Sentences with phrase «talking about those things which»

«We need to be able to talk about things which are identical except for their color: objects.»

There is no greater path to intimacy than through vulnerability — when we talk about things which have caused hurts and pain, as well as joy and peace.

Not exact matches

They can talk about neural pathways and neurotransmitters as if those big words definitively concluded anything, which they don't, at least with our current understanding of such things.

Like so many books about innovation and the exciting world of tomorrow's business, it's a little buzzwordy and breathless, which can get stale quickly — and when you're talking about the future, stale is the last thing you want to be.

Then I started to think of it in terms of probability, which is when that poker craze happened — at least in Canada — where poker became a thing and people were talking about odds and stuff.

Turner: One of the things that people in the industry often talk about when it comes to money management is this barbell, where as you said you have low - cost, passive index tracking funds and at the other end you have higher fees, higher active share, things like private debt which you mentioned, and it's those in the middle that are charging higher fees for something that looks quite a lot like beta that are really going to struggle.

The Bank of Canada didn't need to talk specifically about the prospects for non-energy exports; it provided an assessment of the U.S. economy, which is essentially the same thing.

I was homeschooled, I went to college when I was 16, as a woman I'm really interested in the subjects I talk about, which are video games and things that aren't «traditionally» female.

Talk about things such as how big the market is, how large the company can become, which big companies would want to buy the company, and why is this such an amazing and inspiring opportunity.

There's the influence of the news - feed algorithm, for one thing, which is poorly understood — primarily because the company doesn't really talk about how it works.

We're not trying to be all things to all people, which is what I think you're talking about.

Despite its inflation concerns, the last thing the Fed wants to do is talk about «additional firming» in the interest rates to which those ARMs are tied.

Talking with your coach allows you to learn new things about yourself and the areas in which you can improve as a leader and a person.

For all that, Facebook Live and its ilk are (as of now) bullshit, which is why the only thing anybody will talk about is the best case scenario for online video.

When you get to talking about GDP, there is a muti - page section which begins, «GDP is not, however, a perfect measure of wellbeing...» The section goes on to discuss things such as the value of leisure, the costs of pollution, the value of home production, etc..

So, for one thing, he talks about how to value the investment portfolio of another company and how that is measured how that is accounting for their financial statements which are by the way different the kind of rules that you use today.

I mean, a philosopher or scientist can talk about any of the things Christians talk bout without using the «wrapper» (transcendence, god, truth, love, etc.), which begs the question, why talk about these things through Christianity at all?

«In this digital age, it's now more important than ever that we talk openly about body image, so that young people can feel comfortable in their skin and have one less thing to worry about when they are going through puberty, which is already one of the most difficult stages of their life.»

@Chad «which «things» are you talking about?

There are more stories out of the bible that have been proven impossible and or wrong by science than have been shown to have any credibility... Of course I'm talking about actual science... not that christian science and creation «science»... which use scientific sounding things and jump to ridiculous unjustifyable conlusions, or that create incorrect premises and then make up answers to suit the questions.

Please anyone who responds to this don't name names; those of us familiar with the writing styles know which posts we're talking about and there's no point in stirring things.

And, when she describes that change, what she ends up describing is what already more - or-less exists, namely: mainline christianity, embracing the reformed and the catholic, the scientific and the traditional, which has been doing (never perfectly, to be sure) the sort of deep thinking, social justice, and disciplined prayer that she talks about continually while the evangelicals were breaking off to do their own thing (the thing she seems to want them to stop doing) throughout the twentieth century.

The timing of what you post today goes with the section talking about «he will come again to judge the living and the dead» which is where I would guess that there'd be that change in the axis on your theory from things understood of Jesus to things understood of the Holy Spirit.

... I'll often have a pastor sitting next to an atheist talking about all sorts of things, which isn't something that can happen in a conventional church setting.

And that's not a dodge, it basically means that most of these people don't feel welcome in church, they don't feel like God loves them, so before we even talk about those things — which by the way, the church hierarchy and LGBT Catholics are way far apart on — we have to talk about the basics: i.e. God loves them; God created them this way; etc..

Have you ever been in a conversation in which it seemed that you and another person were not talking about the same thing even though you were arguing about it strenuously?

I suspected I'd get a little pushback from fellow Christians who hold a complementarian perspective on gender, (a position that requires women to submit to male leadership in the home and church, and often appeals to «biblical womanhood» for support), but I had hoped — perhaps naively — that the book would generate a vigorous, healthy debate about things like the Greco Roman household codes found in the epistles of Peter and Paul, about the meaning of the Hebrew word ezer or the Greek word for deacon, about the Paul's line of argumentation in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, about our hermeneutical presuppositions and how they are influenced by our own culture, and about what we really mean when we talk about «biblical womanhood» — all issues I address quite seriously in the book, but which have yet to be engaged by complementarian critics.

