Sentences with phrase «teach about the relationship»

It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind.

The Catholic Church views the old testament as a book that teaches us about our relationship with God not as a historical text.

She taught me about relationship and valuing relationships.

Affairs have a lot to teach us about relationships — what we expect, what we think we want, and what we feel entitled to.

People who lose their spouse may do better health-wise to confide in a close friend than in a close relative, according to Jamila Bookwala, a psychology professor at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., a researcher who studies and teaches about relationship trends among adults in middle age and older.

He is a Western - trained psychotherapist who writes and teaches about the relationship between Western psychological paradigms and the Eastern contemplative traditions.

So what can yoga teach you about your relationship with food?

Healing & Prevention Through Nutrition teaches us about the relationships between diet and disease and how a lifestyle that incorporates natural, whole, unprocessed foods is the best medicine.

Online Dating Reply Tips Not only do I teach about relationships, I have also studied online dating for a long time — both on a personal and professional level.

Not only do I teach about relationships, I have also studied online dating for a long time — both on a personal and professional level.

Online Dating Sites In The Philippines Online Dating Reply Tips Not only do I teach about relationships, I have also studied online dating for a long time — both on a personal and professional level.

What does it teach us about relationships?

Storytelling helps us understand empathy because it teaches about relationships.

Always more interested in the «how» rather than the «how much,» I'll let others report on the numbers and figures, while I reflect on the possible / likely reasons why these trends are prevalent, what they teach us about our relationship with ebooks, and why it actually all makes sense (and cents).

Mark Dion can teach about the relationship between art and ecology, as well as blurring the line between artist and curator.

The majority of us have a Ph.D. and hold positions as professors at academic institutions where we teach about relationships, conduct and publish our own research findings in peer - reviewed academic journals, write books, and serve as reviewers or editorial board members for the major journals in our field.

(And if there's one thing my mom taught me about relationships, it's that you should never hold a grudge against a vampire lover.)

Much of what we are taught about relationships and marriage comes from popular culture.

Most of us usually end up following what our parents taught us about relationships.

Not exact matches

When networking at a meal meeting, your networking purpose might be to further develop the relationship, to help a colleague solve a problem, to learn how to refer someone in your network, to introduce your colleague to someone significant, or to teach someone how to talk about your business to his own network members.

A good friend of mine (who went beyond the call of duty to teach me much about fixed income despite his role at an investment bank that could not benefit from our relationship) took a macroeconomics class taught by then Professor Yellen when he was getting his MBA at UC Berkeley.

We're talking about love relationships not the titillation of nerve endings As to who can or can not hold a leadership position or who can or can not teach in a church, I think it comes down to morals not legality.

In his clearest teaching about marriage and divorce, Jesus tells His disciples about this mysterious relationship where «two become one.»

How about we throw out Constantine and his pals excluding books from the Bible that teach how to develop a direct personal relationship with God, rather than submitting to religious authority?

I recommend that you read the book «Theology of the Body» which teaches the Catholic theology about human relationships.

Even Jews who disagree with Church teachings about any given issue will benefit from a closer working relationship between the Church and Jewish leaders from the broadest possible spectrum of ideologies and denominations.

I moved toward an intimate relationship with Jesus — which taught me all I needed to know about the most important questions we as humans ask.

I learned about equality even from Paul, who taught that with the resurrection, something radical had changed — not merely ontologically, but functionally — in the relationships between slaves and masters, Jews and Gentiles, men and women, rendering those whose identity was once rooted in hierarchy and division brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ instead; who put a radical gospel - spin on the Greco - Roman household codes, breaking down the hierarchies so that slaves and masters, wives and husbands were charged with submitting «one to another» with the humility of Jesus as their model; who taught that power was overrated and that service will be rewarded; who surrounded himself with women he called «co-workers.»

