Sentences with phrase «not view all of these men»

Of course, we can not view all of these men as mere victims.

Not exact matches

I didn't much care for the 2015 Best Picture of the Year Spotlight; in my view, it was a Lifetime version of the kind of gripping story about journalism that All the President's Men actually was.

Research suggests businesswomen are not only more wary of risk than men but that companies with women at the top are more successful and in tune with their customers because their boards have a wider range of views.

There are borderline sexual assault scenarios that are viewed as standard procedure by much of the PUA crowd — this is clearly not the place to argue that but I feel it'd be wrong not to point out my disagreement with that point — but above and beyond all that are incredibly dehumanizing assumptions about both men and women that underly the process.

Hart thinks Howard Roark's pronouncement in The Fountainhead («I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life») implies the view that a man's «best achievements were simply and solely the products of his own unfettered and unaided will.»

The Job and Ecclesiastes passages are spoken from man's point of view and are not statements of dogma.

However, this does not imply some of the more ridiculous tenets of creationism (such as man walking with dinosaurs or the world being 6000 years old) should be objectively viewed as truth when all evidence points to evolution as fact.

The complete character of a human being does not come into view unless we add Homo ludens, man the player, to Homo sapiens, intelligent man, Homo faber, man the maker of things, and Homo laborans, man the worker.

For me I see evolution the same as you see God not enough proof to say I believe it and see God as how all things started, in my view evolution of man can be true just that it has not been proven where God I can see because there is no other logical explanation for how the matter in the universe came to be from nothing, a higher power for now can be the only possible answer if science was to prove the creation of the universe in some other way I would not deny that truth.

---- Of course one man's view is not the sole authority on any particular issue.

«The merest accident of microgeography had meant that the first man to hear the voice of Om, and who gave Om his view of humans, was a shepherd and not a goatherd.

That's not to say that Mattie's two men don't ascend from commerce to honor to personal love, and we can even stick, to some extent, with Bob's view that that ascent is a Southern criticism of Northern Lockeanism.

The Bible and the universe Thus it was not the biblical perspective but the Greek view of the cosmos — in which everything revolved around a stationary earth — that was to guide man's concept of the universe for many centuries.

I'm sorry, but just because you are a woman that doesn't disqualify you from having seriously messed up views of the differences between men and women.

Your problems are a reflection of yourself and upbringing, not a reflection of your devotion to the bearded man in a cloud, who by my view of the world and its turmoil, is a selfish god.

In fact, Lincoln had difficulty with the aristocratic Jefferson on many accounts, and in private he not only scorned Jefferson's views of the ideal yeoman farmer but also condemned Jefferson's hypocrisy regarding slaves, a hypocrisy that implied Jefferson's use of the word equality in the Declaration need not be taken literally as applying to all men.

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.

Again, personally, I do not care who gets married, but this man is just being completely dishonest and if you want an honest debate you have to come from an honest point of view.

Indeed, as best as I can tell, the None's and the Done's have recognized the walls of the Evangelicals — not as noble walls of doctrine, but rather, as the sides of a ditch being viewed by the blind man in the muddy center.

(This view is abbreviated DP3) J. L. Mackie has described a crucial aspect of this position: «If men's wills are really free, this must mean that even God can not control them... «5 If one takes seriously that idea of a universe composed of actual things in real relations with other actualities, then the idea that all power is concentrated in one actuality is nonsensical.

My personal View is that he was an affable man, and also a man of his time... you didn't make a point of outright denying God in the 19th century.

Just because he doesn't fit your stereotypical view of what a black man should look like, act like or speak does not take away from his genetic heritage.

Please understand that when I challenged the declaration that «all sex outside of a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is sinful», it was an attempt to get the poster to recognize that such a view is not biblically supported.

One understanding of human nature common to the modern era sees man as standing both above and outside nature (after Descartes, as a sort disembodied rational being), and nature itself as raw material — sometimes more pliable, sometimes less — for furthering human ambition (an instrumentalist post — Francis Bacon view of nature as a reality not simply to be understood but to be «conquered» and used to satisfy human desires).

And if it wasn't, what does that say in confirmation of Ratzinger's own view — expressed before the con - clave that elected him pope in 2005 — that he was not a man whose strong suit was governance?

His work would seem to support the view, in effect, that man is made for relationship with God: not that our relationship to the Creator is just some fictional result of indoctrination by another, but that our natural response to the world is that is has been «made.»

