Sentences with phrase «think of it in this way too»

Not exact matches

I launched it and the program went well, in the sense that we got a lot of customers on board and I got a training program in place, but the mistake [I made] was moving a little too quickly and not thinking through things all the way through.

Thousands of the leaked customer records reportedly contain government, corporate, and military email addresses, suggesting that way too many people think they're working in a private tech bubble.

You could say that 2018 is still a young year and it's way too early to judge things, which is true, but the level of volatility in both stocks and bonds during February is making this year feel like we've lived through two full years already, and I think what the markets are signaling is more likely to be a sea change than a blip.

Most business people immediately think of cold calling when faced with a telephone but it can be useful in other ways too.

The Three Year Attribution Rule applies when the money is taken out too early and the government thinks that the spouses are in cahoots to use this retirement - planning tool as a way to lower their tax bill instead of saving for retirement.

This party is incapable of mending its ways... its had 3 leaders in 8 years... I think the culture and entitlement of this party is too much baggage to carry it further....

 Almost a quarter of that was the auto aid. It was important for preserving jobs, for sure. But does it count as «stimulus,» in the sense of stimulating expenditure? I don't think so. It was more in the realm of a balance sheet transfer that kept an important company going. If the auto aid was «stimulus,» then so too was the much larger line of credit which Ottawa advanced to the banks (they could have tapped $ 200 billion under Mr. Flaherty's EFF mechanism)-- all of which was also repaid. In that case, Ottawa's «stimulus» was more like a quarter - trillion dollars... far outpacing everyone else in the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsof that was the auto aid. It was important for preserving jobs, for sure. But does it count as «stimulus,» in the sense of stimulating expenditure? I don't think so. It was more in the realm of a balance sheet transfer that kept an important company going. If the auto aid was «stimulus,» then so too was the much larger line of credit which Ottawa advanced to the banks (they could have tapped $ 200 billion under Mr. Flaherty's EFF mechanism)-- all of which was also repaid. In that case, Ottawa's «stimulus» was more like a quarter - trillion dollars... far outpacing everyone else in the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsin the sense of stimulating expenditure? I don't think so. It was more in the realm of a balance sheet transfer that kept an important company going. If the auto aid was «stimulus,» then so too was the much larger line of credit which Ottawa advanced to the banks (they could have tapped $ 200 billion under Mr. Flaherty's EFF mechanism)-- all of which was also repaid. In that case, Ottawa's «stimulus» was more like a quarter - trillion dollars... far outpacing everyone else in the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsof stimulating expenditure? I don't think so. It was more in the realm of a balance sheet transfer that kept an important company going. If the auto aid was «stimulus,» then so too was the much larger line of credit which Ottawa advanced to the banks (they could have tapped $ 200 billion under Mr. Flaherty's EFF mechanism)-- all of which was also repaid. In that case, Ottawa's «stimulus» was more like a quarter - trillion dollars... far outpacing everyone else in the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsin the realm of a balance sheet transfer that kept an important company going. If the auto aid was «stimulus,» then so too was the much larger line of credit which Ottawa advanced to the banks (they could have tapped $ 200 billion under Mr. Flaherty's EFF mechanism)-- all of which was also repaid. In that case, Ottawa's «stimulus» was more like a quarter - trillion dollars... far outpacing everyone else in the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsof a balance sheet transfer that kept an important company going. If the auto aid was «stimulus,» then so too was the much larger line of credit which Ottawa advanced to the banks (they could have tapped $ 200 billion under Mr. Flaherty's EFF mechanism)-- all of which was also repaid. In that case, Ottawa's «stimulus» was more like a quarter - trillion dollars... far outpacing everyone else in the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsof credit which Ottawa advanced to the banks (they could have tapped $ 200 billion under Mr. Flaherty's EFF mechanism)-- all of which was also repaid. In that case, Ottawa's «stimulus» was more like a quarter - trillion dollars... far outpacing everyone else in the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsof which was also repaid. In that case, Ottawa's «stimulus» was more like a quarter - trillion dollars... far outpacing everyone else in the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsIn that case, Ottawa's «stimulus» was more like a quarter - trillion dollars... far outpacing everyone else in the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsin the OECD as a share of GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsof GDP! Of course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsOf course that's nonsense. This was just one of many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsof many ways that Ottawa inflated the true value of its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsof its stimulus effort last year (including counting as «stimulus» the increase in EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffsin EI payouts that automatically accompanied last year's mass layoffs).

