Sentences with phrase «who accepts ideas»

Not exact matches

The most honest answer I can give is that I'm looking for maniacally driven individuals who are obsessive in their pursuit of an idea and who are so competitive and driven that they can't accept failure.

Say what you will about Facebook and MySpace; those who frequent them accept communal action — including communal idea generation — as the norm.

The plurality of Canadians who do not reject the idea in general say temporary foreign workers should only be allowed if the required skills are not available in Canada (31 %), followed by those who want to be sure no Canadian jobs are displaced (21 %) or those who accept temporary foreign workers for jobs Canadians refuse (18 %).

Without the influence of religion, we are free to accept people who are different from us and ideas that were once faith - based rejected.

But no matter what the commercialized idea of Easter is, to Christians it is still regarded as a holy day to remember the salvation God extends to all who believe in and accept Him.

It's the 0.001 % of them who hold rallies, blow themselves up, and go on television / radio (in the case of Fox News, start their own network) who HATE the fact that there are those of us out there who do not accept the idea of God or Jesus or Allah and think it is unacceptable.

I say the real hypocrites are the ones who say they are tolerant, open minded, and enlightened, yet shut their mind to ideas that are opposite theirs and attack with malice those who accept Christianity.

- People who reject the idea that «government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality» give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

-LCB- a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.: a bigoted person; especially: a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)-RCB-

This idea was held by some Christians who at the same time accepted Jesus as the divine Messiah.

Reinforcing in advance the claim I have put forth at the end of Part Two, Hartshorne went on to point out: «Just as the Stoics said the ideal was to have good will toward all but not in such fashion as to depend in any [221] degree for happiness upon their fortunes or misfortunes, so Christian theologians, who scarcely accepted this idea in their ethics, nevertheless adhered to it in characterizing God.»

Just as the Stoics said the ideal was to have good will toward all but not in such fashion as to depend in any degree for happiness upon their fortunes or misfortunes, so Christian theologians, who scarcely accepted this idea in their ethics, nevertheless adhered to it in characterizing God.8

They can't come to terms with the idea that there may actually be nothing after we die so they latch on to a belief that gives them comfort... belief in an afterlife, eternity or any version of «god» is nothing more than a coping mechanism for those who can't accept that we are in fact finite creatures that are born, live, and die and are not meant or destined to exist for eternity.

Yes, to the believer; and it is fully open to the nonbeliever who is willing to accept the idea that a resurrection is at least possible.

There's also ridiculous threats from God in there that reflect on the knowledge and intelligence of anyone at the time who would accept the idea of unicorns, dragons, or angels that killed tens of thousands of people.

It IS funny, because many people who claim that they are «scientific» just blindly accept «Corporate Science» aimed at keeping them logically ignorant, meaning, they can use logic and reason (and even rhetoric if you know your Trivium) to argue well for false ideas.

The idea of writing a story about a man who had no faith and then suddenly was faced with accepting something more powerful than myself, followed by miracle after miracle — should certainly help someone else.

The instrument may perish but the tune survives and, as it is often argued by those who would attempt to bring «immortality of the soul» and some residual meaning of «resurrection'together into a single conception, that tune might very well be played on another instrument if one does not accept the idea that tunes can exist, so to say, without any expression through some instrumentality.

The idea is that God, the eternal King of the Universe, intervenes in human «affairs to set up a certain enduring relation of a unique character between Himself and those men who will accept His terms.

The most tolerant Christian, for instance, firmly believes that I would be a lot better off if I accepted the divinity of Jesus; the most tolerant Jew firmly rejects the idea of a human being who is divine.

Perhaps EMS was not familiar with the ideas of a number of prominent theologians who accept class struggle as a fact and as a tool for analysis.

They had a common sense that accepted the idea of a God who intervened in human affairs on specific occasions for specific purposes.

I accept the saying that The Who were one of the «thinking man's rock bands,» but this Songbook entry is more music - focused than idea - focused.

Happily, today those who are not blinded by uncriticized religious prejudice (including misuse of certain biblical passages) or conventional ideas of proper sexual behavior (as if morals were a matter of counting noses or following some social pattern without question) are ready to accept the fact of the homosexual orientation, and many religious groups are now prepared to adopt this positive attitude.

Since Shi`a depends upon the one who is the most learned and accepts him as the public deputy, in every epoch the person who is the most learned and most pious is regarded as the public deputy, and the people follow his ideas and his decisions concerning religious affairs.

Yeah, you believe all this nonsense written by people who existed 2000 years ago who had no idea that the world was even round because you are too scared to think for yourself and can't accept that the meaning of life is only what you make it.

