Sentences with phrase «not about being the writer»

As Hugh Howey reminds us, not about being the writer but about writing, itself.

Not exact matches

«American Sniper» writer - producer Jason Hall revealed to People magazine that Cooper «was eating about every 55 minutes» and that «he was determined to do it naturally, he didn't want to use any hormones or steroids or anything.

Blind Writing: This can be used for just about any type of issue, not just writer's block.

As Rolling Stone writer Tim Dickinson pointed out in a tweet - storm on Tuesday, his 6.5 million followers make him about the same size as the CBS evening news (although obviously those numbers aren't directly comparable).

About halfway through the video, originally published by BuzzFeed, it is revealed that Obama had actually not uttered those words and that they were actually said by «Get Out» director and writer Jordan Peele, whose voice and mouth had been digitally inserted into an original — much less scandalous — video of the former president.

Ferriss told us that he used to read passages about compassion by Buddhist writers and think, «OK, if you're sitting in a monastery, where your schedule is set and you have very few uncontrolled variables, that's fantastic that you can do loving / kindness meditation, but that's not the world I live in.»

Emmy award - winning actor and writer Bob Odenkirk speaks with CNBC about his role in the new movie «The Post», why being not «that famous» is a good thing, and his take on the streaming media landscape.

Writers at TechEye aren't happy about the deal (evident from the jab of Apple tax dodging in the opening sentence.)

Online, my social - media universe was filled with journalists and Jewish communal professionals, rabbis and professors and nonprofit workers, all of whom knew that a Tablet writer had said something offensive about the Harvey Weinstein case — but outside my front door, I encountered people who didn't inhabit my social - media universe.

She asked a series of questions aimed at eliciting the information she was looking for (e.g., «If you use freelance writers who aren't experts in your industry, what makes you trust them to write well about your specific topic areas?

You don't need to be a professional writer; all that's required is that you're passionate about the same things as we are and that you can write well in English.

According to the late Russian dissident Andrei Sinyavsky, «Every self - respecting writer of any significance is a saboteur, and, as he surveys the horizon wondering what to write about, more often than not he will choose some forbidden topic.»

Most patristic and medieval writers preferred to talk about miracles and miracle workers rather than charismatic gifts for a number of reasons such as the dominant gift list being Isaiah 11, not 1 Corinthians 12 and Jerome's translating charismata as «graces» (gratiae).

Pastor and writer Rob Bell stated that he once «heard a teacher say that if people were taught more about who they are, they wouldn't have to be told what to do.

Also, I couldn't quite get this into words as I was writing before, so: I am believe that I am correct in my view of Scripture as it has been handed down to me from teachers, preachers, writers and others; I believe that I am correct in my beliefs about who God is, and about His self - revelation, in the same way that all people believe that the opinions they hold are true.

Theo Of course we all knew that Dan Brown was a writer of fiction, now about your proof that Saul of Tarsus was not; we are waiting.

There isn't a sane manager on earth that would be surprised about you taking a job in your field over a job pouring a Grande Americano for some over-caffeinated advice - column writer.

the writer of this article is an idiot and he is not educated and does not have a brain because he has written it with out having any info about it.thats why little knowledge is dangerous.if he does nt know some thing then he is better off not writing things he does not know about

This should not be surprising because the bible was not written as a textbook, applying consistency and technicality in how it used terms; moreover, we are talking about a number of different writers.

No question about it, the listening is demanding, not only because of the writer's rhetorical style but also because of the assumption that the reader knows the Old Testament and the wilderness life of Israel, a life centered in the tabernacle and the daily ministrations of the priest.

But I can't help but wonder about excellent authors like Sara Miles who write about faith, but who break a few «Christian» rules while doing so... or about the many great writers of faith who published before there was a «Christian» category.

There are a lot of factors that show up and I don't know about you but if I had to read one more article that talks about how a writer had taken three months off in a cabin in the woods or how they required zero interruptions or had a solitary fellowship or months in a monastery, I was ready to cry.

In sum, our reporter friend and those like him should not feel guilty about agreeing with Steele, Loury, Crouch, and other writers who are waking us up to the disastrous consequences of policies promoted under the banner of «civil rights.»

Second, Flavius Joseph, a first century Jewish writer (remember, the Jews didn't believe Christ was the Messiah, this would have been easier to prove if Christ had never existed) wrote about Jesus.

It's simple: You don't get to say what marriage is or is not based upon the bible or the so - called word of god (whatever that is... think about that for a minute... unless you speak 1st century aramaic you have no idea what the original writers of the ficto - mythic texts you now presume as the word of god even means!)

When the Bible refers to God darkening the moon, or not allowing it's light to shine, it's likely talking about infrequent lunar eclipses, and the same system of finding meaning in the position of planets relative to constellations we know as astrology is what these Bible writers are talking about.

