual verses or short passages that are unrelated to their Contexts and to the larger works in which they are embedded.

In short, this brief book does exactly what you would hope for in a book on this topic.

This book does the latter.

This book does not pretend to offer a full - fledged doctrine of God; it deals with the doctrine of Christ only in passing; it mentions other doctrines by illustration.

Moreover, this book does not mount the ramparts to defend the Bible against the onslaughts of the modern world; nor does the writer feel guilty for asking, even pressing, a modern reader's questions.

Your holy book doesn't say you get to pick and choose what to follow.

All these things are of this world, fallible in the hands of man... readers of the book does it not state this theme over and over again?

Perhaps this book does the most that any text about liberation theology can do: it invites us to consider what it would mean to have that hope — both for the poor and for all of us.

What the book does is it helps the reader think of large, and sudden moves in the economy in terms of monetary and banking policy and helps correct for narratives of economic events that tend to overwhelmingly focus on questions of taxation, spending and labor regulation.

Only toward the end of the book does Schweitzer give a full and direct statement of his own eschatological position.

So, just because a Holy Book does not agree with your own, you now choose to chastise those who follow their religion as evil and mean - spirited.

Though Gellman's partiality in his selection of sources and his consequent lack of interest in engaging the full range of Jewish tradition and its interpreters keep him from leading us deeper into the mystery of Jewish particularity, this concise, sincere book does much to advance our confrontation of its source: divine election.

The book does not say.

As a work of literature it's mostly second or third - rate, as a moral guide it's mostly repugnant (what with all the killing, raping, and looting), and as a history book it doesn't even deserve a mention.

There are occasional surprises: the book does not insist that Job was written by its namesake, and it even presents a brief overview of the synoptic problem.

They choose not to...» You do realize that the religion or the book does not, and never will define completely the way a believer behaves.

Second, those concepts are still valid today based on human nature, whereas the basing your decisions soley on, or in compliance with, a 2000 year old book does not allow for new concepts and information.

Part of the problem with the way I am writing «Close Your Church for Good» is that these individual blog posts don't carry the full argument and train of thought the way a chapter in a book does.

Also, and much to my disappointment, the book does a poor job of footnoting resources which the author obviously relied heavily upon in the writing of this book.

This book does not contain every letter C. S. Lewis wrote, but several hundred of them.

However, if the author had read the book, they would have realized that the book does not make any mention of religion at all.

No - one will ever know in the grand scheme of it who is right or wrong because there simply is no way of telling for sure and I'm sorry your holy book doesn't cut it for me.

Adam Clarke's book doesn't pull any punches and he maybe had Arminian leanings which along with Calvinism is a no no, but his book totally is brilliant and makes a mockery of what is being passed off as the gospel in many assemblies.

And yes, as I previously said, it's no easy hermeneutical task, but throwing one's hand in the air and saying this book doesn't make sense or this God doesn't exist or must be rejected is premature, lazy and arrogant all at the same time.

Sounds like the favor is being returned, too bad no where in the good book does it say that.

The book does not, perhaps, offer the most daring of speculative analyses nor is it the last word in Trinitarian theology, but it is full of good, solid Catholic doctrine.

Quoting a line from a book doesn't make the line nor the book true.

Although God is a metaphysical necessity and an integral part of this explanation of reality, only in the last 10 pages of the 350 - page book does Whitehead devote a separate chapter to the relation of God and the world.

Though I appreciate the hope of this quote, I hope your book doesn't fall into the trap of trying to explain something that in itself is convuluted, at times insideous and often beyond reason.

Extraordinary claims in a 2,000 year old book does not equal evidence.

The book doesn't take into consideration the phenomenon that when two or three are gathered together in Jesus» name not only is the Lord there, but there are also the principalities and powers.