Sentences with phrase «particular questions which»

Then, you should prepare yourself to answer particular questions which are called KSA (knowledge, skills, and abilities so potential employers will find out about your qualifications, educational background, work experience, skills and greatest achievements.

«I ask one particular question which seems to separate the wheat from the chaff,» Imbo adds.

I ask one particular question which seems to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Not exact matches

A world - class expert might work for 20 + years to figure something out, completely devoting her entire life to answering one particular question, which you get for the cost of lunch.

From a strictly legal perspective, the relevant question is not whether there is a sufficient connection to any particular existing or proposed oil sands development or other production activity, and certainly not whether such projects or activities were included in the Terms of Reference (ToR), but rather simply whether the GHGs associated with the production of bitumen that will be transported by the NGP are an «environmental effect» of that project (see NGP Report, Volume II, Appendix 4, Terms of Reference, which defines «environmental effect» very broadly to mean «any change that the project may cause in the environment.»

We often get questions from customers about the aggressiveness of double edge safety razors and which ones are best suited for their particular hair / beard type.

Question, is there a website that tells you exactly which sector a particular stock is in?

The only question is whether a particular society has enough of the faithful to care for its poor so as not to have the charitable vocation usurped by the state, at which point it is no longer a Christian society.

You may have doubts about something in particular that you feel needs to be questioned but this is based on something else that you're already assuming to be true, unless you live in some sort of vacuum, which of course is impossible.

In a New York Times blog, Ross Douthat notes that Pew created two nonbeliever categories instead of one: the much publicized atheist / agnostic category (which got 21 out of 32 religious knowledge questions right) and a much larger category of respondents who described their religion as «nothing in particular» (which got only 15 right — a bit below the national average of 16 correct answers).

Falsely linking morality to a particular religion or to some political or military ideology is a time - tested «three card trick» uses to stop people from asking the hard questions which might lead to an abandonment of the relevant faith.

In any event, it is an empirical question, an empirical question the resolution of which will figure in the moral determination of whether our using such extraordinarily dangerous machines is morally justified in particular circumstances.

That every condition to which the process of becoming conforms in any particular instance has its reason in the character of some actual entity whose objectification is one of the components entering into the particular instance in question (the ontological principle — or principle of extrinsic reference).

Anyway, last week, we talked about Chapter 2 — «The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature» — in which Enns tackles the difficult question of how to understand the Bible as special and revelatory when Genesis in particular looks so much like other literature from the ancient Near Eastern world.

We can limit our questions to those which fall fully within the scope of the particular sciences each of which so circumscribes its work that questions of such ultimacy can not arise.

Philosophers may reach quite different conclusions, some of which do not introduce these particular tensions into the relation between philosophy and Christian theology.3 The modern theological discussion of natural theology has been seriously clouded by the failure to distinguish the formal question from the substantive one.

Israeli archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel announced earlier this week several findings which may contribute toward a positive case for the veracity of biblical history, in particular the question of whether a centralized Israelite kingdom existed during the era of the biblically purported King David....

At the same time he has his own very serious reservations and questions, some of which are frankly stated in these particular books, as they are elsewhere in Adventures of Ideas and in some of the «table - talk» recorded by Lucien Price in the dialogues.

The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals.

But please know this: all of your questions are coming from a particular understanding of God which I do not accept or believe in.

In the particular problem of God, the quest accordingly took the form of looking for the answer to the question, «What is that area of human experiencing in which awareness of God is to be found?»

It is not necessary to illustrate this situation here at the beginning of our reflections with particular examples of the questions or proceedings which gave rise to disquiet, since we shall have to go into the matter, as far as is necessary and possible, when forming a judgment on it.

Thus, the imaginative generalization begins with some salient feature of reality viewed within the perspective of some particular intellectual discipline and then posits a principle which is exemplified within that discipline, but whose scope is not limited to the discipline in question.

Paul Tillich defined this approach with particular clarity (and therefore in extreme form) in his «method of correlation»: «systematic theology proceeds in the following way: it makes an analysis of the human situation out of which the existential questions arise, and it demonstrates that the symbols used in the Christian message are the answers to these questions.»

It is essential here to comprehend that the principle of relativity (which states that all actual entities are internally related) is not simply applied to physiology or psychology, etc., but rather, in each instance the principle is arrived at in an original way from within the particular facts of the particular field of learning in question.

This limitation is by no means evident in terms of the ontological principle as we know it from Process and Reality, but it was very real in terms of the ontological principle Whitehead was then working with: «That every condition to which the process of becoming conforms in any particular instance has its reason in the character of some actual entity whose objectification is one of the components entering into the particular instance in question» (EWM 323f).

The utility of any specific answer to this question depends then on the particular sub-questions which the one putting the question has in mind.

