Sentences with phrase «reading debate of»

Not exact matches

For anyone who wants to read the best damn feature out there on this debate — and on the epic story of the effort to find a worthy Alzheimer's drug — I recommend this 2015 Fortune classic by my colleague Erika Fry: «Can Biogen Beat The Memory Thief?»

The anti-diversity memo read round the world — a controversial screed penned by a now - fired Google software engineer — has elicited plenty of controversy and debates around gender politics and the soundness of evolutionary psychology.

I read enough to make myself aware of their positions and remind myself that all ideas need to be debated on occasion.»

«As we read all the news with what the SEC is doing with general solicitation — and there has obviously been a good bit of debate as to how effective that is going to be, how valuable that is actually going to be for the ecosystem — what was clear to us was that it is definitely not going to be valuable if verifying the accreditation of investors is not easy and efficient and reliable,» says Nicholas Thorne, Basno's CEO and co-founder.

As hybrid publishing grows, many of its leading figures are starting to debate its downsides — and how to make books that are genuinely worth reading.

(The New York Times has a nifty interactive debate feature that allows you to go to a discussion of a specific issue and simultaneously watch the exchange and read the transcript.)

While we can't reveal too much, it will be addressing the hotly debated topic of paying college Read more about Week 49 — Secret Basketball Project -LSB-...]

After weeks of flooding the airwaves with demands for an emergency debate on a motion condemning BC's interference with the Trans Mountain pipeline Jason Kenney finally got a chance to demonstrate what he meant... Continue reading →

In these constant religion versus atheism debates, that has got to be one of the funniest statements I have ever read.

There was a time when I was, independently, reading Behe and all about intelligent design and was thoroughly involved in debating «evolutionists» and arguing with people accusing them of thinking only within the «trance» of science.

I admit that no amount of debate from me will change your mind but for the sake of the forum, please do some reading.

Discussions and debates are more productive when all parties are well - informed on their positions, and it's hard to know a lot of information if the only thing you've read about a topic is the headline to an article you didn't look at.

I have read Dave Hunts «What Love is This» and David Clouds «Calvinism Debate» and some of Calvin's institutes.

But mostly when you say,» However, if you intend to debate on the existence of God, I expect you to have actually read and studied the book you believe is a myth and a joke.

I'm sure you've read my earlier comments in debates with those of a «hyper - grace» orientation or whatever people choose to call it, and from your post you likely disagree with me.

In that connection, they might read in particular the dissenting opinion written by James Burtchaell, author of Rachel Weeping and one of the most incisive minds today exploring the ramifications of the abortion debate (see This World, Summer 1989).

But whether you agree or disagree with Bob Wilkin, at least he did more in this debate than spend most of his time reading Bible verses.

Read more of our coverage of the prayer pose here: «Tebowing» prayer stirs debate, but quarterback is OK with it

You have no sense of where the debate lies — you just read the one guy.

But, as I read these blogs day by day, it seems there are very few commentors, but lots of comments, mostly from atheist and a few «Christians» who want to engage the atheist in debate.

If none of our programs have worked, and if Christians are constantly arguing about what can be done (read the comments over the course of the past month of blog posts if you want to see these debates), where does that leave us?

I was disappointed in reading Robert Miola's article on «Shakespeare's Religion» (May 2008) to see the truths of Shakespeare's plays muddled in the debate of whether they are Protestant or Catholic.

With a number of fellow pastors who became lifelong friends, Rauschenbusch studied, read, talked, debated and plumbed the new social theories of the day, especially those of the non-Marxist socialists whom John C. Cort has recently traced in Christian Socialism (Orbis, 1988) The pastors wove these theories together with biblical themes to form» «Christian Sociology,» a hermeneutic of social history that allowed them to see the power of God's kingdom being actualized through the democratization of the economic system (see James T. Johnson, editor, The Bible in American Law, Politics and Rhetoric [Scholars Press, 1985]-RRB- They pledged themselves to new efforts to make the spirit of Christianity the core of social renewal at a time when agricultural - village life was breaking down and urban - cosmopolitan patterns were not yet fully formed.

If I had decided to chime in I would have recommended reading Ian Bradley's fine book Abide With Me: The World of Victorian Hymns (1997), where he details the heated debates in 19th century England over whether to have choirs, and if so, if they should be kept at the rear of the sanctuary in order to «back up» the congregation in its worship rather than being a visual distraction in the front.

What this paper has to offer is not likely to resolve the «exegetical debate» amongst such alternate readings of Whitehead.

