Sentences with phrase «who accepts the findings»

But the Christian who accepts it finds himself paralyzed on two fronts.

Not exact matches

Even if you can find merchants who accept it, the process involves exotic apps, currency transactions, and a verification process that takes minutes to get the okay.

Ivy League admissions decisions came out on Thursday, meaning hundreds of thousands of students who applied found out if they got accepted or rejected from their dream school.

CNBC reporter takes to the streets of New York to find out just how much people know about bitcoin and who accepts it as payment.

Anecdotes found online at first seem unbelievable: floor staff cheerfully accepting unabashedly damaged returns, no questions asked; Nordstrom employees helping mall shoppers carry purchases from other stores to their cars; and an often - repeated tale about a customer in Anchorage, Alaska, who returned a set of tires to a Nordstrom location — despite the fact that the chain doesn't actually sell tires.

Kaplan found that 65 % of the responding admissions officials who accept scores from either test say there is no advantage to applicants submitting one over the other.

«They're a bunch of people who almost definitely wouldn't have found out about our company, but did so because we started accepting bitcoin.»

For those who find this intuitively hard to accept, it is important to understand that this is an accounting identity and is true by definition.

Maybe it will spur from a privately - founded self - regulating committee who proclaims a standard that becomes accepted worldwide.

That's why we provide these proxy baptisms, to as many as we can find who've passed on, so, if they accept that message that's been preached to them (and they have the choice to accept or reject it) in the spirit world, the proxy baptism performed for them will be in affect as though they'd had it done for themselves while here on earth.

What I do find odd is that the religious right is so quick to accept a Mormon for his «values» yet they don't seem to understand or care that he doesn't believe as Christians do concerning who Jesus was.

Well seems it was Bob who said that and I explained but you were not satisfied and you then ask me to accept or not as if my decision would make a difference any way read and you will find out what I said here all:

Jem4016 You doubtlessly will be surprised, but Darwin was actually referring to his critics, those who refused to accept the truth of his findings, with that quote.

I love my family, but I also love my boyfriend, and I'm so thankful when I find fellow Christians who accept this part of me.

ALL who accept Jesus — and that means to obey Him — will be found innocent and allowed to enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Can you imagine the Founding Fathers comtemplating a court telling an employer that he or she had to accept someone who did not want to perform their work duties?

However, for those who insist on trying to find some meaning from it, they are forced to decide which side of the contradictions to take and since much of it is untrue, they also must guess as to what part of the bible they should accept and what they should ignore as just a fable.

We have seen this in many places, from Hindu fundamentalists fighting with national geologists to Christians who can't accept modern findings on hom.ose.xuality or the physical determinism of our brains.

BTW VPN — If my lack of belief in absolute inerrancy is the reason you choose to ignore my comments... you will soon find yourself talking in a vacuum in this forum as there are very few who accept that premise here.

I also hear from a lot of evangelicals who have begun attending Mainline Protestant churches precisely because they welcome LGBT people, accept scientific findings regarding climate change and evolution, practice traditional worship, preach from the lectionary, affirm women in ministry, etc., but these new attendees never hear the leadership of the church explain why this is the case.

As a man who struggled for years to find and accept god, I'm going to raise a HUGE personal rejection of one important point.

After 3 months of searching the internet and you tube to decide if I wanted to come back to religion, I finally found someone who preaches from the heart, the way my Mama and Papa used to hear when they went to church, DR John Collins with the Church of Biblical Christians tells it the way it should be plus he does not accept donations, He preaches against todays prosperity preachers, My Papa said hes the only guy he has heard of lately not affraid to tell you what he thinks and use scripture to back him up.

I do believe people who are unable to accept their own mortality or rationally explain the concept of eternity are more likely to find religious solutions.

Then, God made the 613 laws of the Torah, and went about the world trying to find a group of people who would accept them.

In 1971 he accepted the invitation of R. Yehuda Amital, who had recently founded Yeshivat Har Etzion in the Gush Etzion region, to join him as a co-Rosh Yeshiva.

That Murdoch can not find a way to accept this God who sees and seeks (who redeems), but instead embraces an impersonal and probably fictional Good, makes it ironic - perhaps contradictory would not be too strong a word - that she would conclude her book with these words from Psalm 139 (in the Authorized Version, of course):

Incidentally, I find that this is a common defense of preachers who apparently are so vulnerable in their preaching that they can not accept critical comments or even honest discussion that represents another point of view.