He's a former pastor now turned businessman which is a Whole Other Thing we could talk about.

We get to talking about all the ways in which we've been disappointed and ostracized, and the next thing you know, we've slipped right into a contagiously cynical church - bashing session, the kind that can leave those who have had beautiful, affirming, and life - giving experiences in church feeling like the odd ones out.

you talk a lot about things for which you have no understanding and in your carnal wisdom you contend with the almighty.

You are talking about speciation, which is not the same thing.

So, for example, if your hear a pastor saying, «You have to take up your cross daily and follow Jesus in order to go to heaven when you die,» you can look in the text he is preaching from (maybe Matthew 16:24 - 26 or Luke 9:23 - 26), and see that Jesus is talking about saving your life (which is NOT the same thing as receiving eternal life) by living in a profitable way here on earth (cf. Luke 9:24 - 25).

Bounded Sets and Centered Sets I ran into the same idea in The Shaping of Things to Come by Frost and Hirsch in which they talked about Bounded Sets and Centered Sets.

A similar thing happens, by the way, when people read James 5:19 - 20 which talks about saving a soul from death.

which goes back to my earlier point: we are talking about two radically different things despite using the same word.

The evolutionists talk about evolution as though evolution brings things into being, which it does not.

Each has many factors and aspects, and one must... talk about things that are related to essential trust or things related to constructiveness of personality or other concepts into which one might be able to break down religion and mental health.»

Sometimes it's because we feel embarrassed about the easy confidence with which it talks about impossible things (parting the Red Sea?

But on the other hand, when in talking about sin one talks only of such sins, it is so easily forgotten that in a way it may be all right, humanly speaking, with respect to all such things up to a certain point, and yet the whole life may be sin, the well - known kind of sin: glittering vices, willfulness, which either spiritlessly or impudently continues to be or wills to be unaware in what an infinitely deeper sense a human self is morally under obligation to God with respect to every most secret wish and thought, with respect to quickness in comprehending and readiness to follow every hint of God as to what His will is for this self.

They try to explain the Bible even though they do not know what they are talking about (which is the same thing they accuse believers of).

What I have particularly in mind is that while there is much talk about taking Jesus as a key to the interpretation of human nature, as it is often phrased, or to the meaning of human life, or to the point of man's existential situation, there is a lamentable tendency to stop there and not to go on to talk about «the world» — by which Miss Emmet meant, I assume, the totality of things including physical nature; in other words the cosmos in its basic structure and its chief dynamic energy.

If there is one thing more than another which any one will admit who has the smallest knowledge of the world, it is that men are always speaking gravely and earnestly and with the utmost possible care about the things that are not important, but always talking frivolously about the things that are.

And @Ashrakay, I do not which Bible you are talking about, Every single thing Bible state is valid and no - nonsence «For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God» It promotes unconditional love even towards the enemies.

... We talk about «form» and «matter»; distinguish between the mere undifferentiated substratum which underlies any existing thing, and the added principle which makes it what it is.

(Here we return to Beauchamp's magnificent study, from which I must quote an especially illuminating and powerful passage: «God did not so much create the things I am talking about as he spoke them... before speaking to me about them, so that the human word might be declared a response to his.

When we lose our focus on Christ, we begin to talk a lot about stuff Jesus didn't say much about, and we don't talk much about the things about which Jesus had a whole lot to say.

And it is the truth which traditional talk about the last things has served to emphasize, however uncomfortable it may be and however men may have sought to evade it.

The Family Dinner Project, which champions family dinner as an opportunity for family members to connect through food, fun and conversation about things that matter, launched its Giving Tuesday campaign, #GiveAndTalk, which invited families nationwide to talk about how they're going to give back.

We talk so confidently about things which we know so very little.

Thank you and agree with you about all but not about me talking to extremes since no words would change the brainwash they went through by their imams to prepare then fighting the Russians from Afganistan... It is only responsible for adjusting that mentality is their same programers imams otherwise it would be like talking to a brick wall or tackling a camal... The main thing is that you are to take a good care of Muslims in the state and never let them grow fears from you or become jobless since such acts would assist the penetration of extremism in to their mentality... check which branches of Islam you have and mosques they operate and then read more which of all branches are the most extremes that are to be handled with care, but what I am saying not all branches of Islam be accused of extremes when only a branch or two doing all the mess.