It doens» t sound strange to me at all, I too can think for myself... because I was a believer in God long before I read His book, the difference is I acknowledge that I am not in control of this life, I can choose to either be a slave to sin or a slave to God, either way I am a slave just as you are, but I choose to be a slave to my God who created me, who or what do you choose to be a slave to?

They would suggest that the United States acted too quickly, or without enough thought, or without proper consultation, or without thinking of the future, or just in that simple - minded, violent, cowboy way those simple - minded violent American cowboys always act when not restrained by European moral sensitivity.

This is so sad and empty, letting «pride» stand in the way through life, and yes, I too think that religions seem to take us further away from each other, with all of its rules and standards, is just a waste and it divides us when it should be bringing us closer to our spirituality of real life, but religions do not do this it takes us far from each other or it just puts up a pretense.

But apparently you are too weak in your faith to think that God is brilliant enough to use science as a way of creation.

Its too bad that a lot of people who have never taken a critical thinking course in their lives don't see it that way because they need to be swayed.

Like the weary sailor, the refugee from wreck and storm, who escapes half «dead, and then, in terror, shudders with dread at the very mention of the name of the «sea»; who swears he'll never sail again, who raves he'll stay home, even on the calmest days, but then, in time, forgets his fearful ways, and seeks, again, his fortune above the waves; I, too, have barely escaped the storms that revolve around you, my love, traveling far away, vowing to avoid another catastrophe, but I can't; the thought of you breaks my resolve, and so, I return to where, on that fateful day, Inearly drowned in your tempestuous sea.

I think I'm too simple in my thinking that; if you don't like it, DO N'T WATCH... if you don't agree with it, DO N'T CHOOSE TO LIVE YOUR LIFE THAT WAY... Seems like a very simplistic way of thinking, but I have personal opinions on EVERYTHING, but I don't force others to live their lives according to my moral fiber... i don't judge people for living their lives the way that makes them happy... And i believe that IGNORANCE is the basis for INTOLERANCE... people are famous for HATING things that they don't understand... again, if it MORALLY offends you, don't read stories on things that you don't agree with, don't watch shows that portray choices that you don't agree with... The Brown family seems close knit, almost like extended family living under one roof... the kids work together and get along much better than a lot of «mainstream» households i seeWAY... Seems like a very simplistic way of thinking, but I have personal opinions on EVERYTHING, but I don't force others to live their lives according to my moral fiber... i don't judge people for living their lives the way that makes them happy... And i believe that IGNORANCE is the basis for INTOLERANCE... people are famous for HATING things that they don't understand... again, if it MORALLY offends you, don't read stories on things that you don't agree with, don't watch shows that portray choices that you don't agree with... The Brown family seems close knit, almost like extended family living under one roof... the kids work together and get along much better than a lot of «mainstream» households i seeway of thinking, but I have personal opinions on EVERYTHING, but I don't force others to live their lives according to my moral fiber... i don't judge people for living their lives the way that makes them happy... And i believe that IGNORANCE is the basis for INTOLERANCE... people are famous for HATING things that they don't understand... again, if it MORALLY offends you, don't read stories on things that you don't agree with, don't watch shows that portray choices that you don't agree with... The Brown family seems close knit, almost like extended family living under one roof... the kids work together and get along much better than a lot of «mainstream» households i seeway that makes them happy... And i believe that IGNORANCE is the basis for INTOLERANCE... people are famous for HATING things that they don't understand... again, if it MORALLY offends you, don't read stories on things that you don't agree with, don't watch shows that portray choices that you don't agree with... The Brown family seems close knit, almost like extended family living under one roof... the kids work together and get along much better than a lot of «mainstream» households i see...

Such thought could, of course, be understood as «church theology,» but the tendency of that rubric is to focus attention upon the traditions and current life of the church in a way that is too limiting.

I'm looking to eventually teach theology, but in between my personal studies, an obsessive reading habit, and spending far too much money on coffee, I started a blog called New Ways Forward as an outlet for some of my random thoughts and a way to interact with others who share a passion for theology, Biblical studies, and social justice.

But in the present time, altogether too many of us may know or think we know the original quite well, but yet do not know the language into which we are to translate; hence the gospel as preached is preached to ears that do not and can not hear, because they are ears that are attuned to a quite different set of conditions, patterns of thought, and ways of conceiving the universe.

