Sentences with phrase «see each point of view as»

Ryann is of great value to the team because she was a former client and can see each point of view as a client and a trainer.

Not exact matches

Everything had its own intricacy, but everything was from the point of view from the camera, which is great, because in person you don't see it as well, but once you put a camera in front of these, it just works perfectly.

But it's also worth seeing that refusal to opt for either extreme is not the same as shrugging your shoulders — it can be a principled point of view.

Kalanick readily admits that his view of Google changed; at one point he saw the company as a potential partner, but he eventually identified it as a likely competitor and threat.

«So as a consumer, I guess next year will not be a pleasant year from a purchasing point of view because you'll probably be seeing some inflation in all likelihood,» he said.

If you are in doubt as to whether you have a conflict, you must disclose and can not influence or take part in a decision, transaction, arrangement or otherwise in which you can be perceived to have an interest, direct or indirect; can not be seen to be impartial from an outsider point of view; or receive a benefit not shared by other shareholders.

From a search volume point of view Leadpages is the clear winner as per trends data below, so you can see why brands are hitting the terms hard --

With this privileged point of view, for example, the researchers saw Fancy Bear using 213 short links targeting 108 email addresses on the hillaryclinton.com domain, as the company explained in a somewhat overlooked report earlier this summer, and as BuzzFeed reported last week.

From the Elliott Wave point of view the current upward move might be completed as there are five impulsive wave seen in the hourly chart.

It's because the two precious metals are not only money but, from the point of view of free individuals, the best sort of money, less susceptible to what governments see as the most desirable quality of money — the susceptibility to control by government and particularly its susceptibility to devaluation.

I totally agree with this however in our business there are various criteria that we need to meet that, from the customers point of view, are often seen as obstacles.

From a historical point of view, a lower U.S. dollar is seen as a positive for multinational companies as they prepare their products to be sold in dollars and can then sell...

I'd suggest this can be seen as either empowering or exploitation, depending on your point of view.

It is what has lead me to my veiw that Atheism as a religion, the passion most Atheist have for their point of view from the start you may not fall in this category but I'm sure you know someone that does.The same applies to Christians that freak out on someone and start forcing their view on others, I see that as wrong also if someone asks or brings the debate to you then by all means debate but why be rude how does it help?

From an existential point of view, I see us as beings entering into a world wherein we are going to be influenced and affected by a great deal of people and experiences and, thus, be formed by them.

For it endues us with super-vitality; and therefore introduces into our spiritual life a higher principle of unity, the specific effect of which can be seen — according to one's point of view — as either to make human endeavour holy or to make the Christian life fully human.

Contrary to the orthodox view that the Resurrection inevitably led to Christ's ascension to transcendent glory, Altizer's radical interpretation of the Resurrection sees it as just another point on the continuum of kenotic Incarnation: the dialectical movement from primordial, transcendent Spirit to radical immanence and flesh.

His statements about priest and king being bound to the land and the people ultimately point back toward a view that sees social and moral responsibility for the common welfare as stemming from a prior relational view of human persons.

This human point of view calls for further elaboration, for one often sees reference to the cultural and historical conditionedness of Scripture as though it were a cause for concern.

I consider myself a christian, with religious knowledge and general knowlege, however I do not hold to a set of views dictated by an organized religion, I believe the organized religions are where we have gone wrong, as someone pointed out earlier to most «religious people» to question ones faith or organization is wrong but that is exactly what the bible tells us to do... test ALL things to see what is true.

There is an intellectual seductiveness to the idea of one blazing sun of truth, seen imperfectly from different viewing points in human history, with the perception becoming ever more ample as the different views are correlated and added up.

A New York Times story over the weekend chronicled how some individuals and organizations eager to see same - sex marriage legalized have stopped trying to win others to their point of view through reasoned argument and have turned, instead, to emotional epithets as their main rhetorical tool.

The latter see them as impressive fantasies or fictions, interesting from a purely immanent and human point of view.

The writers saw themselves as ethnographers, in James P. Spradley's definition of the term: «The purpose of ethnography is to grasp the native's point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision of his world» (The Ethnographic Interview).

Arrived at this point, we can see how great an antagonism may naturally arise between the healthy - minded way of viewing life and the way that takes all this experience of evil as something essential.

The problem arises because, as finite creatures, we inevitably see the world from some particular point of view limited by culture and history.

