Sentences with phrase «take as being wrong»

Oh, here is one gen I plucked from your babble that is a xtian idea that most would take as being wrong.

Not exact matches

This helps us to take action on pets that are sick as opposed to saying, «I'm sorry, I don't know what's wrong with your pet.

I could be wrong — and all five of the Republican candidates for President still standing would tell me I am — but Apple's take on CALEA strikes me as a compelling argument.

«As tempting as it (is) to take huge amounts of money, don't do it... I told him there's nothing wrong with expanding, but you have to do it totally in your comfort zone..As tempting as it (is) to take huge amounts of money, don't do it... I told him there's nothing wrong with expanding, but you have to do it totally in your comfort zone..as it (is) to take huge amounts of money, don't do it... I told him there's nothing wrong with expanding, but you have to do it totally in your comfort zone....

«If you believe passionately, act with integrity and take personal ownership of the impact of your decisions, have the ability to look at yourself in the eyes and admit when you are wrong, the rewards are that much greater than if you never had the courage to make bold moves, affect transformation, or ultimately strive to have a positive impact on your life as well as the life of others.

Great leaders admit when they are wrong and take criticism as an opportunity for growth.

What are banks for? Typically, banks are described as intermediaries that take deposits and lend them out, earning what is called net interest margin on the gap between what is paid on the savings and what is earned on loans. From where I stand, this description is wrong on three counts.

«There's nothing wrong with the company as it exists right now... I'm not talking about the company as I, kind of, took it over six months ago.

«As we sit here, quite a few people are doing something wrong at Berkshire, but when it gets to some sales practice like was taking place at Wells Fargo, you can see the kind of damage it will do.»

Don't go barking up the wrong tree in the Year of the Dog A predictable wave of profit taking and risk reduction, as is standard form ahead of US long weekends, dominated Friday session leading to USD gains as US yields pulled back.

While she's probably not wrong in that it's likely hovering near the end - point, I would like to just take a moment to point out that most of this whole affair has been fuelled by weak - sauce allegations and conflated facts, and this particular air of desperation as people keep flinging the equivalent of spaghetti against a wall in the hope that something inevitably sticks.

(As with prostitution, perhaps the greater wrong is with the john who pays the money, rather than the person who takes it.)

As I have written in a former blog post, http://www.stockles.com/2017/01/22/valueinvesting-vs-dividend-investing/, I believe that there is nothing wrong with owning a great company that focuses on increases their intrinsic value by taking care of their own profit.

Of course those views were also wrong: the banking system can not immediately adjust to a large injection of reserves; even absent interest on excess reserves, it takes decades for new reserves to expand the money supply as lending opportunities are limited at a given point in time.

This is a tough principle to master, as it requires that we fully put our ego aside and we accept taking the risk that we are wrong.

In reading some of the comments, I would just like to say that I would rather take a chance of being wrong in my belief in God as well as my faith in Jesus Christ as to be one that says there is no God only to stand before Him in the final judgement to hear the words «depart from me» and be cast into the lake of fire...

However, as an agnostic I believe atheists are still just as bigoted as theists simply because they refuse to still take up the idea they might be wrong.

There's nothing wrong with taking the Bible as a source of spiritual inspiration, but it is neither an accurate historical or scientific account.

(There's something wrong with the formatting, as of 1:30: the story starts with «Take a case that, on the surface».)

What they quote is either wrong, taken out of context, or no longer applies as the Law.

I would view as being wrong to take money that belonged to someone else.

Regardless of your beliefs and views, is it not tasteless for CNN to run this as their lead story on Easter morning??? Americans are appalled by anything done to insult Islam believers, so why is this felt to be appropriate??? There is nothing wrong with the article, but its timing makes it a poor and inflammatory choice of journalism, and would be taken as «persecution» if was directed toward any other belief system.

And as far as the spineless «R» If taking a stand for commonsense is wrong, it's not Rush Limbaugh comments that will hurt the GOP in the election but their lack of morals.

But since you personally do nt like the possibility that your comfortable world view could be wrong, you rely on science (as far as it can take you) and theories (that do nt challenge your world view).

Nothing wrong with that.As for those who believe that atheist are spawns of the devil, maybe you should take up reading more about them, as most atheists have learned quite a bit about religion.

As one of those crazy born again Christians, I can explain the theology that shows where the mormon faith has taken a wrong turn and is exactly what the apostle Paul warned against.

This article is wrong to take Jesus teachings and apply them to how we as a nation reacted to the death of bin laden.

The discussion to take a life and to not take a life is a individual decision but it will be always seen as wrong.

Sadly the same way that Susan Smith put her infant and toddler into that Mazda and rolled it into a lake, was wrong, I hope that those defending the taking of an unborn child's life is just as wrong.

