Sentences with phrase «people view writing»

It's no mystery most people view writing a novel as a daunting task.

Many people view writing a book like an ethereal cloud to grasp.

Not exact matches

The problem is that women's code is viewed much more favorably when people don't know that a woman wrote it.

In 2012, David Puttnam, Ireland's then Digital Champion, wrote in Views of the Future, Dangers and Opportunities that: «Learning is no longer something that needs to happen within particular hours, in a particular place, or even with a particular group of people.»

But research published in Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience found that «when people viewed pictures of others being loved or cared for, their brains» threat response became muted,» writes Inc.com's Jill Krasny.

«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.»

Write with a point of view — from an actual person to an actual person.

It damages trust in government, reinforcing views that public officials will always put politics before the needs of the people they represent, he writes.

CNN, provided a password to view the chats, reported that Cruz wrote of his hate of immigrants, black people and Jews.

BestReviews wrote: The BestReviews sequel to «Evolution of the Desk,» which was viewed by around 300M people around the world.

Basically, the idea is to create pieces of content (written, visual, audio, etc.) that people want to read, view, or listen to, and tie those pieces of content to your brand to build awareness, equity, and authority.

But people who write tangents such as that, really are not willing to treat or view people in the same way they want people to view and treat themselves.

It's impossible for me to believe that something written in the Bronze Age, by Bronze Age people with their limited views of the world, is the actual and literal factual account of the creation of the world.

People just remember, over the1000yrs so many men wrote and rewrote the bible that it is not truly the original bible.Every one who wrote the bible put in there own thoughts.Plus people who are overly two religious are really the true (SINNERS) Forcing there own views on others.Plus its all for money any way to collect from the poor two build bigger and bigger chuPeople just remember, over the1000yrs so many men wrote and rewrote the bible that it is not truly the original bible.Every one who wrote the bible put in there own thoughts.Plus people who are overly two religious are really the true (SINNERS) Forcing there own views on others.Plus its all for money any way to collect from the poor two build bigger and bigger chupeople who are overly two religious are really the true (SINNERS) Forcing there own views on others.Plus its all for money any way to collect from the poor two build bigger and bigger churches.

Also, I couldn't quite get this into words as I was writing before, so: I am believe that I am correct in my view of Scripture as it has been handed down to me from teachers, preachers, writers and others; I believe that I am correct in my beliefs about who God is, and about His self - revelation, in the same way that all people believe that the opinions they hold are true.

The person who wrote the piece totally left Penal Substituationary Atonement looking so weak in comparison to the Christus Victor view.

And yet over the course of writing my blog, I have found that vast numbers of people struggle with fear, guilt, shame, and all sorts of terrible thoughts about God and others, and as I have learned more, I find that many of these feelings come from a faulty view of God.

Should you desire to express your views that is your priviledge why not give me the same opportunity.It seems to me if a person does not believe the Bible as it was written long ago you would not believe anything written back them what is the date that you would start believeing something written.

• Traditional liberals, writes our friend Robert P. George, have promoted their views as a way that people holding conflicting comprehensive doctrines» «an integrated set of beliefs about the human good, human dignity, and human destiny»» can live together.

«Any person who mentions their religious view or reflections out loud or puts them in writing, without the relevant documents, could be accused of «illegal missionary activity.

I hope that people with a variety of points of view can agree on much that I have written, although I know that those with some other points of view see matters quite differently.

This person had no idea how much hell I've taken from people in my evangelical community for writing about my doubts, my questions related to heaven and hell, my views on biblical interpretation and theology, and my support for women in ministry and other marginalized people in the Church.

«The challenge», wrote Father Alexander Lucie - Smith in his Catholic Herald blog shortly after the Holy Father had announced his resignation, «will be in having to watch the airwaves fill with a whole load of people who are very marginal to Church life, and yet who will be invited to pontificate on all matters papal and religious, giving it their own particular slant, which they will advance as a mainstream view.»

Wright notes that «Israel was thus constituted, from one point of view, as the people who heard God's word — in call, promise, liberation, guidance, judgment, forgiveness, further judgment, renewed liberation, and renewed promise... This is what I mean by denying that scripture can be reduced to the notion of the «record of a revelation,» in the sense of a mere writing down of earlier, and assumedly prior, «religious experience.»

Of course I think a more rational approach is to simply view all those verses as written by mere people.

«It began its operations,» he wrote, «by questioning the truth of certain conceptions held by Christian people — particularly the literal inerrancy of the Bible, the obscurantist dogmas concerning the origin of the Christian revelation and a cosmological view of the origins of the universe and of man.»

Yeah, I have lots of questions too, and know that while my attempts at answers will not be satisfactory to all (they don't fully satisfy me either), I hope that what I write can help move people toward a deeper conversation about these things and a way of viewing God that looks like Jesus on the cross.

