Sentences with phrase «view case done»

It's also got an HTC - style dot view case done up in leather.

Not exact matches

In most cases, leaders — like everyone else — view themselves in a more favorable light than other people do.

Anyone who says, «You should do this the way I did it,» without any caveats, should be maybe ignored in many cases, but certainly viewed with suspicion.

If this is the case, use language that suggests they view the cost of doing business with you as more of a reallocation of expendable funds in their existing budget.

To wit: an empty slot in a drink case; two halves of a Pepsi logo that didn't align perfectly; stickers on a cooler door that impede the view of a logo inside; the fact that two brands of pretzels, Stacy's and Rold Gold, are placed next to each other despite being marketed to very different customers.

In the theoretical example of Germany and Ireland, the Irish regulators no longer would automatically have the biggest say, while German regulators — who generally take a harder line than do their Irish counterparts — would be able to more effectively push their views in cases involving companies likGoogle (GOOG) and Facebook (FB).

«A big challenge in PR — and this doesn't happen in every case — is getting a client to understand the story from the audience's point of view,» Philadelphia - based PR agent Alexandra Golaszewska told CareerCast.com in an email.

«Senator, in retrospect I think we clearly view it as a mistake that we didn't inform people, and we did that based on false information that we thought that the case was closed and that the data had been deleted.»

«Given the position bias for flattening, periodic steepening corrections should be expected but don't signal a change in view, but rather a case of ringing the register after which there will attempts to justify the price action with something more cerebral until we revert to flattening.»

Is that a philosophy, which you stand behind, could you do that from the ethic point of view, when the premium are extremely low, which is at the case... that the spreads are, as I said, between 15 and 20 basis points?

Last year I wrote on Suven Life Sciences, also I did some secondary level maths to get a sense of returns an investor could get buying the business at then market cap (~ 2000 INR Crores or 400 Million USD) and exiting in 2024 See Snap shot below The base case CAGR didn't excite but reading management commentary compelled me to take a tracking position in model portfolio Over to this year One thing in AR gave me a Jeff Bezos moment For the first time management was sounding optimistic (this is coming from a management which is very conservative on record) Emphasis mine Management views on past Despite having grown the business every single year across the last five years, our business sustainability has been consistently questioned.

My view is that even if the Fed does not, by December, have the same case for raising rates as the recent employment report seems to provide, the Fed should in any event immediately discontinue reinvesting principal as assets on the Fed's balance sheet mature.

@HotAirAce For those that do not want religion forced down their throat (even though I don't even remotely believe that to be the case), certainly have no problem trying to force their views on others and try to deny them them pursuit of their beliefs.

I am a young, white Irish woman, in case that means anything to how people view my comment, since it seems it does most times.

I said it to hotair already, but I will expand it a bit for you: what is evidence for some is not accepted by everyone; just as in a court case, some jurors are convinced with very little evidence while some people can not be convinced of something no matter how much evidence there is... much of this comes from how you were raised and your own personal world view, for many people God does not fit into their world view so whatever evidence there is they close their eyes and say, «No, I don't believe that!»

Unfortunately in my case, I've probably gone to excess the other way... after 43 years of being (in my view) threatened with hellfire for every cotton - picking thing (including the «sinfulness» of being born in the first place because it's a well - known scriptural fact that every human is born sinful and separated from G - d, with a heart that does nothing but desire evil and no way to please G - d even when righteous), threatened with being «left behind» in the rapture (should I fail on some doctrinal (belief) point at the crucial moment)... I refuse to consider ANY possibility of hell at all.

Assumptions along these lines are what atheists hang their hats on, but assumptions lead to false reasoning, and in any case, they base their view on beliefs, even though they don't recognize it as a belief.

If this is the case, then, given what Warfield says about professionalization and faith healing, it seems he does think that it introduces a Catholic view of the priesthood into Protestantism.

But as is the case with most of these posts, non-believers really don't want to hear any dissenting views.

But he said most scientists viewed Christianity as a fraud, which means more than half, and you can't disprove that with a dozen quotes unless there are less than two dozen scientists, which I don't believe is the case.

In any case, keep up the good work and although I still don't get the Trinity (read as «believe» it) I know from our past exchanges this does not stop you from viewing me as your brother.

«I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace.

From the Court's point of view, the case had nothing to do with the First Amendment — and if it had, Hobby Lobby and its owners might not have prevailed.

The court never decided who had ultimate say over Ryan's care, his parents or medical professionals, because his treatment was transferred to a different doctor who did not view his case as futile.

