Sentences with phrase «only kind of thinking»

The only kind of thinking we are really interested in is that kind which either solves problems or gets something started.

Not exact matches

«And I think that trend will continue [among millennials] not only because of the attitudinal shift [on freelance medical work] but also because the existence of technology actually makes it possible to do this kind of work.»

Fair enough, but under the new EU net neutrality laws (which aren't yet in force), the only kind of outright traffic shaping that will be allowed will be for highly specialized services — think dedicated packages for Internet TV or cars or medical applications.

• Think of this like the kind of «convenience key» that's popped up in various phones in recent months, only without the need for a physical button.

Some psychologists will even tell a candidate if they think the person is a poor fit for a job, but only if they believe he or she can absorb that kind of feedback.

Lots of entrepreneurs think the only valid kind of referral is the kind where each new customer you acquire refers more than one, or viral coefficient k > 1 referral.

You may think that you're immune from these kinds of influences (and for the moment that may be true), but it's only a matter of time (and which poison you pick) because, in the end, they're gonna get us all and most of us will go along willingly.

If you're the kind of person whose only financial education has come from the limited curriculum of our public education system, this book can really change the way you think about finances.

«I think the only way a case could go forward on that basis is if there's some kind of documentary evidence — such as a text or an email — which indicates that (the election) was the reason for the payment.»

I showed them that the kind of life I wanted was possible by going out and living it successfully, and like Michael Dell, I think this was the only way to do it.

Mormonism is another made up religion and yes I understand they are true believers with only noble purposes BUT we know the road to hell is paved with just that kind of thinking.

With the collection of all of our voices, we'll hold the kinds of discussions that can only be found at the intersection of thought and practice.

The only kind of people that think they can have conversations with a «god» or a «devil» are religious dolts and schizophrenics!

Conservatives can not push enough Democrats and wobbly moderates toward greater comfort with originalist - like its - the - only - Constitution - we've - got thinking, can not get them to sacrifice the judicial avenue to what they see as policy goodies, or get them to really censure the kinds of unconstitutional short - cuts Obama is modeling, if they think that folks like you and I believe that Real originalism would ban hours - laws, collective bargaining, etc..

We think to ask what kind of church we should become is not only the wrong question, it is boring.

It does, and that's only because I've gone through this kind of three - year process of first the deconstruction, the sort of subsequent crisis of that emotionally, and then the many, many therapy sessions that enabled me to sort of realize, «I am really in crisis because I'm worried about what people are going to think.»

He was probably right, but I couldn't help thinking that perhaps he also only felt so strongly about the issue because of the kind of church he grew up in.

Re Ed's comment, ultimately I think we only make the cages ourselves, but those in «authority» are only to happy to «guide» us in by all kinds of means and are really happy to keep us there!

When Father Ron thought of «family,» he thought only of the biological family unwittingly relegating other kinds of families to a second - class status.

The church then tried to make me arminian (and partially succedeed), while I thought I was still only christian.Then I rebelled and discovered other aspects of truth, calvinist ones, in another church who kind of made me a calvinist.

But for the reader the volume lacks a sense of flow or unity because with each essay one has to determine not only how the Jewish writers are thinking of Christians and how the Christian writer is understanding Jews but what kind of Jew and what kind of Christian are being brought together in this particular chapter.

BUT: the kind of thought and talk that does justice to the rational and the logical aspects of our experience, will only reduce and flatten the kind of talk and thought that does justice to the irrational and illogical aspects of our experience.

But I also think everything is crossing so many genres and everybody kind of knows about so many different styles of music that there's no way to only be influenced by one genre.»

The only «peace» that kind of thinking aka «faith» brings anyone, is the feeling of well - being brought upon by the relief that they are now validated as being better than others.

I think of this, therefore, not only as the kind of secondary activity I have described above, a thinking about theology instead of thinking about the topics with which theology properly deals, but also as itself a theological enterprise.

Those who think that technological or political action is the only kind there is are, of course, free to go on thinking so.

Whitehead's critique of substance thinking is parallel to the genuinely Aristotelian approach to the problem insofar as Aristotle too rejects as inadequate a logical kind of consideration that orients itself only on the subject - predicate schema.

I think that kind of reaction is a defense mechanism... that people that hate on others beliefs only do so because they lack confidence in their own beliefs... and have to put others down to feel better about themselves.

The point about all these pontifications, I thought at the time, whether over the airwaves or in the print media, either by secular commentators or by the kind of Catholics the liberal media like to give a platform to because their views on the Catholic tradition are so similar to their own (it seemed by the beginning of the conclave that it had all been going on for ever) was — or so I reflected then in my simple way — that this wonderful free - for - all was the only chance for many of them to be heard at all on this subject.

