Sentences with phrase «out of the discussion as»

I tried to stay out of the discussion as much as possible, because I didn't want to guide the discussion into what my Bible College, Seminary, and years of pastoral experience had taught me.

I tried to stay out of the discussion as much as possible to see what they thought about such things.

He seems interested in getting out of that discussion as soon as possible.

Not exact matches

After our interesting discussion, he reached deeply into his pockets and pulled out a stack of cards, spilling them by the dozens as he searched to find his own.

We will be running free tutoring and presentation / discussions out of it, small events such as movie showings, as well as providing free meeting space for anyone that wants to use it.

Trump on Monday railed against the recent string of attacks in Afghanistan, and ruled out any US discussions with the Taliban as part of the effort to seek peace talks between the Afghan government and the insurgents.

The Canadian Labour Congress and the Climate Action Network of Canada co-hosted a discussion event on Thursday night that focused on job creation and facilitating a transition for the coal, oil and gas sectors — all of which will gradually be phased out as the world moves to a clean energy economy.

Kudlow told reporters the U.S. may provide a list of suggestions to China «as to what we would like to have come out of this,» and those issues were under discussion.

Find more answers: For additional information to include in your personas, as well as a rundown of how to gather the audience insights, check out the second part of Ardath's discussion on persona development: How to Build Buyer Personas That Build Sales.

(As it turned out, within hours of this discussion, 105 missiles had been rained down on three of Syrian President Bashar al - Assad's chemical weapons facilities, under the orders of the commander in chief.)

These responsibilities include: (i) fostering processes that allow the Board to function independently of management and encouraging open and effective communication between the Board and management of the Company; (ii) providing input to the Chairman on behalf of the independent Directors with respect to Board agendas; (iii) presiding at all meetings of the Board at which the Chairman is not present, as well as regularly scheduled executive sessions of independent Directors; (iv) in the case of a conflict of interest involving a Director, if appropriate, asking the conflicted Director to leave the room during discussion concerning such matter and, if appropriate, asking such Director to recuse him or herself from voting on the relevant matter; (v) communicating with the Chairman and the CEO, as appropriate, regarding meetings of the independent Directors and resources and information necessary for the Board to effectively carry out its duties and responsibilities; (vi) serving as liaison between the Chairman and the independent Directors; (vii) being available to Directors who have concerns that can not be addressed through the Chairman; (viii) having the authority to call meetings of the independent Directors; and (ix) performing other functions as may reasonably be requested by the Board or the Chairman.

They especially fear any discussion that goes to the principles of the tradition, preferring to live as best as they can with whatever compromise is worked out.

I would suggest that your sources of information, particularly Michael Fumento's The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, are hopelessly out of date and inappropriate to a discussion of the AIDS epidemic as it is developing in the 1990s.

NO, I wasn't there so the only «facts» I know are what is written in this article but as a rule - of - thumb discussions regarding political views, religion, etc are best left out of the office.

But as a vocal feminist and a Christian, the fact that those advocating for egalitarian and feminist interpretations of gender and scripture are becoming prominent once more — crossing out of academia and into popular discussion — is amazing.

I'm not interested in using this space to sidetrack the discussion into this arena but simply noting that this teaching is seen as an out of sync with even the most liberal teachings on the topic.

(Note: Just so we're clear, I'm not saying that anyone who opposes gay marriage or the Tea Party or «happy holidays» is doing so out of fear; just saying that as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, fear need not be a factor in our discussion of these issues.)

If sociologists have tended to center on the foregoing argument and to single out work as the basis of their assessment of our present inability to play authentically, theologians and philosophers have tended to: focus upon a second area: America's distorted value structure that has accepted as true the «mindscape» of technology 48 This is Theodore Roszak's phrase, and his discussion can perhaps serve as a helpful starting point.

I'm as keen as anyone for a discussion about old earth / young earth (i'm a young earther for the record — at least I think I am But rather than all this constant intellectual bollix, let's sort out some of these basic issues first.

The question is presented as part of a larger discussion on the nature of philosophical and imperial authority, yet it is clear that the imperial part of the argument is not necessary to its main thrust, as a result standing out all the more.

Whitehead did work out a complex theory of value, but my point here is only to indicate that Whitehead's way of understanding human beings as part of nature both requires that we extend the ethical discussion and gives us clues as to how to do this.

I was just doing this as part of my trilogy; it started with Buddha and then Jesus, and now it turns out serendipitously that the timing is appropriate because there is so much discussion about Islam in the world.

It would be strange if, after all the recent discussion as to how much Christianity is a «historical faith,» Christian theologians would adopt an understanding of theological language which ruled out all historical statements.

The sermon continued in out - of - church discussions, as members struggled to figure out their own idols.

The author argues that the United States ought to accept the provision for an International Criminal Court, as worked out in Rome in the summer of 1998 and agreed to by most of the nations participating in the discussions.

Then the conference was divided into small groups of twenty or twenty - five, so that everyone had an opportunity to contribute to the discussion, which enriched the findings that came out of these discussions, representing, as far as possible, the general mind of the gathering.

Now, could it possibly be that the reason the answer is out of reach is because the bible was written by numerous, imperfect human beings, under the influence of their own religious biases, and all those writings have been complied, hundreds of years later, by men of equal imperfectness and religious biases, so as to render any logical discussion about what the hell was their intention in writing what the wrote, completely implausible?