Of course this is just another case where you think your church has it right, and all other Christians who don't hold the same view are wrong.

The court expressed «no view on the merits of the cases» and pointed out that it did not decide whether «religious exercises has been substantially burdened, whether the government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.»

In such a case he must present his view in a way that does justice to the ecclesial importance of his opinion, to the continuation of his dialogue with the magisterium und also to his respect for the latter's teaching.

For instance, in a discussion of apartheid, David Field remarks: «From a Christian point of view, it is important to examine the case for apartheid in some detail... because among its strongest supporters it numbers Christians who claim to have tested their attitudes and opinions by the standards of Scripture» (Free to Do Right [InterVarsity, 1976], p. 19).

Such relationships are, in many cases, not viewed as a major problem because they usually do not have legal, financial, or public relations consequences for the Church, and are therefore deemed to be «nobody's business.»

Fourth, the view here presented, since it does not proceed by way of reduction followed by reconstruction, can take actions seriously for what they purport to be, including in this case rational action.

when Sandra Bullock was in the news because she donated $ 1,000,000 why didn't people jump all over her case and accuse her of just «getting her name in the public view»?

I found it telling that in making his case for the Christian view on capital punishment, Mohler does not once consider the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But just as in the case of Benjamin Franklin this new and more innocent view of man did not lead to a liberation of the impulse life.

In neither case does it reflect a disrespectful view of divine law (which both the Old and the New Testament see as grounded in divine grace), but rather it refers to what is bound to happen to the law when we start «handling» it and using it to establish our own righteousness rather than letting the rule and righteousness of God dwell and become embodied in our midst.

But the nub of the case for defenders of the status quo was that elections do not enhance, but limit democracy: The key to democracy is found in the assurance of diversity, not of views but of physical characteristics.

In such cases it has led me to more clearly articulate my views or to perhaps change the way I do things.

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

But if so, then this «going beyond the New Testament» should perhaps be done consciously and should always be identified as such with clarity and emphasis, especially where a constant effort is being made to argue from the point of view of the Bible, as is the case with Barth.

Thus too the demoniacal may express itself as contempt for men — a contempt, be it observed, which does not cause a man to behave contemptibly, since on the contrary he counts it his forte that he is better than all who condemn him — In view of such cases the poets ought to lose no time in sounding the alarm.

To summarize, the view that freedom of choice should not be permitted in the case of abortion is based on two principles: (1) Abortion does grievous, irreparable and unnecessary harm to the developing fetus, regarded as deserving the full rights of personhood.

We can make it do what we want or forcibly reinterpret something to fit our views — as has happened in some cases.

Did not the SS guards claim for themselves the status of heroes — men (and in some cases women) who had the courage to keep in balance the appropriate brutality and the appropriate gentleness that a nihilistic view of ultimate reality requires of the «superman»?

If thats the case, Jews will not be getting into Heaven as they do not view him as such.

Most Relevant to Recent Conversations: Daniel Kirk with «On Trusting the Bible» «Ironically, the conservative rejection of Neo-Orthodoxy in the name of a «high» view of scripture, at least in the case of Barth, ends up as a rejection of the Bible we actually have in favor of a man - made construct that does not match up with it.»

In fact, it does not overstate the case to say that the Roman Catholic view on justification sets it apart as a wholly different religion than the true Christian faith, for it is ant.ithetical to the simple gospel of grace.

McPherson holds the minority view that the case «did not really polarize the country any more than it was already polarized by the issue of slavery in the territories.»

So, God's process does not fit in the usual model of change, nor in the usual model of becoming.25 Whitehead preferably considers the process in God in terms of growth, which, to be sure, may be viewed as a form of internal supersession, that is, as a succession in which the previous phases are retained without loss, however in this special case as a succession of satisfaction - phases.

«The First Amendment,» he argued, «does not authorize Congress to pick and choose the persons or entities or the organizational forms that are free to exercise their religion» — a view that was later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case.

There isn't roomhere to do more than illustrate the case with a few examples, but an attempt will be made to show how rich Paul's view of ethics is, how his teaching on law is original and relevant, how his emphasis on love is important, and how he forces us to consider not only the human act that, as St Thomas says, is what moral theology is all about, but also the adjectival human agent transformed by the grace of the Holy Spirit into a friend, indeed a child of God.

If, on occasion, Konstan seems to press this argument too far, bypassing a little too quickly the sense one sometimes gets that classical thinkers did have tendencies to ground friendship in utility, his argument nonetheless makes a strong case for a significant degree of overlap between ancient and modern views of friendship.