The people they carefully select to write «religion» articles are selected because they have the same narrow Christianity - demeaning views.

if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist if you think the indifferent support your side, you might be an atheist if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheview has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheView has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheist.

On page 15 of «The Interpreters Bible», Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the «truth» of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person - hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as «the Christ» in human history.

I view it only as a window into the mind of the people that wrote it.

Please don't listen to these people on here they have so many different views and ideas of their own but don't listen to them they have closed their heart to God and are doing Satans work of misleading people away from the Almighty they look for men who like to have their ears tickled so don't take mine our anyone else's word for it look it up for your self history attests to the bible as true and The writings of Moses is far older than anything they have ever found thats right Moses wrote the first parts in the bible 3,500 years ago The scriptures weren't inspired by Pagan stories Pagan stories was inspired by actual events just like those in the bible because if you notice that a lot of the stories found in the bible have a lot to do about people worshipping false Gods.

In seeking to maintain a high view of inspiration, evangelicals have wrestled with the fact that God's revelation was stated in terms of the language, logic, and location of the people to whom it was originally written.

Trigster: the Book of Mormon was written by dark skinned people, who probably knew nothing of the white supremacy you accuse them of... it does use ancient language, but they were not racist in our terms, the Nephites and Lamanites of the Book of Mormon viewed themselves as «brothers,» they were all one race.

«The massive desolation of the intellect and spirits and the human futures of these millions of young people in their neighborhoods of poverty» is a «national horror hidden in plain view,» Kozol writes, quoting Roger Wilkins.

Anyway, despite all the confusion about pre-millenialism, a-millenialism, post-millenialism, the recent invention of the rapture, Paul's confusing statement about «we who remain», the entire book of Revelation not appearing to be written by John because of the Greek used, and the odd way in which eschatological views seem to change in the New Testament Pauline letters, and the bizarrely easy way people like Thessalonians became convinced Christ had already returned in their time, and all the other confusing things about New Testament prophecy — the truth is that it is all trustworthy and you should not question this.

The groups have «renamed the category formerly known as «Bible Antagonists» as «Bible Skeptics,» and now define the category as people who «selected the most negative or non-sacred view of the Bible from five options, saying they believe the Bible is just another book of teachings written by men, containing stories and advice.»

In 1986 Cardinal Ratzinger, long before he became Pope Benedict, echoed this view of Mary and the Church when he wrote: «The Church is not an apparatus; she is not merely an institution; she is not even one among many social entities — she is a person.

A Christian world and life view furnished the basis for this early political thought, which guided the American people for nearly two centuries and whose crowning lay in the writing of the Constitution of 1787.

«The Bible,» writes Enns, «is the story of God told from the limited point of view of real people living at a certain place and time....

She says it was written to help people wrestle with their view of suffering before tragedy occurs.

It is equally easy and false to take a docetic view of revelation: to suppose that the content of the scriptures, for example, is, just simply, the thoughts of God, the human writers contributing no more than a pen for God to write them down with; or to imagine that a person or a group of people or an institution can, as it were, throw a switch from time to time and become a transmitter of revelation from an external divine source: a group of bishops, for instance, when assembled in council, or a pope when defining a dogma ex cathedra.

The Quran was written by an opportunistic genius who (mis --RRB- appropriated many of Jesus» teachings, then added his own (often - conflicting) views and, via an army and violent tactics, forced people to «believe» in him or pay a heavy tax, or die.

But more generally, Postman is worried about why young people «turn away from civilized speech,» and in his view, the right answer is that «the electronic information environment, with television at its center, is fundamentally hostile to conceptual, segmented, linear modes of expression, so that both writing and speech must lose some of their power» (TCA 74).

But Christianity seems to be nearly unique in its insistence that not only is everyone else wrong, but it is written into the very structure of reality that all those wrong people will be horribly punished for their incorrect views.

Since there are many new readers on this blog, and since probably everyone who has been here longer than a year has forgotten the basic argument I am trying to present, I figured I would spend one post summarizing my view and inviting people to go back and read some of what I have written previously only this topic.

Otherwise, why not write about every persons view that is based on ignorance?

Thus, Lepard writes (citing a passage from the Bhagavad Gita) that Hinduism may view the caste system as legitimate, but it also teaches «that such relationships and related social duties are ethically subordinate to a concern for all people.»

The person who confesses «that his view is conditioned by the standpoint he occupies» is not required to «doubt the reality of what he sees,» wrote Niebuhr; and the person who knows that «his concepts are not universal» is not required to doubt that they are, nevertheless, «concepts of the universal.»

It's interesting that Driscoll writes a piece about how others are criticizing his book — as he is one of the most vocal critics of others who don't fall into his view of how he thinks people should act and be.