Sentences with phrase «reading this debate in»

Yesterday the Bill had its Second Reading debate in the Commons and here is a flavour of the warm welcome it got from the Tory backbenches.

You maybe debating with the sceptics but you are actually talking to the 3rd party who are listening in or reading your debate in public forums.

I have selected Bill C - 560 to move forward to second reading debate in this chamber.

Not exact matches

In the first - year, MBA candidates must read, absorb and debate some 270 case studies in 10 courses, often fighting for «air time» with equally clever students just as eager as they are to score points with professorIn the first - year, MBA candidates must read, absorb and debate some 270 case studies in 10 courses, often fighting for «air time» with equally clever students just as eager as they are to score points with professorin 10 courses, often fighting for «air time» with equally clever students just as eager as they are to score points with professors.

Today, Bill C - 377 passed Third Reading in the Senate after the Conservative government shut down debate.

More Hot Links for Weekend Reading... Tadas frames the High Frequency Trading debate in Life (and trading) is Unfair.

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

I've read several conservatives who argue that Paul Ryan will «will wipe the floor with Vice President Joe Biden in their one debate in October.»

Study Islam, Read the Quran than you can debate in the way you see fits But never jump to conclusions

your immature, irrational and absolute blind remarks toward atheism have been proved that there is no rational argument beyond this point, I suggest you read my post to the fullest and absorb it's meaning, and continue to act like a civilized being, your behavior is not acceptable in any rational debate, you are not making yourself look good.

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'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 1989In 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 1989in 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.

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.

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.

People who say he would be picking sides in an economic debate clearly don't read the Bible.

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.

starts my own little presidential - style debate in which everyone gets a turn to share their positions with me (and anyone else interested in reading it).

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.

Few works I have read have more clearly stated what's at stake in the debate.

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.

I also have read, listened to, and watched countless debates in regards to God.

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?

He says that if we have all knowledge — you know, if we can recite the Bible forward and backward, and can argue theology with the best theologians in the world, and can read Karl Barth, and can debate about infra - supra - and sub - lapsarianism, — but have not love, then we have nothing.

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.

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.

Their discomfort with cultural issues is reflected in their protests that matters such as partial - birth abortion, school prayer, or same - sex marriage are not proper items for political debate; they are rather «wedge issues» that conservatives illegitimately bring into the public arena in order to divide the nation (read: in order to cost Democrats votes).

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.

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).

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

One read Honest to God and a variety of other works in an effort to understand the hot debate then raging in Europe and America.

We lost the dimension of participation that was so prevalent in the Jewish synagogues, where any male (at that time) could stand up, read a passage, and then give his own interpretation, often leading to intense debate.

In Wright's reading, these debates become almost nonsensical.

It was particularly helpful to read his description of monophyletism (several people from the same stock) in connection with the debate about monogenism or polygenism.

In my study this week, I read all of the commentaries on this passage, and almost all of them debated about whether Jesus broke the Sabbath day laws or not.

I've spent far more time than I care to admit combing through complementarian literature, reading debates about whether women can read Scripture aloud in church, whether female missionaries should be permitted to give presentations on Sunday evenings, what age groups women should be allowed to teach in Sunday school, whether women can speak in small group Bible studies, what titles to bestow upon worship leaders and children's ministry coordinators so that they don't appear too authoritative, and on and on and on.

And congratulations for bringing us the pleasure of reading Ebonics in a political debate.

I do understand the concept of the trinity, but let's be realistic... who made that up??? There is a lot of ignorance in this world, but if you can read the ten commandments — and they are very simple and straightforward — and know what they mean and convey then 1) the concept of the trinity goes out the window and 2) this entire debate about the building of the mosque goes oput the window as well because God instructed us «Love thy neighbor».

So if you're locked in a heated debate with your campus pastor about which title to read in the fall, here are some extra incentives to choose Evolving in Monkey Town:

I've read a lot of the more controversial postings recently (such as the recent ones on Hell and Homosexuality as well as some older ones about the definition of the gospel) where it seems that the debates in the comment section always fail (at least for me) to help those who are trying to learn.

Written in informed engagement with current debates over the possibility of knowledge and truth, this small book will reward careful reading also by those who may dispute the author's interpretation of biblical texts.

I read this article by charisma magazine which i thought was well written which is pro Women preaching http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/fire-in-my-bones/16851-why-i-defend-women-preachers This debate is an on going one John Piper who i respect as a bible preacher believes that scripture is clear women shouldnt have authority over men or teach in the church some go as far as saying women shouldnt preach in sunday school if the classes are mixed.Personally i think times are changing and i say that because i have a women manager she has authority over me and other men so if we follow the biblical example i shouldnt allow myself to be in that situation which is just crazy thinking.

For in the earliest round of the debate, Griffin remarked on how forced, unnecessarily cautious, or simply unnatural are Ford's readings of relevant passages in Science and the Modern World and Religion in the Making — readings claiming that panpsychism is not truly found in either book, and that the appearance to the contrary is due to our reading into them ideas derived from the canonical portions of Process and Reality (REWM 194 - 201).

This is new territory for me, doing a book - length study of Jesus and the origins of Christianity, but I have read everything I could get my hands on, weighed all the scholarly debates, and hope my book will be useful to the book - reading public in explaining what we can really know, historically, about Jesus.

(Take the time to read the reviews of Van Engen's book at Amazon as it illustrates some of the debate in missiological circles.)