Sentences with phrase «n't view book»

Not exact matches

«A leading expert on making decisions and influencing others presents a career's worth of evidence on why the views you don't want to consider are often the ones you need to hear most,» is Grant's quick description of this book, out March 20.

Their workplace is frequently a pressure - cooker environment, working conditions are often poor, team members are not valued as human beings, and colleagues view one another as competitors and threats,» Mackey wrote in his 2013 book Conscious Capitalism, co-authored with Raj Sisodia.

The title's not - so subtle biblical reference is a hint at Stursberg's view of the Ceeb as the place that business common sense forgot, and the book serves largely as a catalogued defence of his belief that audience numbers, not an ambiguous cultural mandate, would define the network's success.

«You shouldn't view your education as a done deal,» advises a fun sketchbook of the book's main points.

While some rights holders have argued that the standard for a substantial is very low (the National Post recently argued in a case that «even the reproduction of a small number of words in a newspaper article can be an impermissible reproduction»), the Copyright Board says that its preliminary view is that «copying of a few pages or a small percentage from a book that is not a collection of short works, such as poems, is not substantial.»

I'm not getting paid for this view, I simply believe this is a book that can help people and start them thinking in some new ways... which is the impact it had on me.

But when financial management - and by that we mean not just closing the books, but managing the entire business by metrics, truly understanding unit economics, and having a strategic view toward future capital raises - is left unattended, cracks in a startup's foundation inevitably start to show.

As with other James Grant books, this does not so much deal with current problems, as much as educate us on how to view the problems that face us, through the prism of how past problems developed.

The bulls hope that closes the book on 2018, although a rate hike in December, should inflation tick somewhat higher, can not be ruled out, in our view.

Given virtually no consideration in this book is the alternative view that what we are witnessing is not so much an attack on the Enlightenment as a decadent phase of it.

And I'm sure there were hundreds, if not thousands of books throughout history that had alternative views that never got much traction.

As in, «Admittedly, William F. Buckley wasn't always right about everything, segregation for example,» or, «Obviously Aaron Sorkin is a colossal misogynist, but let us set that to one side,» or, «I enjoyed John Derbyshire's book on the Riemann Hypothesis, despite his despicable views on race.»

kendallpeak I was merely pointing out that the Bible, a book that you likely consider authoritative regarding God's supposed view of abortion, not only has numerous sections that illustrate that a fetus was not considered a person in those times, but that the Jewish people, whose books these references come from, have upheld that interpretation.

-- This poster is a TROLL on this site don't bother viewing their garbage website or book it's full of LIES!

19th century, archaeological finds (e.g. earth and timber fortifications and towns, the use of a plaster - like cement, ancient roads, metal points and implements, copper breastplates, head - plates, textiles, pearls, native North American inscriptions, North American elephant remains etc.) is not interpreted by mainstream academia as proving the historicity or divinity of the Book of Mormon.This evidence is viewed by mainstream scholars as a work of fiction that parallels others within the 19th century «Mound - builder» genre that were pervasive at the time.

As a reader trying to be charitable, I face an unattractive choice: accept that His Eminence does hold the mistaken view that mercy is essential to God; or assume that when he emphatically made the multiple important statements at key points in his book that mercy is essential to God, he didn't mean them.

There is widespread agreement with the view presented in the article on homosexuality in Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics (edited by Carl F. Henry [Baker Book House, 1973]-RRB-, which declares that «those who base their faith on the OT and NT documents can not doubt that their strong prohibitions of homosexual behavior make homosexuality a direct transgression of God's law.»

Webb's views reflect a perspective that is deeply held by many Americans, and his use of the standard resources of theology to articulate these views is one of the reasons this book ought not be simply dismissed.

My one quarrel with the book is that Thatcher does not pay much attention to the influential Calvinist view of marriage as a «covenant.»

If the Bible's biggest fans don't even care enough to read it, then why should its critics view it as a relevant book?

Now he reviews a new book on ethics and writes,» [The author] agrees with what now seems to be a near - consensus among philosophers that «speciesism» - the view that we are entitled to take theinterests of animals less seriously than we take human interests, simply because humans are members of our species - is not a morally defensible position.»

Pacioni himself tells us that throughout his book he has «tried to reconstruct the framework of Augustine's speculation in all of its most original philosophical traits, following philosophical and logical - linguistic suggestions performing a point by point analysis of the texts not only from a philological but also a historiographical, cultural and logical - formal point of view» (p. xix).

For to Jews the Holocaust is not an event to read about in a few books, or to remember on a few special occasions; it is for them to confront, to agonize over, to reject and resist, to search deeply and widely for a glimmer of hope - all this with a view to a Jewish self - understanding, of which an essential part is being heir of the murdered millions, the remnant of the catastrophe.

True, the concepts, and the terms used to express them, are of great importance, especially for the later history of doctrine; and we are not likely to minimize them if we view New Testament theology as Book One or perhaps Chapter One in the History of Christian Doctrine.