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

I've been reading the monastics recently, and it strikes me that while much of modern evangelicalism echoes their teachings on self - control and self - denial when it comes to sexuality, we tend to gloss over a lot what this great cloud of monastic witnesses has to say about self - control and self - denial in other areas of life — like materialism, food, relationships, and hospitality.

And not just Jesus: A whole gospel in all of its theological details — right down to debates about baptism, the relationship of law to grace, and the problem of divine foreknowledge — is taught to the people of the New World centuries before Jesus was even born.

The news of including teaching about same - sex relationships has not gone down well with those who consider sexuality a moral issue which parents will have different views on.

New proposals will likely include more education on transgenderism and same - sex relationships as well as changes to include teaching about the dangers of pornography and sexting.

Referring to the proposed relationships education lessons, they claim: «The Education Secretary has made no mention of ensuring that children are taught about the well - established benefits associated with being brought up by married natural parents.»

Further, teaching about personal relationships is an area in which parents have a significant advantage over schools and one in which we should have low expectations about the benefits that schools can deliver.

The marriage relationship isn't exempt from the words of Jesus — and the teachings of the Church — about how we are to interact with one another and love one another.

Perhaps there's a difference between teaching a child (boy or girl) that sex can cause babies and disease, and should be reserved for committed, adult relationships, and telling them that sex outside of marriage is «bad» without explaining what is bad about it.

At the same time, the school's transactions with its neighborhood inescapably teach certain concepts to its own members, that is, teach certain capacities and abilities about how to lead an institution in its relationships with its immediate social context.

Gadamer, of how the inspired text, which we question in order to find its meaning and relevance, questions, criticizes, challenges and changes us in the process -» Some who today raise the proper question, whether there are not culturally relative elements in Paul's teaching about role relationships (an the material has to be thought through from this standpoint), seem to proceed improperly in doing so; for in effect they take current secular views about the sexes as fixed points, and work to bring Scripture into line with them - an agenda that at a stroke turns the study of sacred theology into a venture in secular ideology.

He taught me about the priority of relationship — of taking time for people.

Such things might be included here as natural theology (the making of inferences about God from a study of the natural world); the teachings of other great religions — again, to the extent they are compatible; or even the Old Testament prophets, depending on how you view their relationship to Jesus.

On the other hand, his teachings on love, relationships and suffering have a lot to say about our harried modern lives.

They also have the right to expect that the moral and social context within which the programme is taught is clearly Catholic, that children come away with a clear understanding of social relationships and the moral context in which sexual intimacy should occur, and an understanding of why the Catholic Church teaches what it teaches about the human body, sexuality, and friendship.

«Our desire is for young people to flourish and to gain every opportunity to live fulfilled lives and RSE should teach about healthy relationships and lifestyle choices.

This is not talking about losing your salvation, as many teach, or relationship with husband and wife.

He says that if the Bible teaches us anything about God, it is that we learn about God and develop a relationship with Him, not by simply accepting everything the Bible says, but by actually engaging with God in a spirited (both senses of the word are intended there) discussion about the Bible.

His view is that Paul basically gave himself free reign here at the start of his teachings to the gentiles (see also 1:1 a: «Paulos, apostolos ouk ap anthroopoon, oude di anthroopon, alla dia Iesou Christou, kia Theou patros...») and then started preaching his own theology heavily influenced by his own biases and preferences — not that any of the writers were ever completely exempt from it of course, but still the writer felt Paul was quite fundamentalistic at times about certain things he had some clear opinions about, e.g. about relationships and women's position in the church etc, which he then propagated as part of the gospel.

Theological education is about the relationships formed, the style of teaching, and the extracurricular activities as well as the curriculum.

This subject must be presented only in terms of chastity, health and the truth about human sexuality in its relationship to the family as taught by the Church.»

In the context of a discussion about the new life in Christ, general teaching about sexual purity, wise use of time, and the pleasure of praising God in song preceded a more specific discussion of husband - wife, parent - child, and master - slave relationships.