Sentences with phrase «teaching points if»

Each trick gives an anecdotal account of the effect being used in the classroom, followed by the explanation and teaching points if used for further work.

Not exact matches

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.

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.

«If the financial crisis taught nothing else, it showed how elegant financial models that calculate risk to decimal point precision act like a sedative towards critical thinking and even common sense» Allan Mecham

However, if you view this from the Hebrew point of view, «teachings» are not «kept» or «broken» the same way.

But you concede the point... If a natural explanation is unprovable, then why teach it over any other idea that is equally unprovable?

My point was that if you propose that, as a society, we teach children that there is no God, then you are doing what you claim to oppose: indoctrinating children with what is your personal belief.

I think your most salient point is that the Catholic Church has never had a «grip» on the real world but has tried to put a grip on the real world by demanding that their teachings be strictly adhered to, and if they're not then they'll make you pay....

But a boy should have a mom and a dad and a girl should have a mom and dad, and if that can't be then an uncle or an aunt or coach or teacher... God is god and he won't bake cake with you or teach you how to fix things (though it could be your dad baking cake or your mom fixing things; that's not the point, though 9 times out of 10 it will be the other way around.)

God does not teach or condone hate, in fact if i remember right he says to love one another [I don't recall HIM pointing out certain types, colors, religions, to HATE.

If so many people far and wide hate Christianity, it's because when his followers were spreading his teachings, they were doing it on the point of the sword, and with cannon and musket.

Gary: I think I agree with your point that «if 1 man and 1 woman was a normal teaching of Paul's» for all believers, then it follows that the text either means «this is only for the elders and higher positions» OR that the text was referring to some other situation, such as marrying a divorced woman.

Fairy tales have always taught us a certain truth, that life has a set of rules that we didn't set up, and we will only be happy if we follow them (another big point of Chesterton's).

If you're doing something clearly contrary to the teachings of the Bible, he (or any other believer) can point it out to you and recommend you turn away from it.

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.

If we're not going to teach science, what's the point of education?

And the book also offers a deliberately wide array of approaches to trinitarian issues, including not only historical and systematic theologians, but biblical scholars and analytic philosophers of religion, writing from a variety of theological and communal points of view» Roman Catholic, Protestant, and, in one case, Jewish (the New Testament scholar Alan Segal, who contributes an instructive if somewhat technical chapter on the role of conflicts between Jews and Christians in the emergence of early trinitarian teaching).

My point being that taking a member of the set of all things Jesus never explicitly taught on and positing, if only by implication, that his silence is an endorsement of that thing is not a valid foundation for making a sound argument.

One other point about sex: I wonder if part of the problem is that the church has a tendency to teach people the importance of virginity, but not chastity.

Scot McKnight was the first person to draw my attention to the fact that «anyone who thinks it is wrong for a woman to teach in a church can be consistent with that point of view only if they refuse to learn from women scholars» (The Blue Parakeet, p. 148).

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.»

How does it come, that you evangelicals always point to Islam, if someone is trying to remind you on the teachings of Jesus?

Jack if Christians changed the bible many times and have adjusted to modern times and don't follow the original religious teachings then what is the point of being called a Christian?

@US Patriot If a person follows the teachings of Jesus to his best ability, maybe even without knowing about Jesus, I think only God can judge whether he is Christian enough, but I don't mind you disagreeing on that point.

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, as you point out, following Jesus» teaching and example is still the best way to live.

Often times, the religious rights are self - righteous, but their lives may be full of conflicts against the Bible teaching; as the article points out, you can not follow all the rules laid out in the Old testaments, and if you believe the Bible literally, why do many religious rights do not follow as the Bible literally says.

If you ask the average Christians how God is most clearly revealed in Jesus Christ, they may talk about His teachings, His miracles, or maybe even His resurrection from the dead, but few would point to the cross.

If there is a serious philosophy student out there, I'm sure he can skewer me on these points, and, frankly, I welcome it, as I'm mostly self - taught.