But, like pacifism itself, this absolutist interpretation of the right to life found no echo at the time among Catholic theologians, who accepted the death penalty as consonant with Scripture, tradition, and the natural law.

I found as many Presbyterians who didn't accept Calvinism as I did Methodists who did, so I survived in the local church during those years.

That Israel possesses a right to the land can not be doubted by those who accept the reality and trustworthiness of the God whose Word is found in the scriptures.

I find it difficult to accept that christians who say I believe but behave contary to that beleif get to heaven.

It is as if there is almost three tiers of religion M. Scott Peck speaks about this in some of his writings, the bottom tier are those who blindly accept, the middle level is composed of those who came to reject the things they accepted blindly, and the final tier of enlightenment is those who have gone through all the hard questions, accepting nothing blindly, yet eventually find God.

Lawrence K. Frank emphasizes the growth aspect: «Healthy personalities are to be viewed as individuals who continue to grow, develop, and mature, accepting the requirements and opportunities of each successive stage of life... and finding the fulfillment they offer.»

The fact may be explained by saying that everything goes back to, or rests upon, the Gospel of Mark; but I think we can not assume that this Gospel would have been accepted if upon any major point its general outline had been found to be faulty or inaccurate by those who were in touch with the primitive tradition handed down in the churches in Palestine.

Before I state it, however, I must say that there is no reason why the more traditional position, both about life beyond death as a subjective (and hence personal) reality for each of us and also with respect to the traditional portrayal of the «last things» (including an intermediate state), may not be accepted by those who find it compelling.

I find the arguments of some who reject unconditional election a bit confusing when it's said that we all need prevenient grace, but God simply knows who will accept prevenient grace.

It will not be found surprising then by those who accept that, if the ages after Christ also fit into the perspective of Christian and ecclesiastical salvation, even though they do not yet belong to the Church in the tangible sociological sense.

If the findings of those who study animal behavior are to be accepted, power is an indispensable element in the preservation of the group life of the species in the animal world.

Now I find it odd that it is some of our more Evangelical Baptists who are open and accepting — primarily, it seems to me, because of their agreement on ethical issues, particularly abortion.

In those communities there are «rules,» like the famous one devised by St. Benedict and still in force in the religious order he founded, This rule allows for considerable diversity yet establishes a remarkable unity among those who accept it.

That calling is typically found by godly men who accept it with great intentionality.

God accepts whatever we bring to the God / person relationship — our physical and spiritual condition, personality, connection to reality, our participation in relationships, talents, inabilities, cognition, knowledge, ignorance, life journey, spiritual journey, walk about, wandering, seeking, questioning, questing, acceptance of God, rejection of God — and our emotional and mental status: hate / love, anger / peace, sadness / happiness, hurt / health, feeling lost and abandoned / feeling found and included, agitation / serenity, apathy / passion, confusion / clarity, fractures / wholeness — all of this, all of whoever we are and have ever been and every action committed or ever contemplated and every thought we ever explored or entertained or that flitted through our mind — all of this, we bring to the God / person relationship and God accepts the totality of who we are and every component that comprises who we are — as a gift.

When you say, ``... you find it difficult to reconcile this with people who accept or even celebrate that sin,» you imply that same - sex love is sinful.

In other words, the message of messianic pacifism finds a ready home in those who have already accepted certain beliefs of a liberal — humanistic persuasion (e.g., that the use of force is out of step with the moral and spiritual progress of humanity).

It would seem then that the only way to purify our concepts of God of the false authoritarianism which can only sanction a suppression of our natural love of personal freedom, is to accept without reservation the image of the defenseless (but by virtue of that quality, radically powerful and creative) God who withdraws any intrusive presence and thereby opens up the future in which alone human freedom can dwell and find nourishment.

At the same time, the horror of hell, as real deprivation on the part of those who were loveless, because they could not love nor accept love, finds its parallel in the state of lovelessness and hence of utter despair, concerning which this psychology has so much to say.

If you find someone trying to find their way back home, the natural thing to do is to be warm welcoming, open your arms and say «Brother, we accept you for who you are and what you're going through.

Of course, if you want to persuade your fellow citizens who don't accept your religious reasons to adopt some policy that you favor, you will have to try to find some reasons that they find compelling.

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.

It offends me when religious people try to «save» me based on their determination of why they think I need to be «saved», but I think I find it even more offensive that any myth, fairy tale, delusion, or what - have - you can be completely accepted in this society, but the ones who are considered «off» are the ones like me who find religious beliefs absurd.