Jesus used agricultural metaphors, Paul quoted Greek poets, and we too need to find ways of expressing gospel truths in the thought language of our audience...

We think not only of objects as self - contained in particular regions of space and related to one another only externally, but we think of human selves that way, too.

His statement of the gospel is couched too often in language and in a context which bear little or no relationship to the circumstances, the accepted ways of thinking of the world both scientifically and philosophically, in which the hearers live.

Oh, to edify oneself in a living way with the sufferings of others is a comfort, and to dwell too exclusively on one's own suffering may easily become that doubleness of mind which thinks that there is comfort for all others but none for itself.

For those who think in this way, changing the structures of thought and perception built into so much of our science would be too indirect a contribution to the relief of suffering to be a true expression of Buddhist compassion.

First, let us look briefly at how, given the discussion of the self in the previous Section, it would be true to say «the world is my body,» and then show how the Zen way of thinking might help us imagine the world as God's body, too.

How many times have I seen myself and others on the path towards wisdom suddenly regress to our former ways of thinking simply because the darkness was lasting too long and we didn't give our spiritual eyes time to discern truth in the new environment?

McCoy suggests that Whitehead, too, may have been shaped by biblical ways of thinking: «Indeed, it is highly probable that the process philosophies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries emerged from contexts influenced by the covenantal or federal tradition and thus are in part intellectual progeny of covenantal theology and ethics» (CCE 360).

I too was like you in some points thinking it was arrogant of me to judge either way on such a complex and grand subject.

With this in mind, I began to search for a new way of translating theopneustos to more accurately reflect this, and since pneustos can be translated as «wind, breath, or spirit» thought of «wind of God» (very similar to what Jesus said in John 3:8), «God - spirited» (which was too vague for me, much like «inspiration»), or even «breath of God» or «God's breath.»

Too often the way in which people think about the problem of abortion is like a broken record or a repeating tape loop.

I say this because no matter how successful, in an obvious way, such preaching may be, its principal value is that «the old - time religion» (thus conceived and proclaimed) provides for insecure and uncertain men and women an authority to which they may bow and thus be delivered, as they think, from too much victimization by the «changes and chances of this mortal life».

«But we would also say, and I think a number of other places are realising this too, that there are real advantages to training in this way.»

well just thinking about these wars in the muslim / mid-east world over religious differences (which may reflect mental states in many ways) in a world where most realize that living in the present moment is best way to happiness and being in the moment in non-strife and awareness through the teachings of masters such as found in the buddhist, taoist, zen, etc., etc., etc. spriritually based practices of religious like thought and teachings, etc. that to ask these scientifically educated populace whom have access to vast amounts of knowledges and understandings on the internet, etc. to believe in past beliefs that perhaps gave basis and inspiration to that which followed — but is not the end all of all times or knowledges — and is thus — non self - sustaining in a belief that does not encompass growth of knowledge and understanding of all truths and being as it is or could be — is to not respect the intelligence and minds and personage of even themselves — not to be disrespected nor disrespectful in any way — only to point out that perhaps too much is asked to put others into the cloak of blind faith and adherance to the past that disregards the realities of the present and the potential of the future... so you try to live in the past — and destroy your present and your future — where is the intelligence in that — and why do people continually fear monger or allow to be fear — mongered into this destructive vision of the future based upon the past?

There are issues here, too, and I think differences between us in the way we conceive this task, and possibly in the way we understand the claims of intelligibility; but at this stage of my presentation, let me say that with the intention of Professor Ogden's concern with intelligibility in faith, I heartily concur.

These essays too show remarkable staying power, particularly the provocatively titled «On the Political Stupidity of the Jews,» his own exploration of the familiar puzzle of American Jews» fierce, visceral, but in many ways irrational and self - defeating commitment to liberalism, and his suggestions for a possible way forward in that regard» an effort to formulate a sound and well - grounded tradition of specifically Jewish political thought.

Less persuasive, to me at least, is the claim that this probably continued until 1931, the year in which Lewis converted to Christianity (and would now think a relation with a married woman to be wrong) Wilson's way of making this point is, however, an instance of a very undesirable trait in his writing: the tendency to assert indirectly and to be glib while seeming to eschew it: «It would be far too glib to suggest that he consciously made the second change, to adopt Christianity, merely to give himself an excuse to abandon sexual relations with Mrs. Moore, whatever the nature of those relations had been.»