I was talking about the grand sweep of the biblical writers» attempts to describe God... but not such verses like bashing the heads of your enemies» infants against a stone stuff.

You don't have enough king James scripture verses in it for any Christian publisher to be interested in putting it out (I've talked to Christian agents about this, and they are as frustrated as the writers at how boxed in to rigid rules Christian books have to be) and that is a sad fact about book publishing today.

The Gospel writers think they're talking about things that actually happened, like the resurrection If these things didn't happen, N.T. Wright claims, he's got other things to do with his life.

In this second section of the Psalm, the writer correctly realizes that however much he would like to spend all day, every day in the temple praising God and learning about God's Word, that is not realistic for him.

Writer should have spoken about the seven commandments of Noach Sons: Another difference between religions is that Islam and Cristianity are universal — wants every one to join them (or else...) but Judaism doesn't want others to join — just requires all humanity to follow 7 lows.

Earlier, nothing was known about it except the fact that it was used by several heretical groups such as the Naassenes; some church writers denounced it but did not describe it.

Well, yes, but a writer can't shrug off responsibility for what her publisher says about her book, especially when the publisher is HarperOne.

The only thing I don't agree with is the spiritual elitism that the writer talks about.

It's just incorrect, factually speaking, though I don't expect modern liberal outlets such as CNN or their writers to care about facts or truth.

I'm talking more of some 24 - year old Brooklynite artsy - type, who delivered flowers and candles to one of the spontaneous memorials, a type who wouldn't go out and buy an American flag herself, but who was nevertheless disgusted when she read about that lefty writer forbidding her son to display one.

Along with Anthony Appiah and other current writers about the university, she acknowledges the intrinsic value of study (her most recent book on the topic is titled Not for Profit), while ultimately defending the value of liberal arts as essential for social and political progress.

There are many other indicators in this context, as well as the chapter, that the writer of Hebrews is not talking about loss of the deliverance from hell to heaven, but loss of the blessings of sanctification and rewards, and the loss of «saving of the life» in vs 39.

But if it doesn't — like when it talks about the anger of God, or repentance, or gay sex, or divorce — then we can emphasise its humanness, point out the limited knowledge of the writer, explain how they came to be so silly, and move beyond the text to a supposedly higher ethical standard.

About this Mingana writes, «It is the constant tradition in the Eastern church that the Apostle Thomas evangelized India, and there is no historian, no poet, no breviary, no liturgy, and no writer of any kind who, having the opportunity of speaking of Thomas, does not associate his name with India.

I can't remember a book that I enjoyed reading more, partly because Rachel is a great writer, and partly because she so fearlessly examines the conflict between her inherited beliefs about God and the truth of her own spiritual experience.

Vann's faith isn't central to his professional career as a writer for The Atlantic and you won't see him tweeting about it often yet his writing is essential.

Rollins writes, «The sheer amount of ideological conflicts playing out within the text hints at the fact that the writers were writing about a reality that could not be reduced to one description, a reality that was testified to better in the clash of perspectives than in the development of a single, finely honed one.»

Our study has shown, in addition, that not only do the New Testament writers show some diversity in the way in which they talk about the resurrection of Jesus, but they are not all equally dependent upon the use of the idiom for the proclamation of the Christian message.

This being the case, the teaching of the New Testament writers about the revelation should not be identified with the revelation itself.

The writer of this article obviously does not know what he is talking about.

In fact it contradicts itself starting in THE VERY FIRST TWO CHAPTERS of Genesis when the order of creation is mixed up to having only 2 of the 4 Gospel writers bothering to talk about the birth of Jesus (and those two accounts conflict with each other while also providing timelines which make it IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to have been born based on their accounts) to 3 of the 4 Gospel writers not agreeing on what the final words of Jesus were.

I'm over at SheLoves Magazine today sharing about why I believe there isn't one way to be a writer.

His view is that Paul basically gave himself free reign here at the start of his teachings to the gentiles (see also 1:1 a: «Paulos, apostolos ouk ap anthroopoon, oude di anthroopon, alla dia Iesou Christou, kia Theou patros...») and then started preaching his own theology heavily influenced by his own biases and preferences — not that any of the writers were ever completely exempt from it of course, but still the writer felt Paul was quite fundamentalistic at times about certain things he had some clear opinions about, e.g. about relationships and women's position in the church etc, which he then propagated as part of the gospel.

The writer said that his spiritual journey made a huge turn when big questions about the NT (specifically Paul's theology) started emerging, especially in light of the fact that Paul started his series of letters (to the Galatians) with words very similar to what many ignorant Christians (Jeremy's term) use today: «I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preach is not something that man made up.