I'm honest, hard - working, and if I do something wrong or make a mistake, I will always stand up, take the blame, and try to make amends as best I can.

Unfortunately, though, with people being discouraged to pursue the liberal arts in the 21st century, openings for these positions are becoming few and far between, and people who have that philosophical blood running through their veins sometimes take on preacher positions as a way to make ends meat, which is wrong because it is the essence of living a lie.

as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves, (the angels) will ask: In what were ye engaged?

We preachers of the gospel must first see for ourselves, and then we must help our people to see, that it is wrong to take language that is symbolically apt and use it as if it were language that is philosophically and scientifically precise.

i ALWAYS take that as a sign, sometimes too late, that something is wrong.

Perhaps we can disc.uss the viable reasons as to why God would include the children in death in a later conversation but there are possible viable reasons, regardless, I don't see how God wrongs anybody by taking them from this world at anytime He chooses.

«Wouldn't mind using» does seem to be expressing an opinion, and «Never use» could be taken to be saying «would mind using», and, at something of a stretch, to be saying, as The Tablet assumes it is, «I believe it's morally wrong».

Progressive religious folks of all stripes tend to share a post-triumphalism (a sense that it's time to move beyond the old triumphalist paradigm in which one religion is The Right Path to God and all the other paths are wrong), as well as an inclination toward reading our sacred texts through interpretive lenses which take into account changing social mores and changing understandings of justice.

As has been said, AA, although it takes no sides in the matter, does not regard drinking as morally wronAs has been said, AA, although it takes no sides in the matter, does not regard drinking as morally wronas morally wrong.

But spiritually understood, where illness is not in the material body as the fever is in the blood, and where medicine is not something external, like drops in a bottle, then fear means: to use and to have used, to have taken the medicine — in the wrong way.

These fears are not so different from the fear I see in the eyes of protestors carrying signs that depict President Obama as Hitler, the fear I see in the red faces of angry preachers urging their parishioners to «take America back for God,» the fear I detect in some of the books against emerging church, the fear I detect in some of the books in support of the emerging church, the fear I hear in the voices of both gays and the conservative evangelical activists who lobby against them when both sides consider for just a second the possibility that maybe they have it wrong.

So drinking blood and eating flesh, doing that all been condemned as wrong in Holy Books and in the end expect to be saved because you had killed some body to take your sins??

He refuses to see atheism as the neutral default position of man because he has misspent his life chasing the coat tails of pedofiles and embezzlers and to admit now that he was wrong would just be too hard for him to bear, so he's going to ride out the wave of bullshlt and see just how far it takes him...

If he doesn't teach or preach any of then, then maybe I am wrong; he has no mission / vision and I should take him at his word, but then he won't be a Christian pastor — at least as discribed in Eph.

Her unquestioning love took him as he was, but somehow nudged him to be a better man without ever saying that there was anything wrong with him.

And the generational curses are dealt with through recognizing them as participation with sin, taking responsibility for that participation, repentance, making things right with those wronged wherever possible, and casting them out, if need be, all through faith in Yahshua.

Not sure i am convinced because how do you explain the verse an eye for an eye in the old testament there have always been consequences for wrong doing and stiill are for sin.If we believe the word then that word is from God not satan.As far as satan is concerned he uses violence as his tools of trade he works on our fears and is limited to robbing stealing and destroying he does nt have anything else.Violence confirms to us that there is a spiritual battle going on both on the earthly plane and in the heavenlys and the battle is over souls.The verse the kingdon of heaven is expanding and violent people take it by force is referring to that spiritual battle and as satan uses violence to expand his dominion so does God use violence to counter him.So what does he mean by that term for me i think it is saying that the the force of evil that satan uses or violence is overcome by a greater violence or force a more powerful one that being the Love of Christ.Through the cross we see that clearly portrayed and in our lives that very same battle is still happening right now for dominion be clear if we walk in the flkesh satan will have dominion over us but if we walk according to the spirit and abide in Christ we have freedom from our old nature.and satan.He can oppose us but he wont be able to influence us if we are in Christ.

I realize maybe my scrawlings as some call it can be taken out of context but my intentions are clear... Choose to change and put God first and you can't go wrong.

Much official theology seems to have gone wrong, first, in confining the incarnating action of God to Jesus alone, so that he appears to enter the world as a catastrophic intrusion, as someone has put it, unrelated to the rest of the God - world and God - humankind relationship; and second, in speaking of Jesus in «substance» idiom, thus suggesting a static deity who in some fashion is implanted in, takes the place of, or is incomprehensibly united with another static «substance» called human.

Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.

To change the image, the «old Adam» (Our wrong self - will and our wrong self - seeking) takes a long time to die, even though the «new Adam» (the self that we see in Christ and would fain be) is at work in us and grows ever stronger as we look to God and commit ourselves to God and the divine healing work.