My point of view as you can see is attacked by most.

Here we see unknown writers in the hills of ancient Judah, seated in simple homes that from the point of view of our present - day luxury might be regarded as little better than hovels, surrounded with furnishings more bare and austere than those of a medieval monastery, equipped with simple reed pens and rolls of papyrus, or perhaps with broken sherds of old pots, as they slowly indite in awkward, ancient Hebrew characters, words that have run like fire and are potent at this distant day.

From the merely biological point of view, so to call it, this is a conclusion to which, so far as I can now see, we shall inevitably be led, and led moreover by following the purely empirical method of demonstration which I sketched to you in the first lecture.

I do not see how it is possible, at least from a Christian or Western point of view, to avoid identifying Zen as a backward way tg nal or primordial Unity.

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

Is your point of view that to read them is to see her wisdom — that her ideas are flawless, original, and that she will be vindicated as a hero?

The only one who can not is Lucifer because he do not want to, God heart is not made of iron, if there are evil people alive in this world it is only because God want them to repent to, there are most evil people who as a children or teenager was sweet but because of another being became evil, Only God know what it did make them change or their pain but only one things is sure as God he did have the first seat to see all their pain and live, and to my point of view as a Father it is by no means lesser than the pain he did feel for them or them victimes, like a electric chair.

We fail in our responsibility to history when we do not permit ourselves to see Civil War memorials from a Romantic point of view, and when we fail to recognize the phrase «lost cause» as a shorthand for a morally complex, tragic understanding of the South's defeat.

Now the point of this discussion is not to appeal to Whitehead as some sort of final authority; Hall clearly recognizes that his own view differs from that of Whitehead at some points (see, e.g., UP 200f.

(Both this pericope and the saying, «I saw Satan fall as lightning from heaven,» Luke 10:18, reflect the same point of view as that of the old section on the binding of the strong man, Mark 3:27.)

I would agree with your assessment that the commentators really see things from their point of view only but I have been guilty of that as well.

Not one written in it's own language using only concepts and events which could have been seen as possible from the point of view of other fotune tellers in it's culture, and of it's own day.

As such, it informs our living all the time, permeating our sensibilities so deeply that all our activity is seen from a Sabbath point of view.

Others can be won to your point of view if you will follow such practices as avoiding arguments, showing respect for the opinions of others, and trying to see the other's point of view.

Jesus then sees the act as expressing the whole man, that is, he sees his action from the view - point of decision: Either - Or.

On the contrary, he finds it useful to ponder an array of reductionist attempts to explain the existence of religion, from that which seeks to pinpoint the area of the human brain or the specific genes connected to religiosity to that which sees religion as a malfunction of the human mind or a vestigial remnant from a primitive stage of human development suitable only for whimpering, immature dullards (a point of view championed by the new atheists).

In the pre-Enlightenment period, a notion like «Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch» did not function so much to invite inquiry into the mind, circumstances and psychology of Moses as it did to unite the literature under a single coordinating point of view, urging the reader to see a synthetic purpose within even the most heterogeneous and diverse collection of traditions.

The third aspect of this development is that even the secular rationalist is coming to be seen as a person like another: not a god, not a superior impersonal intellect, monarch of all it surveys, but a man with a particular point of view.

From this point of view, we can see how personal identity consists primarily of habitual patterns of behavior and, tightly related to this, self - knowledge is concerned with both perceptual, behavioral spontaneity as well as bodily habits.

The freedom of the prophets comes from the word of God burning in their bones, just as Paul says that when we are «in Christ,» we no longer see anything from «a human point of view.»

Whitehead is not asserting an epistemological solipsism here, but is stating that the question of the community of nature to all, being metaphysical, is not one that has to be answered from the point of view of science.3 Moreover, it remains to be seen whether or not Whitehead's position, as it unfolds in the Enquiry, will remain uninvolved in the «difficult metaphysical question.»

From a more abstract point of view, as we have seen, Aquinas puts out a very stringent criticism, sober and terse, though it is in the final sentence on the subject.

For Whitehead sees Bradley's theory as flawed because «he accepts the language which is developed from another point of view» (ESP 117; cf. PR 167), i.e., he makes the «sensationalist assumption» (PR 190) that feeling is only analyzable in terms of universals.

You see how natural it is, from this point of view, to treat religion as a mere survival, for religion does in fact perpetuate the traditions of the most primeval thought.