Sentences with phrase «everything you claim in»

Please keep in mind that your Profile statement must be succinct, energetic, full of keywords, and everything you claim in your Profile must be substantiated somewhere else on your resume (preferably under your job titles).

Not exact matches

In August, Moore made a similar argument on mass shootings in the US, claiming America «asked for it,» because it has «taken God out of everything.&raquIn August, Moore made a similar argument on mass shootings in the US, claiming America «asked for it,» because it has «taken God out of everything.&raquin the US, claiming America «asked for it,» because it has «taken God out of everything.»

A new report out today claims that everything you've heard about the renewed strength in manufacturing in the U.S. is wrong.

In the build - up to the iPad's release last April, Apple, the media and just about everyone else set their expectations pretty high, with claims that the tablet would change everything.

Kalanick reacted with a series tweets calling the actions described in Fowler's blog post, «abhorrent and against everything we believe in» and announcing that her claims would be immediately investigated.

«Most employees think that the best way to show value to their boss and get promoted is to aggressively claim credit and ownership over everything they do,» BlackBerry CEO John Chen wrote in a LinkedIn post earlier this year.

«Most employees think that the best way to show value to their boss and get promoted is to aggressively claim credit and ownership over everything they do,» writes Chen in a recent LinkedIn post.

When DDI surveyed more than 500 employees and 500 business leaders, they found a high percentage of bosses claimed they do everything in their power to encourage their team to come up with creative solutions.

The cynic in me, of course, doesn't believe Freddy's claim that under the Cooperative, everything will be better.

In June, Biderman claimed in an interview with CNBC that Ashley Madison users could remove «everything» about themselves from the sitIn June, Biderman claimed in an interview with CNBC that Ashley Madison users could remove «everything» about themselves from the sitin an interview with CNBC that Ashley Madison users could remove «everything» about themselves from the site.

While the United States has long claimed an advantage in tech, it is now facing emboldened rivals in China, where the government has heavily invested in everything from semiconductors to wireless networks to artificial intelligence.

In the case that you pass, the policy beneficiaries should file a claim with the insurer, after which point the circumstances of your death will be reviewed and receive the payout (also called a death benefit or the face value of the policy) so long as everything is in ordeIn the case that you pass, the policy beneficiaries should file a claim with the insurer, after which point the circumstances of your death will be reviewed and receive the payout (also called a death benefit or the face value of the policy) so long as everything is in ordein order.

What she describes is abhorrent and against everything Uber stands for and believes in,» wrote Kalanick, who claimed it was the «first time this has come to my attention.»

It's sad that the ones claiming to be the most intelligent, didn't want to be friends with the most intelligent being in existence, the one that created everything they'd study, and knew their end from the beginning.

Christians need to grow up and stop assuming that they have the sole claim to everything in the world.

Like everything in this modern world the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim.

Everything «good» that religion claims can be done full well without it in the first place — things such as charity and compassion.

Creationism claims that there was a beginning to everything in the Universe.

We hurt their feelings and probably interfere with their sleep patterns by calling them out on everything from poor spelling to having a faith grounded in no evidence (at least in its core claims).

I am a believer who does not claim affiliation to any sect because they all add their own prejudiced dogma most of which is that you have to believe that everything in the bible is beyond refute.

In a time that promises the reconcilation of happiness and productivity through chemical mood control, we can claim a right to our «natural moods» only if we can show that they aren't — like everything else in the cosmos — finally random collections chemicals or just tools for species survival but are natural gifts or indispensable clues to the truth about who we arIn a time that promises the reconcilation of happiness and productivity through chemical mood control, we can claim a right to our «natural moods» only if we can show that they aren't — like everything else in the cosmos — finally random collections chemicals or just tools for species survival but are natural gifts or indispensable clues to the truth about who we arin the cosmos — finally random collections chemicals or just tools for species survival but are natural gifts or indispensable clues to the truth about who we are.

and you believe everything you see and hear from the media, especially the ones who claim to be objective when in fact they are totally not?

The «my jaw dropped open» moment: Dawkins says he humbly admits that science does not know everything and Bill jumps in to claim that humility is after all a Christian trait.

If you believe everything anyone claims he has experienced in his mind is real you are out tough with reality.

Just like everything else in the world, there are those that claim to be something but do not follow the actual teachings of that religion.

I do not claim that we believe in everything, nor that we are free to.

But the message of divine acceptance is sometimes presented as an ultimately sentimental underwriting of every sort of self - indulgence, disregard of the claims of others, cruelty and self - deception, as if everything, but everything, was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

The peace that Jesus promised abounds in the Jerusalem church, both in their common faith — «They were of one heart and soul» — and their common life — «No one claimed private ownership but everything was held in common.

People call «elite - style snobbery», but then claim to have the «truth» themselves, even if that truth is that everything is all good and you get to live in «heaven» as long as you pick what's right for you and do good things.

