Sentences with phrase «teaching pointed at»

The locals residing in POF Germany should actually have an unfair advantage understanding you since the education system there requires five school years with some degree of teaching pointed at the English language.

For example, from experience in roles in other industries or perhaps having a n understanding of artificial intelligence, which is now a prominent teaching point at university and how new digital resources can improve efficiency and effective working.

Not exact matches

He graduated from - and later taught at - the US Military Academy at West Point, an institution guided by the motto «Duty, Honor, Country.»

Having taught at West Point, she told me that she researched and found that in America's times of bloodiest battles, enrollment at the Academy never reduced.

Asked about the remarkable arrest, in which the suspect appeared to draw an object from his pocket and point it at the policeman, Chief Saunders answered: «The officers here are taught to use as little force as possible in any given situation.»

No, we aren't yet at the point where doctors and lawyers are being taught online.

The art of integration kept it all working together, under one brand and one brand experience, with me as brand ambassador at each touch point, which is exactly what I teach today.

So if you're constantly negative, you'll soon excel at spotting problems and deficiencies, while if you make it a point to regularly count your blessings, you'll teach your brain to tune into all the good in the world.

David Beckworth, who teaches economics at Texas State and writes on Fed policy at his Macro and Other Market Musings blog, points to the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that took place Sept. 16, 2008 — the day after the failure of Lehman Brothers and the day the Fed was preparing to make an $ 85 billion loan to AIG (AIG).

They teach traders to buy at obvious breakout points at or near the highs of a valid basing pattern.

If the speculative bubbles and crashes across market history have taught us anything (particularly the repeated episodes of recklessness we've observed over the past two decades), it's this: regardless of the level of valuation at any point in time, we have to allow for the potential for investors to adopt a psychological preference toward risk - seeking speculation, and no amount of reason will dissuade them even when that speculation has already made a collapse inevitable over a longer horizon.

«At one point I recognized that Warren Buffett, though he had every advantage in learning from Ben Graham, did not copy Ben Graham, but rather set out on his own path, and ran money his way, by his own rules...» I have just quickly glanced at Bronte Capital's blog post, but I am sure Todd Combs and Ted Weschler were not hired because they lived and died by Buffet's word but rather because they manifested the teachings of value investing in their own styleAt one point I recognized that Warren Buffett, though he had every advantage in learning from Ben Graham, did not copy Ben Graham, but rather set out on his own path, and ran money his way, by his own rules...» I have just quickly glanced at Bronte Capital's blog post, but I am sure Todd Combs and Ted Weschler were not hired because they lived and died by Buffet's word but rather because they manifested the teachings of value investing in their own styleat Bronte Capital's blog post, but I am sure Todd Combs and Ted Weschler were not hired because they lived and died by Buffet's word but rather because they manifested the teachings of value investing in their own styles.

At this point, no champion challenger apparent has emerged with the potential of galvanizing this dissent (watching Season 3 of The Wire has taught me that even two or three reasonable challengers could bleed a Mayor's support and create some interesting results).

All I know is I'm here, this is how I think, I question all I was taught, at some point I'll die, then who knows?

An unbiased scientist would realize this oral tradition was put to writing 3,400 years ago as an teaching point to a chosen people not a lecture series at MIT.

I commend you for the liberalism you demonstrate, but at the same time feel compelled to point out that neither the teachings of the Bible, nor the actions of the God described therein are consistent with your values.

At what point would you finally let go of it, knowing that it was written by a man that was just trying to teach his people some good values and that there really is no skydaddy?

Possibly, but why did the person who taught him know it was wrong... ad infinitum... eventually you have to come to the fact that there must have been a moral law giver (ie God) at some point.

To be a disciple is to be a learner, and odds are that you will be called upon to teach something at some point in the home, church or workplace.

He knew the basic teaching of the ELCA brand so at that point I tended to think he was for real.

Could it be that Joseph Smith at one point taught that Adam was our Father and God?

At one point you define heresy as departure from the apostles» teaching and at another you define it as departure from historic church teachinAt one point you define heresy as departure from the apostles» teaching and at another you define it as departure from historic church teachinat another you define it as departure from historic church teaching.

Artificial contraception is promoted (after each birth, when we can feel vulnerable) and sterilisation may be suggested at some point, making it all the more important that the Church's teachings are clearly proclaimed.

If I remember correctly the Lindsay Commission noted the teaching of history as the point at which rational and moral evaluations of traditional and modern cultures could be made most effectively.

