Sentences with phrase «think of any other questions»

I honestly can't think of any other question that could be more important.

Not exact matches

The admissions committee at Rotman thought him confident and articulate, though it had questions about other aspects of his application, including the fact that he was currently unemployed.

This is why I think a question such as «Do you show up to work every day with the intention of helping others succeed?»

There's no question that body language plays a huge role in your ability to persuade others to your way of thinking.

Trump responds to question «Why don't I just fire Mueller» «Many people have said you should fire him... we'll see what happens, I think this is disgraceful and so do a lot of other people, this is a pure and simple witch hunt» pic.twitter.com/llJrXhig4 2

I asked all the questions I could think of that others should know and might think to ask.

They bring with them proven success (where unknowns carry a ton of question marks), familiarity with company culture and processes (which means less training) and a reminder to coworkers thinking about leaving that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

«The answer may be entirely innocent,» Mr. Denton said, musing on the question of whether Mr. Harder was paid by someone other than Mr. Hogan, «but I think in order for people to understand what's going on here, what the stakes are, I think it's important that it be out in public, or at least that he'd be asked the question in public.»

As I said, authorship of most of the books of the Bible are in question and tend only to be variants of the other stories, roughly in the same time period and «neighborhood» — most often with no specific author — therefore it is very reasonable to think they are just variations on the same story.

@mama k» As I said, authorship of most of the books of the Bible are in question and tend only to be variants of the other stories, roughly in the same time period and «neighborhood» — most often with no specific author — therefore it is very reasonable to think they are just variations on the same story.»»

You failed to answer my other questions to you about what you would do if you didn't have the bible as a guide - so please tell us, do you think you'd be incapable of being good?

Funny, I'm an atheist who thinks that his «brand» of christian religion is dumb lies (just as dumb as the lies from any other), yet his believe is the very last thing on my list of questions.

Can you think of any other diagnostic questions that help determine whether a church is missional or traditional?

No one with a shred of self respect would willingly return to a dogmatic belief that requires, at its core, the negation of thoughtful questioning, the denigration of thinking, a prohibition against careful evaluation of beliefs and assumptions, and relegates those who honestly disagree with the doctrine and its conclusions to the status of a despised, damaged, and damned «other».

the reminder that Orthodox theology continually refreshes its thinking by reference to the early Church Fathers, who were much concerned with the question of God's activity in the other sects and traditions and in the wisdom of humankind.

Nobody thought much of religions other than Christianity; as was obvious by our public school pledge — which admonished us all to be good Christian citizens... Sure, I had questions too, but our church was pretty low - key so I was safe from some of the more radically - minded (read: brainwashed) of my peers.

The other problem I think (and this is not the result of the manic depressive side of my profession as someone who works in «Asile» (refuge), an organisation dealing with migrants) is that we must add to the central preoccupations of our thinking the question of refugees and asylum.

It just seems that people like Hawking ignore religion completely when a HUGE part of science is questioning all beliefs including your own which I don't think human beings do as much as they should, or respect other people's opinions.

While I definitely agree that his response is great in many circumstances and (without knowing the context of that conversation) may have been the perfect thing to say at that moment, I think calling this statement «a template that can be used to respond to questions concerning sexuality, gender and other important issues» reduces a very complex issue down to a very simple response that doesn't really answer any questions for anyone.

There are lots of other physics that disprove the possibility of this, but I think this is enough to seriously put it in question.

I think also of the Ethiopian eunuch (from Acts 8), a man who was ethnically and sexually «other,» who was welcomed and baptized without question or hesitation into the early church, but who would no doubt fail all of Mark Driscoll's rigid categories for a what makes «real man» were he a part of the American evangelical church today.

As for your practical question - how to navigate the mess - I think of Solomon's divide - the - baby option, except that in this case, it's more like a divorce with lots of kids involved, and sometimes the warring parties are happy to take a few of the kids they like and let their «ex» take the others.

Answering his own questions, Piper says, «Here's my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated.

But my basic convictions about them were derived not from these philosophers but partly from my being surrounded from birth with the reality in question; partly from Emerson's essays and the works of James and Royce; partly from the poems of Shelley and Wordsworth (which similarly influenced Whitehead); and most of all from my own experience, reflected upon especially during my two years in the army medical corps, when I had considerable leisure to think about life and death and other fundamental questions.

Studying theology leads me to a better understanding of God and His word, which changes who I am and how I think, and better enables me to help others by being able to answer their questions, or guide them away from snakes.

Ok, so first off, I think in terms of proof, the only thing that would justify as proof to me would be direct contact with a «god being», but even then a lot of questioning and experimentation would be needed to rule out other possibilities.

But when it comes to some of these other issues, I don't think the question is «who is right and who is wrong» but rather, «does this interpretation help us look more like Jesus?»

I think I addressed some of your questions in those other posts.

The latter is a tangled problem at best, but it is clear that among the important founders of the process perspective — specifically I mean James, Peirce, Bergson, Whitehead, Dewey, and Hartshorne — it is Hartshorne's work which comes closest to being a kind of personalism.1 Whitehead explicitly sets aside the personalist perspective in Religion in the Making, considering its claims beyond the possibility of being established.2 On the other side, a number of personalists have been sympathetic to process thought, and Brightman is surely principal among them.3 Here I will not investigate the question of whether personalism in general, or even the idealistic type, is reconcilable with process thought.