You accept the stories in the Bible without question, despite not having the slightest idea of who actually wrote them, how credible these people were or how long the stories were written after the alleged events they record occurred.

Since he was not so good at fantasy, he borrowed story ideas from existing stories, peppered them with the truths he wished to convey, and released them to people who would not have accepted the plain unvarnished truth.

What must the case really be, so far as we today can grasp it, if people who thought and wrote and naturally accepted such and such ideas put things in the way in which they did put them?

We have become accustomed to the idea that what God asks of us, the great basic teachings of our lives, and the great responses required by God are somehow accessories» as if we can take them or leave them» as if they are just trinkets for those who choose to accept them.

Didn't read the article, so I have no idea how President Obama's faith has been labeled, but as a person who began attending a Christina Church during adolescence, I know that it is very hard to accept a number of tenets of the faith, so I find myself doubting that a person who was raised for a number of years in a Muslim household and whose mother does not appear to have been of a Christian denomination, is likely to have adopted the tenets of the Christian faith.

Too many have accepted the popular «neo-orthodox» idea that contemplation and mysticism have no place in the Christian life; on the contrary, they have a real place and an important one; and for those who may be called by God to this particular mode of communion with him, there is a great blessing and a wonderful gift.

It is not strange that, when Jesus came upon the scene, the Sadducees, the ultraconservatives of their day, who accepted only the earlier books of the Old Testament and refused credence to the new ideas of the later literature, held «that there is no resurrection.»

I know you Mennonites have the idea that you are open minded Christians who are accepting of everyone but when it comes to action your almost but not quite as bad as the evangelicals.

There is not a more hypocritical or repulsive group than those who are not only so distressed by people accepting what they view as nothing more than a fairy tale, but who reject a higher power for lack of proof, only to cling (defacto) to the idea that everything came into existence without any sort of guidance, intent, or intelligence behind it.

Believers are emotional weaklings, unequipped to deal with the reality of the mortal world we exist in, so they bury their heads in a fallacy world where there exists order and «justice», but such things are the trivial vices of petty man who would lose their minds if they were ever made to accept the idea that in the grand scheme, nothing matters.

It does not rise to the level of a serious effort to show that one can accept the idea that two persons of the same sex can marry while also holding that marriage is, as a matter of principle, the exclusive union of two people who forsake all others.

If you accept on faith the idea that you have a soul then, like Brad who said he accepts some things that are not falsifiable, the basis of your belief is conjecture or hypothesis at best.

With the conception of the Kingdom there was indissolubly connected the idea of the Messiah, the champion of God who would deliver the people of God; and Jesus accepted the confession of faith of Peter at Caesarea Philippi: «You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God» (Matthew 16.16, NEB).

They do not accept the idea, so popular with those who would remove food and fluid, that taking away a helpless person's food and water is morally superior to giving him a lethal injection.

I don't know where these ideas germinate I really don't... Ranieri has said he wants hard working committed players not wandering whippets who make the occasional dart fall over and demand 140 grand for the performance... it takes a really stupid manager to accept that and I don't think Ranieri is that

I agree with the idea that the inability to accept your children for who they are, and get over the fact that they are not you, and will not be the exact person you believe they should be is a problem.

Mothers who have not breastfed may find it hard to accept that breastfeeding requires a mother to let go of the idea of following strict routines for feeding and sleeping when caring for their babies.

From the time when the Columbine school shooting rocketed through the news, to now when cry - it - out sleep training is being openly debated rather than just merely accepted as the norm — reflecting the huge change we, as a culture, are having on the idea of relationship — there was 1 or 2 generations of individuals who were transitioning from the «old» way of relating — hierarchical and fear - based authority — to this «new» way: collaborative, emotionally literate, and focused on problem - solving.

And, here's another idea: if you can not offer support, don't get in the way of the mother who accepts this support in the form of judging, shaming, or sharing stories of how you raised three kids without help.

And knowing one family with one child who has separation issues does not an argument make — there are many factors which lead to anxiety issues and there is no reason to accept the idea that a child who has regular close contact with their parent (s) will develop separation issues.

It's nice to see more and more people starting to accept that nursing toddlers is okay and normal, but the idea of nursing kids who are 3 or 4 or older still weirds a lot of people out.

Even those of us who do believe in the Judeo - Christian view of God mostly accept the idea that due to original sin, our bodies malfunction, get sick, die, and so on.

Jedi groups have struck back against a Scottish church who called the idea of a legally accepted Jedi wedding «completely nonsensical».

What I am criticising, and will continue to criticise, is the escalating inability of the middle - class left to talk to or about anyone who is NOT middle class and middle - aged as if they are human beings, to really listen to their needs and thoughts and strategies and accept that they too have political ideas which are just as important as yours.