This is an important point, for, while we have often taught what is wrong with homosexuality, why it is a disorder and that «gay sex» is always morally wrong - we have been less effective at proposing the whole, positive vision of sex and love, and also what paths to fulfilment are open to people who experience same - sex attraction.

As she continues to read, we hear about Paul's incarceration and persecution, about how Jesus is «the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,» about watching out for all those false teachings that circulated through the trade routes, about how we ought to stop judging each other over differences of opinion regarding religious festivals and food (I blush a little at this point and resolved to make peace with some rather opinionated friends before the next sacred meal), about how we should clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, and love, about how we must forgive one another, about how the things that once separated Jew from Greek and slave from free are broken down at the foot of the cross, about how we should sing more hymns.

In particular, we may note that there are three points at which the Kingdom teaching of the synoptic tradition tends to differ both from Judaism and from the early Church as represented by the remainder of the New Testament: in the use of the expression Kingdom of God for (1) the final act of God in visiting and redeeming his people and (2) as a comprehensive term for the blessings of salvation, i.e. things secured by that act of God, and (3) in speaking of the Kingdom as «coming».

It raises a question that all thoughtful Christians must at some point address: How do we identify the true tradition of Christian teaching throughout history, and what part does the Church play in that tradition?

This can be regarded as a form of liberal theology; so at this point I will simply argue that Wesley would support no holds barred biblical scholarship and rethink his teaching in its light.

At these points it is reasonable to suppose that we have emphases deriving from the teaching of Jesus.

Thus we are faithful only if we use the freedom resulting from institutional separation of church and state in order to develop, preach and teach an integrated, theologically rooted perspective concerned at each point about «truth.»

This seems to me the point at which private prayer is most threatened by an all too easy misunderstanding of the present teaching on the liturgy.

At one point in history, it was a great way to reach the community for Jesus and teach and train these new believers about Jesus.

The whole point of Jesus was to show the Jewish people that what the Pharisees were teaching about hating your enemy (the Romans and Samaritans at that time) was scripturally unsound.

Our confusion then may be caused, as the good Bishop Berkeley put it regarding another matter, that we «raise a dust and then complain we can not see»; yet it is also due at points to a real lack of consistency in what the records tell us Jesus taught.

The problem under consideration has been clarified considerably by Hendrikus Boers, who identifies several points in the New Testament at which christological exclusivism is clearly transcended: (1) the authentic teachings of Jesus, which «did not bring the love and forgiveness of God, but affirmed its presence... by articulating it» (6:23); (2) Paul's treatment of the «faith of Abraham» in Rom.

He took a long look at the room of would - be pastors and ministerial leaders, each of us zealous to earn our future roles in churches, ministries and on the mission field and delivered his first teaching point: «The wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong time always results in the wrong thing happening.»

They recieve the sacrament of confirmation and, at that point, assume that they have learned all there is to know about the Catholic Church and its teachings.

Everyone makes their own decision at some point, so as much as I love Bill Nye, I disagree with him on this topic, as parents should teach their children however they want and in high school the kids will make their own choices.

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.

I do believe the Bible teaches that justification happens in a moment, but the full redemption of us and this world will happen at some point in the (near?)

He did not teach people to «die to yourself» although I have to admit I am not at all sure what that even means so I may be misunderstanding the point you are making.

So the principle that God uses language to tell us things is at once established; and the claim that Scripture is a further case in point - a claim, be it said, that is irremoveably embedded at foundation level in Jesus» teaching about his Messiahship and God's righteousness (1)-- presents no new conceptual problem.

As Robert Iosue, president at York College, has pointed out most persuasively, faculty members aren't very productive» assuming, that is, that productivity is related to the number of teaching hours in a week.

Creation wasn't some one - time thing at some point in the past as, say, Locke or the Big Bangers teach.

At several crucial points in our preaching and teaching we have gone astray, and our inability to preach now an effective and vital doctrine of sin and salvation is fundamentally the result of our own mistakes.

Though his teachings do not make a life, they intersect at every point with every life.

On the other hand, there is capitalism which, in its practical aspect, at the level of its basic principles, would be acceptable from the point of view of the Church's social teaching, since in various ways it is in conformity with the natural law....

So, while I am not convinced either way at this point, I believe those who are challenging the teaching that those in second marriages are most often, apart from some biblical allowances, in sinful situations, may have a good point.

So when eternal conscious torment is the very question at hand, what biblical evidence would you point to as teaching that the resurrected bodies of the lost will likewise be made immortal?