18) The fact that there is a later punk - driven attempt to democratize rock fame (and not in the fatuous way that Andy Warhol's «15 - minutes of fame» comment suggested) or that pop / disco artists like Michael Jackson and Madonna will pick up on Bowie's fame - playing and image - emphatic example, in Madonna's case overtly subordinating the music to the prerogatives of notoriety, do not alter what ALMOST FAMOUS is showing us, that rock can be thought of as a social phenomenon / scene that one might belong to («you're too sweet for rock and roll» is said not by a musician to a musician, but by a groupie to a rock writer), that is as fame - focused as it is music - focused.

We have become way too much eyeball people as Christians assume that those who don't live according to the way they do they are unsaved, we have created this judgemental relationship which hurts peoples fellowship with God, there are no litmus tests for people that believe in Jesus, which is why we are called to not judge others, and people use James 2:14, and 1 John's verse of those who practices righteousness are righteous even though I think it's talking about earthly righteousness toward people that we as Christians should show because there is a lost world out there that needs are help and these doctrines of guilt, condemnation, anger, and judgement aren't helping in fact they are doing the opposite, just like how in James it's justification towards man.

i am undergoing such a change in the way i think about God and religion and reading some of your articles has been very refreshing — right now i am part of a very fundamental church and i need to get out - i am tired of the judgement and looking at people as «saved» and «unsaved» (we recently had a church event where if you brought an «unsaved» friend they got to rollerskate for free - i wanted to vomit)- i just want to follow Jesus - do nt know where to go but i do want to stay part of a church (for the sake of my children)- i saw somewhere on your blog that you too are in the hudson valley — are there any churches you can recommend that fall in line with your way of thinking?

More to the point, just as William Paley, in his perverse way, acted as a kind of accidental midwife to Darwin's theory, so too I think the speculations of Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski (and others, many of whom belong to the Discovery Institute) will lead not to a more robust theism but to a new impetus to find adequate explanatory laws for chemical complexity.

I see God as the Patron, and the issue of talents as an allegorical way of expressing activity for the Kingdom of God using familiar social realities (but in keeping with Mark 4:10 - 12, 24 and Matthew 13:11 - 16, the peasants may have taken it too literally and thus missed the whole point — thinking that the unprofitable servant is the hero when he's really not).

This summary of certain phases of the Pauline theology — a summary much too brief to do even scant justice to the power and majesty of Paul's thought — is necessary as a background for the fuller discussion, to which we now turn, of the way in which Paul interpreted the significance of the earthly life of Jesus as related to this saving act of God.

I have heard too many stories about atheists thinking they are alone in their doubt, and this is an attempt to make others know that there are others out there who share their way of thinking.

All I was saying was that IF you think it is a sin, we should still love and accept LGBT people, just as we love and accept people who lie, eat too much, drink too much, are lazy, are proud, etc, all of which are clearly sins (and are talked about in Scripture way more than homosexuality).

CH: I would say that the parables of Jesus, and the way he said that the two «great» commandments summed up everything, are what I believe — but if you say you're a Christian, then people think that you have to believe in heaven and maybe in hell too, and who knows what.

Like several recent books in the same vein (Thomas Eisner's For Love of Insects and Piotr Nasrecki's The Smaller Majority, for example), Attenborough's Life in the Undergrowth explicitly sets out to change the way in which people see and think about all manner of creeping things that creepeth upon the earth, as Leviticus puts it, and some that fly, too.

At the same time I must say that if those two criticisms of mine were met sufficiently, there would not be too much (I think) to differentiate his way from the one to which I now turn in conclusion.

Now, too, the complementarity which exists between male and female is restored — the differences in the way men and women think, feel, see reality, are no longer a cause of tension but a cause of rejoicing, one more element of the mystery of the other which only makes us love them all the more.

It wants to be a thoroughgoing thinking of becoming, though in such a way that can be accounted not only for the becoming of nature, with both its «degradation of energy» and its «upward course of biological evolution» (Whitehead, Function xx) but for history, too, with also its progression and its degeneration.

Mahavira, like Buddha, and indeed all the believers in the monastic way of life, does not think too well of women.

I was kind of thinking the same thing and I too am as liberal as it gets... but she is still in no way anything close he to a presidential reality.

I think it goes the other way too; those who conceive of God in a hierarchical mode tend to view society hierarchically too, and tend to view hierarchy as divinely sanctioned.