In one of my discussions with the youth of Malaipallaiyam they brought out the idea that the goddess is situated at the boundary of the colony because she stands as a warning to those persons who may cast an «evil eye» on the people (particularly, the women and the children), land and property of the Paraiyars.

But he could not tell them why Aquinas thought the soul is immortal, as Aquinas undoubtedly did, and his paper ran out with a discussion of understanding, not the soul.

Neville i mentioned those people only because the discussion was talking about dominionism the combination of the church and state as a governing rule all those people were government leaders all of them suffered in there own way.Its was the suffering that prepared them for the roles that they were to play and there faith in God was what helped them get through.We are made stronger in our weakness no matter how important or unimportant we may appear to others.I guess it is easy to fall into the lie about political involvement that its hard to make change but some people have had a huge impact.Really it is God who deserves the praise he is the one that creats the opportunitys to make impact on the world as in our strength we can do nothing.In hebrews the great men and woman of faith there are those that seemed unimportant to the world and many suffered for there faith Our Lord knows everyone by name and every small act of faith we do he remembers because we do it out of our love for him that is what the christian walk is about living for Jesus and sharing that love with others.brentnz.

It is good this issue is coming out because it is something that needs to be discussed but there's so much yelling and arguing on both sides I'm afraid you would get as much discussion from a group of first graders.

In the passage immediately following his six «sentence discussion of the Fifth Way, Aquinas explains the connection: «As Augustine says, since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of eviAs Augustine says, since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evias to bring good even out of evil.

But «a moral discussion is inconclusive and even trivial, if it leaves out the question of its application,» as Gregory Vlastos has said.13 In order to be as specific as possible about this approach to Christian social philosophy I shall outline in arbitrary fashion five general principles which I suggest can be supported by the evidence of human experience as being necessary guides to the conditions under which the Good Society can grow.

We can summarize the discussion up to this point by saying that the literary form of Mark's tomb pericope shows definite signs of having developed in three stages, consisting of two appendices with one third final addition (leaving aside the fact that in the second century a still further addition of Mark 16:9 — 20 was made) and that because of this, it may not have been part of the author's original plan as he set out to write his Gospel.

From âpihtawikosisân: The Canadian government continues to mouth platitudes about its supposed dedication to this relationship, while it slashes funding, ignores our emergencies, pulls out of comprehensive land claim discussions, «consults» with us and then ignores everything we told them, all while pursuing a hard - line agenda which accepts only termination as a result.

The only reason we limit the discussion to the so - called «side A» and «side B» debate is because, as Cindy mentions above, the most you could ever squeeze out of Scripture is a prohibition on same - sex acts (which I still think takes quite a bit of squeezing).

Important as they are, discussions of the ministry of the laity, the total people of God, are not substitutes for asking, if the minister is a servant, just what his unique service (and not privilege or status) is to be, and what competence does he have to carry it out.

Check out the other discussion I'm having on moral freedom for some context, but what I see as the concern with morality, at least the outward signs of a person's morality (e.g. are they having se.x with someone other than their spouse?)

We can and should debate theology and doctrine, but we must never think that we are the infallible interpreters of Scripture and determiners of people's destiny, and should also remember that doctrine, as important as it is, becomes evil when debates and discussions about theology keep us from living out the loving gospel in tangible ways to a hurting and dying world.

To say that nothing whatever has come out of that discussion is to make nonsense out of all the great moral traditions — Stoic, Buddhist, humanistic, or democratic, as well as Christian.

I have deliberately left out of the discussion such topics as ethics and the Christian family — although I have talked about responsibility, both for one's own adult behavior and for helping one's children develop the essential emotional equipment with which to face life.

Jeremy I believe you answered the question in another discussion why God seemed evil by punishing other nations i prefer the word you used which is judgement.God weighs up the hearts and then judges fairly thats not evil in fact he weighs up all the factors before he makes his decision and his decisions are perfect and wise.When he commanded Israel to wipe out other nations it was Gods judgement on these nations because of the evil they had committed in alot of ways its exaggerated because they did nt have Christ to shield them like we have if anything it shows how merciful God is towards us today.In those days gods judgement was quick and immediate.What happened to Israel when they broke the laws God gave them they immediately fell into judgement often resulting in many deaths to there own people until the sins of the people were dwelt with.So even for Gods people it was a conditional on there attitude and actions towards God.Again we see God is merciful to these previous nations that were destroyed as Christ after his crucifiction went and preached to them giving them the opportunity to repent so again we see God is still merciful.His word is true The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.

There may be room for discussion about just how Descartes understood free «will, but it is out of the question to suppose, as Griffin does, that Descartes might have allowed that we are deceived by God about our free will.

fred, as has been well described above, you are way out of your depth and should not engage in discussions about advanced scientific topics.

As James Gustafson points out, some religious thinkers may enter on their own terms, defending the unique contribution of religious language to public reflection, and refusing to «translate» this language even for purposes of public discussion.

As I pointed out earlier, there is an «existential» undertone in all of our discussions of chance.

Our response to this question will allow us to flesh out more fully our discussion of faith as it occurs in an emergent universe.

As a young missionary trying to make initial sense out of the whole discussion of contextualization, I found his comment most intriguing.

I genuinely was interested in this subject because of late it has somewhat been playing on my mind and so sought to discover the truth on the matter and so sought out discussions and literature by christian writers that I might examine their different stances on the issue and try to find a moral cross-section as I think is appropriate for all questions since the ranging views are like politics ranging from far left wing to far right wing views.

It arises out of philosophical necessity and is only slightly affected, as in the discussion of peace, by special religious insight or need.