Sentences with phrase «someone with some common sense»

Start with common sense and consider your company culture.

Sullivan, Alliluyeva's even - tempered biographer, writes straightforwardly and with common sense, neither detached nor overly intimate.

«It will be simple: Do you support paying a self - confessed terrorist over $ 10 million or do you stand with the common sense of millions of Canadians?

This approach, we believe, accords with common sense.

Author of Mastering the Trade) Adrienne Toghraie: (Trader's Coach, Motivator, «seller» of discipline — «Overcome Sabotages in your Trading») Tom Busby: Trades Around the Clock with a common sense, down to earth style.

Third, a sales pitch under these conditions is more likely than not to make the experience for the «buyer» rather negative, and any person with common sense will tell you that a negative experience takes multiple positive experiences just to make up for the one negative.

But it is possible to approach the text with some common sense principles and arrive at «biblical» truth.

This happens when you have all sorts of» «special» people around with no common sense

This is a relatively simple matter in connection with our common sense.

But not all are adequate for dealing with the broad diversity of the Bible, and not all fit with our common sense.

Neither does it fit with our common sense.

So the task is to develop an interpretation of Jesus» centrality that is in keeping with our common sense.

Otherwise, however, we must conclude at this point that to speak of God as determining worldly events, as constantly or occasionally going «zap» into our normal processes, is consistent neither with our common sense nor with our Christian faith in a loving God.

So the question for this chapter is, since some of the Jesus stories and concepts are so eminently incompatible with common sense — what do we do with them?

But these miracles might more readily be understood to symbolize things inconsistent with our common sense theology such as Jesus» divinity or God's willingness to interfere with natural law.

Our primary question, however, will not be whether these themes fit with our common sense.

We have here a combination of (1) events that are incompatible with our common sense, and (2) events that just don't seem historically very likely.

Religion is for lame people with no common sense.

What we need is someone with common sense and humanity.

I'll just stick with common sense and believe God created it all.

Pandering to people with no common sense, yes.

I am not, and should not be, forced to live under its laws, except those which agree with common sense morality such as crimes against others, theft, etc..

Just as with common sense, when our faith turns out to be inconsistent with our experience of reality, when the beliefs implicit in our faith just don't fit, then our faith must undergo some adjustments.

And, not least in importance, we look for any such statement of doctrine to make sense, to fit with our common sense.

And can we do this in keeping with our common sense?

This is because the traditional models are based on a theology that does not and can not fit with our common sense (and all too often does not and can not fit with our faith).

Disbelief in god has nothing to do with relationship styles and everything to do with common sense that there never has been, never will be some mythical all - powerful deity.

Conclusion is that GOD gave us each a brain to reason with, although I have no understanding why some unfortunates have not been provided with the common sense «reasoning» element..

What is needed is a theology that explains God's presence and workings in a way that is consistent with this common sense, a theology that doesn't leave God in the unexplained fringes of our ignorance.

Therefore a spirituality that is worthy of the name — one that is able to address and inform all the areas of our life — must be founded on a theology that is consistent with the common sense that undergirds all these different areas.

But we ought not to postulate things like this without showing how they are compatible with the rest of our beliefs and with our common sense.

So far in this chapter we have looked at some of the wonders of our reality that fit with a belief in God, we have briefly answered the question of how God acts in this world (in keeping with our common sense), and we have addressed a few questions about what God is like.

By determining without any scientific evidence to support it, that h.om.os.e.xuailty is not normal is not consistent with common sense.

They must still be in line with your common sense, but they can not be confirmed for you unless they ring true for you in your heart.

It echoes with our common sense and our desire to get along with one another in a workable way and achieve things.

But seriously... give a million people with common sense a bible and you have a million theologies.

For we do have as many theologies as there are people with common sense and a bible.

It is to plain for a man with common sense.

Thank you someone with common sense to question it... for all we know its a camels dead skin and someone wrote something and now they want to say this is from Jesus....

Everyone with common sense will welcome it.

That is heartbreakingly evident to anyone equipped with common sense and a conscience.

Even if it fits with our common sense, how can we justify choosing this person as our compass when there may be others just as accurate?

How can we justify this authority for Jesus of Nazareth in a way consistent with our common sense theology?

It fits better with our common sense to adopt a view not unlike that found in parts of the Old Testament: sin will have its harmful consequences for the person doing as well as for the person done to, not as a result of a special interventionist act of God but as a natural result of the sin itself.

This image better represents the gospel's central motif of a reconciling God, and it also fits better with our common sense understanding of God being the context within which we live.

This is sufficient for our faith — that we have a trustworthy guide — and this fits with our common sense in a way that other kinds of claims about Jesus do not.

They have intellectual sympathy, and with respect to their sympathy, I suppose, they share with common sense intuitions an immediate, positive directedness toward that on which they focus.

But, also, any human with common sense knows that at this time, all religions and creeds known to men - are full of crap and instill separatism among groups of humans as if one is more valuable to God - they guy who supposedly made everyone and everything - separatistic ideas as «my book» my god» «my people» are the most beloved by God are wrong, will be always wrong and all religions are wrong and will always be wrong.

I love using a mix of many religions, along with common sense, and do believe in a higher power.

Nagel reasons from principles which are more in line with common sense and empirical evidence than deep philosophical theory.