For the faithful in Christ can not accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teach about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own» -LCB- Humani Generis 37).

One can not view the whole gigantic production apparatus of modem advanced societies and the perennial preoccupation of mankind with making a living without being impressed by the dominance of physical demands in the life of man.

In the view of the author of Matthew, Jesus certainly would have passed such a test: «The Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.»

Did he not simply say what man should do, rather than presenting dramatic views of what God has done or will do?

Which was original is not certain, but probably, in view of its kinship with the word for smelling in Hebrew and some cognate languages, ruach at first signified the heavy breathing of man and later the blowing of the wind as the breath of God.

Liberals generally are for the killing of babies and other horendous ideas that war against the sanctity and liberty of human beings... Giving men with this kind of a world view «equal time» isn't what I think God desires.

The more one considers this eventuality (which can not be dismissed as a myth, as certain morbid symptoms, such as Sartrian existentialism, show) the more does one tend to the view that the grand enigma presented by the phenomenon of Man is not the question of knowing how life was kindled on earth, but of understanding how it might be extinguished on earth without being continued elsewhere.

If Christianity is to show the relevance of its doctrine of love to contemporary man it must make clear that in sex as in science the Christian view of the world is not confined to first century concepts.

Existentialist philosophy may push the revolution to its limit as in Sartre's doctrine that man creates himself out of nothing, and this «nothing» is at the heart of man's freedom.36 There are more balanced views, but we can not escape the fact that our sense of time and becoming has created a new understanding of what it means to be.

It is not that this view of man is wholly new.

And since the criticism of homosexuality in the bible is the result of bigotry introduced by men to support a view not originally there... there is no reason to fret about the gay lover possibility anyway.

In presenting this point of view I am not discussing the untenable position of biblical literalism which holds that man's nature is corrupted by the sin of a generic ancestor, Adam.

In view of the central importance of this doctrine it matters less whether it is readily accepted by our contemporaries, provided that its message is not interpreted in a narrow, selfishly individualistic sense, but that the gracious divine act which opens man to God is from the beginning understood also as creating authentic community among men.

The Council fathers knew, of course, that there would always be differences of social status, talent and national character, but in their view great genuine culture does not presuppose the existence of a large number of men who are poor, socially weak and exploited.

Though they did not think of these things as being fully God the way we think of Jesus Christ, the Jewish people did view The Temple, the Torah, and the Land as being the meeting place between God and man, the nexus where heaven and earth became one.

Jesus also says that anyone who speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but this view about Israel's rejection of Jesus seems to say the opposite, that Jewish people who rejected Jesus by speaking against Him would not be forgiven.

I do not elsewhere «skewer» conservatives for their devotion to the founders» intentions because of its resemblance to the principle of sola scriptura — I note this mostly as a bemused observation — but because, apparently unlike Reilly, I do not subscribe to a «Great Man» view of historical agency and historiography in which the mens auctoris provides the definitive key to the meaning of texts or historical events.

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.

This would be a comfortable way out of the impasse if we could think so, for in view of the fact that the end of the world has not yet come, it is not easy to fit into the rest of his words such sayings as, «Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom» (Matt.

However... what it has become is a corrupt mishmash of mens» laws... not Jesus Christ's... on subjects that do not concern them with no room for discussion or equal time for anyone EXCEPT the views of those same men who are unyielding to their own self - made laws.

If Obama responds that sin is something doesn't align with his values, he speaks from not a Biblical view but rather a demonstration of «how man makes the Bible fit his world».

You can hold that a woman is so made that she enters into her sexual identity and so finds a particular fulfillment by giving cooperative support to a male leader, or that she is not; you can hold that a man is so made that he enters into his sexual identity and so finds a particular fulfillment by taking responsibility for a female helper, or that he is not; and you can argue across the board for whichever view of Bible teaching on role relationships fits in with your idea.

«The man in the Israelite world who has faith is not distinguished from the «heathen» by a more spiritual view of the Godhead, but by the exclusiveness of his relationship to God and by his reference of all things to Him.»

The activity on behalf of individuals is for this pastoral director not only a matter of pastoral rule or of the pastoral cure of souls, though it will include both, but is best designated as pastoral counseling, a counseling that has them in view as needing reconciliation to God but also to men, yet knows that reconciliation is not automatically productive of wisdom.