Then, too, it will presumably be possible to leave it an open question whether the history of human descent as known to us does or does not possess features which only after the Fall of the first man can be thought of to some extent as a predominance of his pre-human past and of his environment, over a sensitivity to the world around him no longer protected by the gift of integrity, and over his lack of adaptation to a particular milieu.

It is because I believe that while Christians are learning from Buddhists, Buddhists in general, and Pure Land Buddhists in particular can also be enriched as they respond to questions with which Christians may have been wrestling more intensively for a longer period of time.

But Farron's particular mix of robust evangelicalism and liberal voting patterns are less familiar, which is where the belief / behaviour question becomes more interesting.

Awareness that there are particular cultural situations rather than a universal culture within which the gospel takes form raises, of course, the obvious question: what is the gospel?

This is yet another question on which the university in particular is increasingly a backwater suffering from severe cultural lag.

However, most of the questions raised by this mode of analysis have been neglected, and in particular the way in which God is present to and in occasions of experience has been omitted from the discussion.

«Logically prior to every particular religious assertion is an original confidence in the meaning and worth of life, through which not simply all our religious answers, but even our religious questions first become possible or have any sense.»

What is perhaps most frustrating about engaging in such conversations within the evangelical community in particular, however, is that differences regarding things like Calvinism and Arminianism, baptism, heaven and hell, gender roles, homosexuality, and atonement theories often disintegrate into harsh accusations in which we question one another's commitment to Scripture.

We've already discussed Chapter 2 — «The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature» — in which Enns tackles the difficult question of how to understand the Bible as special and revelatory when Genesis in particular looks so much like other literature from the ancient Near Eastern world, and Chapter 3 --- «The Old Testament and Theological Diversity» — which addresses some of the tension, ambiguity, and diversity found within the pages of Scripture.

Waiving for the moment the far from settled question of the extent that Gandhi's techniques of nonviolence were adapted to the particular social and cultural situation in which he found himself, we still must ask whether we can really see the vindication of hope for the higher values in a cumulative and secure achievement of orders of persuasion over brute force.

And this one really does nothing to respond to the heart of my question which is not about faith in general but rather what makes one declare THEIR particular faith is the «truth» and / or the «reality» where all other beliefs are illusion or denial or whatever else they rationalize them away as.

I also thank Kristen Robinson Doe for citing particular cases of great relevance to my argument — although it should also be mentioned that political philosophy is one surviving sub-discipline (my own, it turns out) in which the big questions can still be explored.

The first of these is the question of how we can adequately define that love which Christianity holds to be the clue to the nature of God and therefore define the content of that real good in relation to which all particular goods are finally judged.

Though nothing new is here, the discussion of questions of context (liberal, modern, neo-orthodox; ecumenical, realist, biblical), texts and contexts (matters of biblical interpretation) and the way in which Christian affirmations are appropriately translated into particular settings is stimulating.

However many similar questions (such as, for example, the way in which Jesus pictured the manner of the kingdom's coming or the relation in which he thought of himself as standing toward it) may still be unanswered, that particular issue has surely been settled.

To answer that question, the results of historical study of Christianity can be subjected to philosophical analysis to determine the essence of Christianity, that which defines it and yields criteria by which to assess any particular teaching, institution, or practice that claims to be «Christian.»

But its access to a possible way of explaining red would also differ from that of a being which had developed a particular sensibility for good or for ill with respect to a particular shade of red, so that the perception in question would give rise to pleasant or unpleasant feelings.

The question is here raised in its exegetical aspect, we turn to the Christian aspect, I would venture to mind my critics that when they put in the forefront, they do, the particular manner in which they wish themselves and their loved ones to survive, they are involuntarily giving grounds to the opponents of Christianity who constantly repeat that the faith of Christians is nothing more than the projection of their desires.

Panexperientialism resists the completely deterministic interpretation of this idea, according to which the temporally prior condition fully determines every present event: When the event in question is an individual occasion of experience, it has a mental pole, which is partly self - determining (In Whitehead's words, the ontological principle «could also be termed the «principle of efficient, and final, causation,»» because it says that «every condition to which the process of becoming conforms in any particular instance has its reason either in the character of some actual entity in the actual world of that concrescence or in the character of the subject which is in process of concrescence» [PR 24].)

The question is the ontological status of the finite particular upon which he bases his existentially worded case.

Or he may recognize that to some questions there are various possible answers, one of which may especially appeal to a particular person but none of which is final, absolute, and unquestionable.

Even with all their particular differences, one can discover here a series of fundamental presuppositions common to both Dibelius and Bultmann and which both considered trustworthy beyond question.

The important, question arises as to whether this prominence of Anglo - Saxon Protestantism was because of the economic and political position of Great Britain and the United States or whether the latter was due to the particular type of Protestantism which prevailed in these lands.