It is true that both the gospels and the speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts give important testimony as to what the apostles taught about the Christian life and proclaimed about the meaning of Jesus» own life, death, and resurrection; yet both the gospels and Acts were written, not by apostles, but by later disciples, and their evidence on particular points stands in need of confirmation, if possible, from the apostles themselves.

While Romans 3:9 - 20 does teach that all are sinners (cf. Romans 3:23), the overall context of this passage must be understood in light of the progression of Paul's argument if we are to grasp his point.

If we miss this point, we fail to see the significance of our teaching about Jesus Christ.

Yet, as Bishop Spong points out, if it was a gay male who taught the Christian church what the love of God means, who defined grace for all people; and who, tortured and rejected as he must have felt, came to understand what resurrection means as God's vindicating act, then in a sense we do owe him a debt of gratitude.

So even if you don't believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (whom Ahmadis believe to be the promissed Messiah) according to the prophecies of the Prophet (s.a.w) how can you not believe that the Muslim world has deteriorated to the point that now it is time for that foretold Messiah to come and re-introduce the true teachings of Islam which people have twisted and turned so much, as to give this beautiful and perfect faith such an unbecoming face before the world?

So, for instance, if it is not clear to the readers of my work that my writing is done by an Episcopalian Christian, I will have failed to practice this virtue — which, of course, includes my making clear at which points the materials I study or engage seem to me false, noxious, or incomplete; just as it includes my making clear when and in what ways it seems to me that the materials I engage are true, have taught me something I didn't know before, or may be of use to me and my community in its search to apprehend and incarnate the gospel.

Perhaps Alyosha's views were suggested by the ideas of Solovyev (who published his lectures on Godmanhood in 1881), and if so, this would point to a Christian source for Zossima's teaching and Alyosha's vision of a new humanity.

But even if the text is referring to a gay couple in bed, and even if the text does teach about the rapture, I pointed out to him that one of the men was taken in the rapture, which means that apparently, God accepted him.

If Jesus would have been dead four days then He would have begun to corrupt and the Jewish leaders could have pointed to Psalms 16:10 and said «see, even the word of GOD teaches that the Messiah would not see corruption.»

It is said that you can not teach anyone what they do not know already; and Jesus, being a good teacher, has reached back into the tradition that he shares with the young man and pointed out what both of them know: If you would be like a tree planted by rivers of water, learn to know, love, and obey the Law of God.

And if it is not a teaching then it is a discussion point which we work on trying to settle.

What if, when we did preach, instead of trying to be funny and cute in three easy - to - remember points, we simply taught the Word of God?

Let me put this another way so maybe you can see my point more clearly: if children started to play in traffic, would we assign someone to teach them how to dodge traffic effectively or would we tell them to stay out of the street?

The irony of it all is that the central point of the Bible is God's love for sinners like you and me, and these guys teach as if a person is gay, they are beyond the life changing power of God.

I am reminded of Scot McKnight's observation in The Blue Parakeet that «anyone who thinks it is wrong for a woman to teach in church can be consistent with that point of view only if they refuse to read and learn from women scholars.

The same God is the author of our natural intellect as well as revelation, as classical Catholic theology so often reminds us, so we should not be surprised if what the Church teaches makes wonderful sense also just from a purely natural point of view and people end up doing what the Church recommends, not because she recommends it, but just because it is the most sensible thing to do.

Is it not at least archaic, if not hopelessly irrational, to hold that one person, Jesus of Nazareth, born in obscurity two thousand years ago is, as the Second Vatican Council teaches «the goal of human history, he is that point in which the desires of history and civilisation converge.

If your church teach trinity, you can try to point them in the right direction.

Consider the pro-abortion slogan «if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament», which takes for granted that Catholic teaching on abortion is simply areflection of male social dominance rather than a point of principle.

I believe it makes some great points on the fact that if humanity is to succeed we need to teach first that morals, values, and ethics are most important and that our deep religious or non-religious beliefs should be private, personal and something we don't push onto others.

I took a long time to decide whether to become a Catholic as I did not see the point if I was not going to try and follow all of the Church's teachings.

Shouldn't we grow up at some point and let the teachings of Jesus inform our spiritual lives and stop believing these fairy tales as «truth» as if that even mattered?