Sentences with phrase «not understand their point of view»

I didn't see it at the time, mostly because I lacked empathy and couldn't understand her point of view, but she was definitely giving me an opportunity to adjust my tactics and become a better leader.

I don't understand that point of view, but I see you have it.

She says that if you can't understand her point of view, she wants another lawyer.

If you do not understand their point of view, politely ask them to rephrase their statements and reply accordingly.

Not exact matches

«The problem many companies have is not understanding the customer's point of view, only understanding their personal point of view in terms of what they want to accomplish.»

and don't share your point of view until you understand theirs.)

Executive presence begins, but does not end, with the ability to understand the topic at hand, articulate a point of view, and do so in a manner that is clear and emotionally compelling.

«I was fifteen years old,» Sotomayor writes, «when I understood how it is that things break down: people can't imagine someone else's point of view.»

«A big challenge in PR — and this doesn't happen in every case — is getting a client to understand the story from the audience's point of view,» Philadelphia - based PR agent Alexandra Golaszewska told CareerCast.com in an email.

If as you say you have talked to others who claim to be Atheist the way you describe it then they are IDIOTS who also don't understand Atheism and yes at that point since they are claiming «no God» to be true, then by all means call their point of view a «religion».

i; m not sure i follow your little brother thing, but sharing ideas and a conversation with two differing view points is a debate, and if both parties don't try to kill the other one this is a world of understanding thru conflict, for a differing point of view is in confliction with the others.

I also understand that those who don't share your point of view (like JT and LouAZ) feel it necessary to discredit your thought by calling you names and acting like 2nd graders themselves; but, you should expect as much from commentors like that.

I understand «Pascal's Wager» very well, but it is taken from a philosophical (man's earthly) point of view, mine is not... mine is taken from a point of faith.

I had a fabulous dialogue with one of the evangelical ministers, who told me he couldn't change his theological point of view — and I said I could understand that.

But though I will argue for this teleological view of nature and human nature from empirical premises and from reason, my purpose here is not to debate or attempt to prove this point, but rather to illustrate how some teleological understanding of nature and human nature is a necessary premise for the idea of environmental stewardship.

Just because we assume someone wouldn't understand our love of Jesus doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to build a friendship and understand their point of view.

I agree with not going trying to change the world as in change to people by telling them they are wrong and I am right (IF I have understood your point of view) but I guess I'm not so convinced when it comes to society, and just accepting what ever **** is in there or anywhere.

Those efforts can not be understood apart from my story, but from the point of view of process thought they can express a measure of transcendence of personal experience.

I don't understand why Christians (the ones who believe in creationism) can't see both points of view?

While understanding the main point of the article, I wish to add that, in my view, wise men came to see baby Jesus about six months after His birth, at Passover time, not necessarily in Bethlehem, Jesus being in a house and not in a manger.

From this point of view history can not be understood as a purely immanent development, for it is partially a product of an encounter with a primary reality which transcends culture and gives rise to it.

He does not want to be Christian and he has closed his mind to trying to understand and lead people on the right, and not just the rabid wingers, all people to the right of Obama are bad in his point of view.

In the final chapter it will be shown how the whole range of topics exemplify a religious point of view, provided religion is understood as ultimate devotion and is not restricted to the conventional sectarian sense.

We are to love one another and part of that is sidestepping our own perception and assumptions to better understand other points of view, including those we might not agree with.

I think that Paul is appealing to the character of God, that He is good and just and fair, and loving, and that when things do not seem that way from our point of view, we need to try to understand what God is doing in light of His character.

From a logical point of view, however, these two conceptions are not mutually exclusive, especially if Bultmann is right in regarding the true sense of myth as the disclosure of the «self - understanding of man», and the objectivizing imagery with its implied mythical world view the inadequate means for the expression of that sense.

Ricoeur confirms this assessment, when he affirms that a parable's meaning as metaphor lies not in the story nor in a culture's understanding of Kingdom, but in the juxtaposition of parable and symbol.118 Concurring with this view Funk points out:

This point of view is not compatible with the Jewish way of understanding human existence, and it is in flat contradiction to what we now know about ourselves as human.

There are several arguments that can be advanced against this position: first, that there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is true.

That he has not stressed this point is of apiece with his tendency to assimilate the meaning of Christ to the more generalized interpretation of the love of God one finds in metaphysics, particularly that of Charles Hartshorne, wherein neither revelation nor Christ is finally necessary since what is conveyed through them is available through the metaphysical analysis of the meaning of love as it is understood in a fully explicated view of God.

I applaud your efforts and point of view and I hope that others realize the value in actually seeking to learn about others, not to learn where best to land a blow, but to learn to better understand their neighbor.

Yes Salero, I understand I am at risk from a Christian's view point of not entering a Christian's afterlife.

I don't understand what is going on with society when you are no longer able to present your point of view without someone calling for your firing or resignation or whatever.

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

Even I, although I have argued throughout this chapter for understanding the ministry basically from a monoepiscopal point of view, have sometimes been nostalgic about the first century, where everybody seemed so keen and enthusiastic (literally filled with God) that things got done and «offices» were not established.

I don't know what you expected from us, but I would have answered any question you asked and I really tried to understand your point of view (which was actually my main objective — understanding your view).

This means that the assurance of Deuteronomy is understood in light of the original setting and not viewed from the vantage point of sophisticated spirituality.

We fail in our responsibility to history when we do not permit ourselves to see Civil War memorials from a Romantic point of view, and when we fail to recognize the phrase «lost cause» as a shorthand for a morally complex, tragic understanding of the South's defeat.

I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand judaism from an outsiders point of view, the same way I will never understand christianity for the same reason, just know Chad that trying to explain my own religion to me through the lens of yours doesn't really make sense and just seems foolish.

In this crisis of decision, the continuity with the past is accordingly abrogated and the present can not be understood from the point of view of development — though in other connections, when man is thought of as an observer, continuity may have a valid meaning.

Our subconscious understanding of the laws of physics and the natural laws He has set forth to allow our existence to come about can not be observed, and to say that He is flawed because we see disease is viewing things from a very limited point of view, that being a living human being with an aversion to disease and loss of health.

From a Whiteheadian point of view the transcendence by the agent of its participant holons is indeed essential to freedom, but it is understood in a way that is not dependent on the peculiarity of high - grade human experience.

Granted that from the point of view of understanding the faith of ancient Israel these are not critical questions, we of typically Western frame of mind, who put so much significance upon delineation of fact, can not but regret this kind of frustration.

This may be fine for Protestants who believe that Catholicism simply perpetuates feudal ideas and superstitious belief, but it is not a very helpful point of view when trying to understand the French with sympathy.

All theories which place «a subject,» as a fixed point of reference and a well determined entity, ahead of the process of experience have, in Whitehead's view, not clearly understood subjectivity.

The essential difficulty in this book, however, lies not in the theoretical understanding nor in the acceptance of it as a «point of view,» but in the actual encounter with reality which it demands.

I believe I don't need to expand more on this as we all understand this from Gunners» point of view

From a PR point of view I can understand why our board feel that say 50 million would not be worth the grief they would receive from an already disillusioned fan base.

Having said that, there are many Arsenal fans that don't see it the same way and I can partly understand that from the point of view that the FA Cup should be one of four trophies we should be in the mix for, with the squad that's been assembled.

But in terms of football, I do not understand why, and from a legal point of view, I have not had a trial, I am not guilty, we will have to wait until the court reaches a verdict.