Others say they have read the Bible cover to cover and think it's a fine novel but question the fact that it actually is the word of God.

For Heidegger, as perhaps for no other philosopher, the distinction between life and thought has meaning only if one perceives Heidegger's philosophy itself as self - confuting: So, the task is left to me, an outsider, to raise what may really be the quintessential Heideggerian question: the relation of his life to his thought.

I think we are talking past each other on the point of whether the geometry of the universe is a question of mathematics.

Well, the answer to this question is that the backslider does not deserve to be saved but deserves to go to Hell; that other people will often think that he is not saved; that he himself is likely to doubt his salvation or to believe that God has forsaken him utterly; but, thank God, the backslider still is a child of God.

The general position of these writers, whose contributions vary considerably in approach and quality, is that Jesus made no claim of divinity for himself and that the doctrine of the incarnation was developed during the early centuries of the Christian era as an attempt to express the uniqueness of Jesus in the mythological language and thought forms of the Greek culture of the time.While recognizing the validity of the patristic theologians» work, which culminated in the classical christological definitions of Nicea and Chalcedon, the British theologians question whether these definitions are intelligible in the 20th century, and go on to suggest that some concept other than incarnation might better express the divine significance of Jesus today.

«I think if we change that step and really become students of each other's narratives and ask questions about why people perceive certain things in a certain way instead of jumping to judgment, then I think we'll be better equipped to have more diversity in local churches.»

In John 18:5 - 6 Jesus sais «I AM he» and The power of his declaration of BEING GOD brought them to their knees... This clearly coincides with Exodus 3 when God appeared to Moses and Declared that his NAME was «I AM who I AM» Do you REALLY think that that is not by design??? Is this not also a very clear foreshadowing of the future (Romans 14:11, and Philliapians 2:10 - 11) Please oh please see how the Bible is so intricately intertwined and full of the The masters handiwork... Everything, all of life's questions are all within this book, not other sources, if one but will accept them, pray over them, and get the Lord's guidance... This is why I brought up 1 Cor 2:14, Which you took EXTREMELY out of context in the way I meant it to be discerned, which the verse itself explains I might begrudgingly add... John 8:24 after he tells them I am not of this world.

Unfortunately, as a former Christian, well acquainted with sin and confession and the whole bloody business of sacrifice to appease Someone who thinks that shows «love,» I question the whole ancient story, all the animals killed, all the trees cut down (for temples and churches and crosses and «holy books») and all the human beings left to feel separated again and again from the universe, Nature, each other and their «gods.»

One that was based on a survey of mainline church members, for example, suggested that identification with the local community served as an important plausibility structure for traditional religious tenets.13 Furthermore, those who made such localistic identifications were considerably more likely than «cosmopolitans» to espouse traditional religious beliefs (controlling for a variety of other factors) and to allow these beliefs to influence their thinking on racial and social questions as well.

So long as you think, as Bergson does, on the one hand, of an actual experience which is sheer qualitative flux and variety, and on the other of a geometrical ready - made framework of sheer non-qualitative abidingness, there seems to be no possible answer to the question how such a «matter» comes to be forced into the strait - waistcoat of so inappropriate a «form,» except to lay the blame on some willful culpa originis of the intellect.75

Although the explicit denial of bodily form to Yahweh was late, the early depreciation of interest in any such question forced Hebrews to think of God in some other way.

It can raise questions and encourage thought on the part of people who come from other perspectives as well.

When speaking of the above «correspondence» he says «the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology.»

I think that attempts to answer these (and other) questions leads to the ever - increasing institutionalization of the church.

The «overwhelming evidence for naturalistic evolution» no longer overwhelms when the naturalistic worldview is itself called into question, and that worldview is as problematical as any other set of metaphysical assumptions when it is placed on the table for examination rather than being taken for granted as «the way we think today.»

The questions about religion and public life, those calling for «public» discussion, no longer focus on the verifiability of religious speech but concern quite other issues: methods of understanding and describing the religious realities, old and new, that we see appearing around us; useful criteria for assessing these religions and for defining and comprehending this new set of powers in our public life; and ways of protecting vital religious groups from the excesses of the public reaction to them, and protecting the public from the excesses of powerful religious groups — hardly questions a secular culture had thought it would have to take seriously!

Thinking about these and many other questions, I have the sense that the community of reflection is now diminished by the absence of Oscar Cullman.

@Colin & others I'm not going to argue your claim that orientation is genetic because I think there is some truth to it, however, I have questions about the evolutionary shift to growing numbers of LGBTs.

«I think as atheists we should have the right to recruit much like any other religion, and to question other ways of thought, just as religions do.»

If you've never questioned your beliefs seriously, if you only accept the beliefs of your parents as right without examining the other possibilities, if you can not articulate why you think one way as apposed to another, you've never thought independently and you maybe never will.

I'm thinking you might have some other powers that might help us get to the bottom of some all - important questions.