And the book also offers a deliberately wide array of approaches to trinitarian issues, including not only historical and systematic theologians, but biblical scholars and analytic philosophers of religion, writing from a variety of theological and communal points of view» Roman Catholic, Protestant, and, in one case, Jewish (the New Testament scholar Alan Segal, who contributes an instructive if somewhat technical chapter on the role of conflicts between Jews and Christians in the emergence of early trinitarian teaching).

The Bible can't be used to verify claims any more than the Quran or the Book of Mormon, as all religious texts first require a basic belief on the part of the reader that they (the texts) are right in order to be viewed as such.

In some respects he is absolutely unexcelled, even by himself in another conceivable state; in all other respects he is (to state the view reached in this book) the only individual whose states or predicates are not to be excelled unless he excel them with other states or predicates of his own.

The presentation supposes that it is theological views that at least trigger developments in the other areas, which is understandable in a book that proposes a theological reading, not a sociological analysis, of developments in marriage customs.

Sherburne's views on this matter are not very explicit in WA; but the illustrations in that book suggest that he would deny that earlier occasions are literally included in later ones.

In most books, only the final view is evident, for authors seek to revise earlier positions to conform with the final one.6 All three notions are present in the text, however, for Whitehead in revising did not erase all traces of his earlier formulations.

Your book is not viewed as being historical at all, since nearly none of it can be confirmed.

Take the time to study both sides, you should study religion in all aspects, study it thoroughly not just from a christian book store written by christian authors, that's like studying politics from a Hitler youth book store, you will get a severely flawed view point.

I'm not a theologian, so if you want a more professional view i suggest you look for a good book on the subject.

Hop down off your cross and read a book... no not THAT book but one that will expand your mind and views not restrict them.

Not surprisingly, Ex corde ecclesia is hotly debated by Catholic educators, and BurtchaelI's book may be viewed as a salvo fired from the neoconservative camp.

He did not forsake Jesus, and God does not forsake (or withdraw from) humans (See my book, Nothing but the Blood of Jesus for my view).

Collingwood interprets this characterization as follows: «In Whitehead the resemblance is more with Hegel; and the author, though he does not seem to be acquainted with Hegel, is not wholly unaware of this, for he describes the book as an attempt to do over again the work of «idealism,» «but from a realist point of view.»

Such a view was accepted by Justin and Irenaeus in the later second century, although in the third century Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, attempted to minimize the authority of the book by proving that since John son of Zebedee wrote the gospel ascribed to him, he can not have written the book of Revelation, since the two writings employ different ideas, styles and vocabularies.

Though most of what Wright explains in this book he has written elsewhere, this book puts it all together in nice, orderly fashion, so that even if one does not agree with Wright, we can hope that they will now be able to critique his view with understanding.

Bernstein gives a number of examples of the source of this failure, as explanations of his general belief «that the authors have admitted into the book concepts and principles based on considerations not sufficiently convincing — concepts and principles based on views opposed to those forced on mathematicians by the work of Peano, Pieri, Hilbert, Veblen, Huntington» (BAMS32: 712).

Wallace, for example, writes that, «although the evidence against the authenticity of the pastorals is as strong as any evidence against the authenticity of any NT book (save 2 Peter), it still can not overthrow the traditional view» [15].

Like Yale's Stephen Carter in The Culture of Disbelief (a book Clinton has promoted on several occasions), Clinton sometimes seems to suggest that it is fine for religiously based views to be aired in the public square, so long as they don't seriously impinge upon the business of governing.

«44 This statement exhibits an mischaracterization of Bergson so extreme it defies words; if ever there was a more persistent opponent of Descartes» conception of natural science than Bergson, I do not know who it might be — with the possible exception of Bergson's process blood brothers — Peirce, Dewey, James, Whitehead and Hartshorne.45 In Lowe's defense it might be said that the eight or ten books that do the most to establish just how non-Cartesian, and indeed revolutionary Bergson's view of science was were all published after Understanding Whitehead.

As documented by Jonathan Wells's short book The Myth of Junk DNA, it was Dembski's prediction, not the Darwinian conventional wisdom, that provided a more accurate view of biological reality.

From another point of view, the Bible is not a book, but a collection of books commonly bound up between the same covers.

In view of the author's standing in the intellectual culture that she criticizes, the book should precipitate a lively and better «informed discussion of the culture war in which, like it or not, we are all embroiled.

Unfortunately (or perhaps that's fortunately, given mankind's penchant for self - deception) God hasn't given us the option of picking and choosing what portions of scripture we can pay heed to, or to play «what if» games with what our view of Jesus would be if certain books weren't included.

Trigster: the Book of Mormon was written by dark skinned people, who probably knew nothing of the white supremacy you accuse them of... it does use ancient language, but they were not racist in our terms, the Nephites and Lamanites of the Book of Mormon viewed themselves as «brothers,» they were all one race.

In his recent book Finding God In Prozac or Finding Prozac in God: Preserving a Christian View of the Person Amidst a Biopsychological Revolution, Charles Biovin contends that Christians should not hesitate to use the new brands of antidepressants such as Prozac and other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors — commonly referred to as SSRIs — as spiritual lifesavers.

I have not read any of Wink's books that I remember, but have read reviews, whose writers tend to love his views or hate them.