Sentences with phrase «understand as being wrong»

Because they aren't used to seeing what is actually biologically and anthropologically normal duration breastfeeding, they categorize this different choice they don't understand as being wrong and rationalize that if it's «wrong» it's going to mess up the child.

Not exact matches

As Donald Trump assumes the mantle of 45th president of the United States, much of the mainstream press is going through a soul - searching process, trying to understand how it got the outcome of the election so thoroughly wrong — and also how to survive under what is likely to be one of the most media - hostile administrations in recent memory.

Understanding how to react when things go wrong is equally as important as understanding how to execute a project that is gUnderstanding how to react when things go wrong is equally as important as understanding how to execute a project that is gunderstanding how to execute a project that is going to plan.

They then conducted a series of experiments that measured how open to being wrong the volunteers were and how it affected their estimation of people with opposing views, as well as how accurately they'd understood the arguments they'd been presented with.

Glaude warned that we can't simply say that something is wrong with Trump mentally «as an easy way to dismiss him,» though he added, «I want to understand more fundamentally, right.

There are so many reasons why this is wrong (to list just the most obvious, poor countries have much lower debt thresholds than rich countries, Japanese debt can not possibly be dismissed as not being a problem, and because it is almost impossible to find an economist who understands the relationship between nominal interest rates and implicit amortization, Japanese government debt has probably only been manageable to date because GDP growth close to zero has permitted interest rates close to zero) and yet inane comparisons between China's debt burden and Japan's debt burden are made all the time.

In a letter to irate classmates, Zuckerberg gives his first apology to make the news: «I hope you understand, this is not how I meant for things to go, and I apologize for any harm done as a result of my neglect to consider how quickly the site would spread and its consequences thereafter... I definitely see how my intentions could be seen in the wrong light.»

Muslims understand that Halloween has Pagan roots and in several fashions is a celebration of things we believe is wrong or bad such as fear of this world, death, and mythical false things.

This is not a english paer its a conversation had I sadi that in a conversation it would have been understood exactly as intended wrong word or not.

When you decide to engage someone who's firmly on the wrong side of the facts, be as loving as possible: «I totally understand why that frustrates you!

preacherlady: you are a wise woman trey: listen to what she says & stop trying to get everyone to accept you Reality check 1: not everyone has to like or love you for you to be happy Reality check 2: as long as it is true for me I am going to say what I believe so I am going to have to let the rest of you do that too, even if I think you are wrong Questions: what part of «love one another» don't you guys understand?

As wrong as we view it today, with our understanding of betrayal, we may not be able to comprehend the magnitude of what was required in order to bring about the miracle of EasteAs wrong as we view it today, with our understanding of betrayal, we may not be able to comprehend the magnitude of what was required in order to bring about the miracle of Easteas we view it today, with our understanding of betrayal, we may not be able to comprehend the magnitude of what was required in order to bring about the miracle of Easter.

the wrong theology, is not «hypocrisy» (as I understand you to infer), but just the opposite.

That's OK as long as you're being honest about it, but lots of Christians actually claim that the Jews were wrong concerning the god they themselves invented, which makes as much sense as an American legal expert telling the British experts that they don't understand their own law.

While Buddism is definitely prevalent in places such as China, it is not a Buddist nation (by my understanding, I believe China actively opposes any religion, but I could be wrong.)

I can understand a distrust with organized religion and being an atheists, but are you not doing the same thing as Christians by saying what you think is real or calling out those that you think are wrong.

Only religion would be so bold as to say that what we do not currently understand is because science has failed or is limited... this has been proven wrong in the past and will continue to be false.

A historical compilation of man, his understanding of himself as far as what was right and wrong... and a means to control the masses.

It's easy (and frankly immature) to dismiss those who disagree with your position as «sharing their hatredness»... But what's harder is to try to understand that, if you are wrong, then you and all likeminded souls are wallowing in the chains of mental slavery to a myth.

Or maybe you are wrong in your understanding not just of James 2:14 - 26, but also in your understanding of all those others passages as well.

I understand that you don't believe, as is your right, but you are wrong to treat others in such an inconsiderate manner.

I agree with not going trying to change the world as in change to people by telling them they are wrong and I am right (IF I have understood your point of view) but I guess I'm not so convinced when it comes to society, and just accepting what ever **** is in there or anywhere.

Appreciate your efforts in understanding the vast vedic dharma though as most of them here in Bharat (India) already are filled with many wrong interpretations of vedic dharma.

As universalists, you may think I'm naive and wrong, but is there no room in your heart for compassion and understanding for the Evangelist who thinks he sees lost people around him and speaks the truth in love as he understands iAs universalists, you may think I'm naive and wrong, but is there no room in your heart for compassion and understanding for the Evangelist who thinks he sees lost people around him and speaks the truth in love as he understands ias he understands it.

Augustine thought he understood the biblical message, as did Luther and Calvin and Wesley; but God has finally given it to us to know that all of them are wrong and we are right.