Origen, however, is part of the debate, for he warns against reading the creation account in Genesis as a scientific description of the world's beginnings.

@ Doris: you are reading this entire discussion through last week's debate and therefore missing the point of the altogether DIFFERENT discussion happening here.

He reads the debate as a series of concessions that culminate in his own «prescriptive realism,» according to which moral evaluation responds to a call that, while it comes from outside ourselves, is fitting to agents like ourselves, and which we must endorse or resist.

consider, for all the debate regarding the «innovation» of monotheism in the Abrahamic religions, how could there be such sophistication WHILE requiring such naiveté as your read of Genesis does?

The idea that it was respectable to read old books, listen to old music, and debate the old questions of philosophy came to me as a liberation.

Ngole indicated his opposition to homosexuality when he quoted Leviticus 20:13 - which reads: «If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination» - during a debate on Facebook.

Also, I read a lot of debate about whether Jesus actually did come and «clear things up» with the Matthew 5:17 - 18.

fishon — «Bob, I am not going to get into a debate with you, but didn't you read about «forgiveness and repentance» of that disobedience?»

---- Bob, I am not going to get into a debate with you, but didn't you read about «forgiveness and repentance» of that disobedience?

In the current state of debate about these matters, I perhaps ought to expect myself to feel «excluded» as a man from reading Jane Austen's Emma until all female references to the protagonist are edited out, the title changed to M., and the author's name reduced to the discreet neutrality of J. Austen.

There was this time during the Cain boom when he had just spent the section of a debate dealing with criticism of 9 -9-9 by crouching in a fetal position and chanting «you haven't read the analysis, you haven't read the analysis» (rhetorically of course) and the sexual harassment stuff came out.

He debates whether we've made an idol of the Bible and the way that Jesus read scripture with evangelical church leader Andrew Wilson, the author of Unbreakable.

I know that I am «a moron» (with an earned Ph.D. from an accredited institution, have published twelve books and hundreds of articles read by millions), but I am walking away with the firmly entrenched belief that I have won this debate.

There is, as usual with Dulles, a deceptive simplicity of presentation, but a careful reading reveals that these brief lectures comprehend with great subtlety the many, complex, and sometimes rancorous debates about the meaning of priesthood since the Second Vatican Council.

Watch debates between Andrew Wilson, Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke on how we should interpret scripture today, and read articles (at the bottom of the page) by all three for Premier Christianity.

Too often the debate between a Bernard of Clairvaux and a Peter Abelard is read in terms of the latter's so - called heterodoxy when it was just as much about Bernard's progressive vision of a church disentangled from the control of secular princes over against Abelard's more conservative view of an ordered relation of patronage and rule between secular rulers and sacred institutions.

Paul Jewett's Man as Male and Female, Letha Scanzoni's and Nancy Hardesty's All We're Meant to Be, Elisabeth Elliot's Let Me Be a Woman, and George W. Knight's The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women have taken varying positions and have been widely read and debated in evangelical circles.1 Bill Gothard, through his Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, has offered teaching on the subject of women's rightful place to thousands, as have Francis Schaeffer, Howard Hendricks, and Tim LaHaye.

In The Self and the Dramas of History Niebuhr returned to the debate about man's nature and freedom, and this book may be read as Niebuhr's public reply to Tillich.

Clark Pinnock, in a perceptive paper entitled «The Inerrancy Debate Among the Evangelicals,» warns that men like Francis Schaeffer and Harold Lindsell «tend to confuse the high view of Scripture with their own interpretation of it, so that unless one agrees with their reading of the text he may be described as an unsound evangelical or no evangelical at all.

Though an attentive observer of the life issues on many fronts, including the debate about stem cells, I was not aware that the debate was over until I read the article.

Finally, it is a pleasure to read a book on science and religion that is not only well written and informative but refreshingly free of the point - scoring belligerence that often mars such debate.

Others may fear that the Bible falls apart for them if 1 Corinthians 14 or 1 Timothy 2 are read alongside the stories of Deborah, Huldah, and Junia (I'll just add that I'm not interested in debating this here, but encourage complementarians to read NT Wright on this topic and to lodge complaints with him).

This came about by reading someone saying what the pharasees said, and I brought it up as a kind of conversation / debate..

Yet they often engaged in fierce debates with pseudo-scientists who ascribed absolute authority to readings of the Bible.»

You may or may not be back to this particular debate, but if you are, one question: YOU WRITE:; My point is that a close reading suggests a multiplicity of ideas and beliefs that we are priviliged to witness while it's under construction, the Jerusalem controversy being one good example.