The only think I can think of that you are objecting to is the suggestion that depending on how these kind of issues are addressed then sometimes all that happens is a prolonging of misery and suffering with the creating and enabling of fear and retribution.

This really deals with that shame as Ogden shares: «As the guys in our church walk through that, you could just see that flame of hope kind of rekindle, and going, «I not only believe what they're saying is true, but I think it could be true for me.»

One of the difficulties encountered by many young Filipinos who had been trained in Western classical philosophy (which until recently was practically the only kind of philosophical training that was available in the Philippines) was the inadequacy of such a mode of thinking to articulate fully our experience as an Asian people.

Given that you openly state that an original text can only be interpreted from the perspective of a later text exemplifies on many levels the kind of misguided arrogance that people who think they have a superior mastery over knowledge of God typically exhibit.

This kind of thinking takes the fear out of the politicians minds as they are making incredibly ridiculous decidions in Washington, decisions that harm me (the one working and paying the taxes) and only benefit them.

It makes me think the only kind of answer you are capable over something that challenges your so cherished believes is an emotional response as childish and immature as this.

The most unnerving issue isn't that he says this or believes it, it's the fact that he preaches and advocates this to people who believe and follow what he says only because they think he's some kind of advocate for a higher power.

There seem to be only two kinds of mind left; and — it is a disturbing thought — all natural mystical power and all human religious impulse seem to be concentrated on one side.

As for failure to show that God exists, as I've asked elsewhere, just what kind of «evidence» are you looking for, and just how long do you think it is going to be before you begin to contradict yourself, when it is pointed out to you that your empirical demand for «evidence» will only take you so far when it comes to knowing anything?

And when we think of this we begin to wonder whether civil and religious liberty can indeed be based on the position of Edwards's opponents or only on the kind of foundations he provided not in but in connection with his determinism.

But on the other hand, when in talking about sin one talks only of such sins, it is so easily forgotten that in a way it may be all right, humanly speaking, with respect to all such things up to a certain point, and yet the whole life may be sin, the well - known kind of sin: glittering vices, willfulness, which either spiritlessly or impudently continues to be or wills to be unaware in what an infinitely deeper sense a human self is morally under obligation to God with respect to every most secret wish and thought, with respect to quickness in comprehending and readiness to follow every hint of God as to what His will is for this self.

«The only kind of framework I had for thinking about how to make a positive impact was like, «Oh, some sort of charity or humanitarian aid organization or sponsorship program,»» she explains.

I used to think that the only true Christians were «Bible - Believing Born - Again Evangelicals» like me, the kind of people who voted for Republicans, rejected evolution, walked the Romans Road, and prayed the Sinner's Prayer.

The only way I found was observation, thought and science but if you try these you see the intrinsic flaws in each of them and none can lead to any kind of real knowledge.

all I can think of today is what I saw in yesterday's news, about the former paratrooper turned preacher at an Independent Fundamental Baptist church just outside Ft. Bragg, N.C., that told his congregation they should break their sons» wrists if they catch them doing the «limp wrist», or give him a good punch... and all the kids that have committed suicide because other kids have picked up on messages like this and bullied them till they couldn't stand it anymore... we are the only bible some folks will ever read, and if they get this kind of message, well, who'd want to be with a group of people where you are grudgingly tolerated, if not outright hated, and all this in Jesus» name... it also says that the churches will do just about anything to keep people obedient and unquestioning, so they will continue to give, and so the big donors will continue to give, so that the doors at Monster Megachurch can be kept open, and the lights on... David, this is one of your «less is more» toons here... a minimum of elements that says so much....

You're young, it seems (only young people ask questions of that kind), and you think you might have an intellectual vocation, but you can't see what to do about it.

Sometimes I think that this kind of gentleness can only be learned from experience.

Not only does he know what kind of woman she is, and not only does He welcome her worship of Him, He has just read Simon's thoughts.

Essentially, this is a set of sexual Geneva conventions: You never knew it, but not only do you have the right to minimal standards of treatment if you ever become a prisoner of war, but when you were five, you had the right to learn at school all kinds of things about what some people like to do in bed, and if your parents thought that really they'd rather you didn't hear about that stuff at school, or at least not yet, they were... well, they were violating your rights.

This panel thinks this kind of DNA editing should be allowable when it represents the only option for «preventing a serious disease or condition.»

But if this is asserted and if we do not wish to think of the orientation of the development by God as a series of arbitrary measures taken by him and as giving impetus to the development from outside (a way of representing the matter which is absurd in fact and method, for all kinds of reasons), then this orientation can only be conceived as happening precisely through, and out of, 11 the of course ultimately divinely - created reality of what Is itself developing in that way.