Progressive religious folks of all stripes tend to share a post-triumphalism (a sense that it's time to move beyond the old triumphalist paradigm in which one religion is The Right Path to God and all the other paths are wrong), as well as an inclination toward reading our sacred texts through interpretive lenses which take into account changing social mores and changing understandings of justice.

I can see how one can look at this idea and look at the following examples in Hebrews 11 as «Because they were sure they would get this reward, they did this thing» but as the author points out in verse 39 that they didn't get what they imagined they would, so if we understand faith as «being sure» it would turn out that it is «being sure» of something and being totally wrong — instead it makes more sense to understand Hebrews 11:1 as saying that «faith is a realization (or actualization)» of our hopes, a realization that the author points out is greater than we could expect and be sure in.

She begins by setting aside the paradigm of sin and forgiveness as the basic understanding of what is wrong and how it is made right.

But spiritually understood, where illness is not in the material body as the fever is in the blood, and where medicine is not something external, like drops in a bottle, then fear means: to use and to have used, to have taken the medicine — in the wrong way.

Marriages, of course, are only human; they go wrong and break down; but it is still within marriage, and the families that spring from marriage, that most people come closest to an understanding of true love and creativity, which is as close as man can get to God.

Then light was liberated, and then gravity created the first stars and galaxies, then billions of years later, a local star went supernova and seeded the local nebula with heavier elements, elements necessary for life, elements that were not created during the Big Bang, then the sun was born, then the planets coalesced, and billions of years later some primate wrote a story about how the Earth was created at the same time as the rest of the universe, getting it wrong because that primate did not have the science nor technology to really understand what happened, so he gave it his best guess, most likely an iteration of an older story told prior to the advent of the Judeo Christian religion.

If we see such questions as wrong, the only alternative is follow without questioning or understanding what their perspective is grounded in.

If you can't understand my explanation above and see that as an attempt at discrediting, without pointing out where exactly it's wrong, then there isn't much more I can do, other than hope one day you'll learn something.

As for those who do great wrong, it is not true that to understand all is to forgive all.

this is my understanding as well... but there is no room for the truth, only I am right and you are wrong... and I might have to kill those who disagree with my religion.

No one is told they are right or wrong but we understand why they think as they do.

Today's world man has become with no value other than his organs if sold or stolen... so what is happening only proves that we are imposing marketing the wrongs against the rights... cultures and beliefs are going down the drain with all those values, morals, virtues some how turning into commotion among cultures and beliefs turning against each other misunderstanding each other or unaware of cultures way of living and beliefs to ease communication mutual understanding as a nation of mankind and a nation of faiths.

«Life - style» justifies any way of life, as does «value» any opinion» (p. 235) Attempts by Freud and Marx and their followers to reshape our understandings are not only wrong, Bloom claims, but boring.

And in the next place, describing what properly is defiance, it teaches that a man does wrong although he understands what is right, or forbears to do right although he understands what is right; in short, the Christian doctrine of sin is pure impertinence against man, accusation upon accusation; it is the charge which the Deity as prosecutor takes the liberty of lodging against man.

As Stephen Carter has written, it isn't simply a matter of understanding right from wrong and learning what the rules are; every employee also has to learn the «rules about following the rules.»

Please explain why a mother might not get confused when listening to your religious poison and decide to guarantee her childrens future even though she might understand she's throwing away her own, as you say, she's not God so it would be wrong for her to take her childrens lives.

As to your claim about the keys being used to determine moral right and wrong, I don't see that anywhere in Matthew 16 or Isaiah 22, and although the Jewish people may have understood this as referring to such judgments, they understood then (and even today) that moral judgments are made by God alone and through a proper understanding of what God has said in ScripturAs to your claim about the keys being used to determine moral right and wrong, I don't see that anywhere in Matthew 16 or Isaiah 22, and although the Jewish people may have understood this as referring to such judgments, they understood then (and even today) that moral judgments are made by God alone and through a proper understanding of what God has said in Scripturas referring to such judgments, they understood then (and even today) that moral judgments are made by God alone and through a proper understanding of what God has said in Scripture.

And not just impossible according to our understanding of the laws of nature, which can be wrong (as with the bumblebee), but impossible according to the rules of logic upon which all our reasoning is based.

It is certainly wrong to interpret Christ «merely in terms of our existence as persons in history», if that existence is understood in a purely idealistic sense.

None of them have been so arrogant as to think that there is no way they could possibly be wrong in their understanding of scripture.

We can understand that they didn't view something as wrong (in order to understand the text) without being forced to adopt the view for ourselves that it isn't wrong.

What about the pull Helen had towards children with Down's syndrome — it looked as if their initial understanding of the situation had been wrong.

I am of the opinion that, as the understanding of historicity itself implies, he is wrong in identifying his authentic ego with his subjectivity.

I may sometimes leave the wrong impression as a result, but I think, Willow, that my understanding of God is very similar to yours.

I can understand making the point that the people of Ferguson should be invited to forgive what they perceived as a wrong on the part of the officer...... but for you to make the assumption and then state that the Officer's action was «wrong» (if that is what you meant to say) is not something I can agree with, not without your full rationale (which maybe I missed from an earlier post)....