Second, Jewett adopts whole - cloth the latest fad in New Testament scholarship, which broadly terms itself as postcolonial, and reads virtually everything in the New Testament as a coded critique of the Roman Empire and especially of its claims of cultural superiority elaborated in the civic cult of the early empire.

It was claiming, in principle, that human beings are part of the mechanical world system, that they can be explained like everything else in terms of matter in motion.

You have got it all wrong, but may I ask that what poof do you have about what you claim, Allah is the almighty and is not a deceiver, Allah in the Qur» an in referred as the most merciful, all forgiving, creater of everything and self subsistence he does not require anyone to support him and Allah is having no son neither wife, and tell me how can a almighty supreme being have sexual relations?

I'm always suspicious when people claim that revival has happened in a certain place and everything is just wonderful praise god.

This is certainly not different from William James's claim that determinism implies the static «block universe» nor from Bergsons's identical claim that in the universe of Spinoza and Laplace «everything is given» («tout est donné»).

In Vic's arguement everything is designed so there is nothing to compare and no way to validate his claim... so it remains nothing more than that...

From that perspective, one knows that not everything that is real is observable, that even scientific knowledge is partial and fallible, and that religious and scientific truth claims can in principle be perfectly compatible, even complementary.

Can we reconceive theological education in such a way that (1) it clearly pertains to the totality of human life, in the public sphere as well as the private, because it bears on all of our powers; (2) it is adequate to genuine pluralism, both of the «Christian thing» and of the worlds in which the «Christian thing» is lived, by avoiding naiveté about historical and cultural conditioning without lapsing into relativism; (3) it can be the unifying overarching goal of theological education without requiring the tacit assumption that there is a universal structure or essence to education in general, or theological inquiry in particular, which inescapably denies genuine pluralism by claiming to be the universal common denominator to which everything may be reduced as variations on a theme; and (4) it can retrieve the strengths of both the «Athens» and the «Berlin» types of excellent schooling, without unintentionally subordinating one to the other?

For those of you who are interested in reading the arch of a sad, sad bitter life, crusie through the remarks by «the son a Piper man» aka Tom Tom, Stands for nothing, hates everything, curses when left with nothing to say, then hysterically claims victory for hurting someone's feelings, and stands for nothing, but will gladly point out your poor syntax, grammar and spelling errors like a weary retired 3rd grade teacher.

How can a God that is in control of everything as you claim be «furious» over injustices in this world?

Read Acts 4:32 - Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

If you commit everything to the Lord before the meeting, then in the end, you can claim that had your prayers be answered, you could have made a difference.

The notion that this goddess is the axis of the Paraiyars» religion can be inferred from Oppert's etymological explanation: he claims that the name Ellamma is derived from the Tamil ellaam (all or everything) making her «Mother of All».13 In the colony of Malaipallaiyam the predominance of Ellaiyamman is preserved by referring to her both as the «Mother of all beings» and as the eldest sister of all the manifestations of Sakti14 The other common interpretation for the name Ellaiyamman stems from the Tamil word for boundary ellai, making her the Mother / Goddess of the boundaries.15 This is the most prevalent interpretation among the Paraiyars of Malaipallaiyam.

I think you would really have to stretch things a lot to argue that there wasn't an actual person who was the root of the Jesus legend, but to say that everything outlined in the Gospels is a historical record of that person is something that very few scholars would claim, and I can't think of any who would try to argue that claims to godhood can be seen as historical evidence of actual godhood.

Hello Derp (my ignorant responder) Since you enjoy stereotyping so much and compare God to big foot, unicorns, aliens and horned beasts and since you claim to be superior in intelligence then explain how everything that pertains to life and creation and what has been and is happening now and what will be is clearly explained in the Bible in full detail while your beliefs are based on theory?

We can not and need not reinterpret everything in the Scriptures to agree with Jesus, which is what would be required if we claimed the Christ as our principle of interpretation.

Once we are saved, we are new creatures and so then the effect of believing the gospel is an all encompassing claim on life What if nearly everything in life could be redeemed for discipleship?

People who claim the «Conservative» label rarely agree on everything, in many cases they differ radically, William F. Buckley, for example, supported legalization of marijuana and cocaine, which other people who think themselves conservatives call the height of liberalism.

Niebuhr's statement implies no relativism, in which somehow everything is true, but rather a kind of believing agnosticism, in which there is no claim to know what else is true or false besides one's own belief.

It moves glacierlike through human history, carrying with it the debris of outworn values and stubbornly trying to break through everything in its path by the sheer weight of its dogmatic claim.

Unless you have really delved deeply into other religions, and I mean as deeply as you claim others must delve into your belief before they can understand, then any and all creation stories must be considered serious contenders in a belief of a supernatural cause for everything.