Sentences with phrase «who view books»

Amazon has lovingly designed and crafted the Kindle Oasis to appeal to the sort of people who view books as something worth cherishing.

Not exact matches

Bestselling author David Bach, who is releasing an updated version of his hit book «The Automatic Millionaire» this December, calls such views «ridiculous» and argues that homeownership is a timeless principle of building wealth that, while boring, still works.

No one knows who wrote the bible, but it was compiled by men who included what books supported their views, then discarded the rest.

There is widespread agreement with the view presented in the article on homosexuality in Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics (edited by Carl F. Henry [Baker Book House, 1973]-RRB-, which declares that «those who base their faith on the OT and NT documents can not doubt that their strong prohibitions of homosexual behavior make homosexuality a direct transgression of God's law.»

In his fair and generally sympathetic review of my book Bergson and Modern Physics, David Sipfle raised some important and significant questions which clearly show how extremely complex the questions concerning the nature of time are and how difficult it is to agree on their solutions even for those who share a basic philosophical view.

It is christians who are out attempting to impose their views (ie: denial of gay rights b / c their book apparently says so; denial of women's rights; using the threat of hell; teaching dis - proven creationism to innocent children) on the public.

Readers of Last Testament may wonder, however, what in this fourth of Seewald's book - length interviews with the man who became Benedict XVI is going to change the views of a world media locked into its own certainties and «narratives», much less the views of Ratzinger's longtime Catholic critics.

However, I still read books and articles by Calvinists and those who disagree with my views.

I have friends who were genuinely concerned with the message in Rob Bell's new book, and expressed their heartfelt views with thoughtful eloquence.

And the book also offers a deliberately wide array of approaches to trinitarian issues, including not only historical and systematic theologians, but biblical scholars and analytic philosophers of religion, writing from a variety of theological and communal points of view» Roman Catholic, Protestant, and, in one case, Jewish (the New Testament scholar Alan Segal, who contributes an instructive if somewhat technical chapter on the role of conflicts between Jews and Christians in the emergence of early trinitarian teaching).

You who treat the Crown of Writings As you treat no other book — Just a paragraph disjointed, Just a crude, impatient look — Try a worthier procedure, Try a broad and steady view; You will kneel in very rapture When you read the Bible through.

To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document.

In their view, books stressing contingency «offer a way forward, beyond the «old political history» and the new «social and cultural history» by a reunion of process and event,» In other words, what Individual people did — perhaps especially people who filled leading public posts — may be as genuinely significant as the ordinary forces acting upon ordinary people.

One of the chief proponents of this view is Bruce D. Marshall (St. Olaf College), who in several essays and in his recent book Trinity and Truth maintains that theology must return to the rich trinitarian theism of Thomas Aquinas to get its bearings.

The group of Christians who answer «No» to every question above have a view about the Book of Revelation called «Preterism.»

«44 This statement exhibits an mischaracterization of Bergson so extreme it defies words; if ever there was a more persistent opponent of Descartes» conception of natural science than Bergson, I do not know who it might be — with the possible exception of Bergson's process blood brothers — Peirce, Dewey, James, Whitehead and Hartshorne.45 In Lowe's defense it might be said that the eight or ten books that do the most to establish just how non-Cartesian, and indeed revolutionary Bergson's view of science was were all published after Understanding Whitehead.

«For the most part, popes had been viewed as old Italian guys in white sitting on some gilded baroque throne in Rome,» says David Gibson, who has authored multiple books on the papacy.

Near the end of the book, he explores the puzzle of a virtuoso violinist who loses her abilities to dementia, highlighting on the one hand his reluctance to view the loss of the abilities due to dementia as a loss of dignity, and to view her as more «dignified» than a janitor by virtue of her virtuosic abilities.

To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu - ment.

In his book God's Lesser Glory, Bruce Ware went so far as to describe the open view of God as a God who «hand wringing deity» who «can do nothing more than hope for the best.»

William Kuhns, who is the first Roman Catholic to write a book on Bonhoeffer, stands in substantial agreement with the view of Godsey.39

Trigster: the Book of Mormon was written by dark skinned people, who probably knew nothing of the white supremacy you accuse them of... it does use ancient language, but they were not racist in our terms, the Nephites and Lamanites of the Book of Mormon viewed themselves as «brothers,» they were all one race.

Edgar S. Brightman, who had himself been working for many years on the development of a nontraditional view of God, rejected Hartshorne's panentheism but praised other aspects of his view of God.35 Reinhold Niebuhr wrote a brief but very sympathetic review, 36 and John Bennett claimed that Hartshorne's was perhaps the best hypothesis about God available to contemporary theology.37 D. C. Macintosh found the book «exceptionally penetrating, stimulating, and instructive,» but by accusing Hartshorne of being too rationalistic he touched on what has been one of the major differences between Hartshorne and most other Whiteheadian theologians.38

In the twentieth century, discussion of «political theology» was revived by Carl Schmitt who used the term as the title of a book in 1922.2 In the chapter which also bears this title Schmitt argues for the correspondence in each epoch of the form of social authority and the theological world view.

One common view (which I held for many years) is that there are two books, the Book of Life, which contains the list of everyone who is alive, and the Lamb's Book of Life, which contains the list of everyone who has eternal life in Jesus.

Today a noted Hebrew University scholar, David Flusser, who has a profound knowledge of early Christian literature, in his book Jews and Christians Between Past and Future advocates the view that Judaism and Christianity are «one faith.»

And, honestly, people who view the Bible as «the Good Book» and think it's just about the golden rule or something - well, I'm sure those people tend to be happier than us analytical types - but I think they are taking a lot of verses out of context sometimes too.

They include the «chilling effects» of libel suits, the perennial conflicts between property and access, the three out of four publishers who intervene in news decisions affecting their local markets, the advertisers» freedom to move their money to where their interests are, industry self - regulation in broadcasting and advertising, the backlash against conveying under duress (as in a hostage crisis) points of view that are never aired as directly without duress, the flareups of book banning and censorship of textbooks, the rout of the civil rights movement, the retreat from principles of fairness and equality (even where never implemented), the attack on scientific and humane teaching, the threat of self - appointed media watchdogs to also spy on teachers in the classroom, and the general vigor of ancient orthodoxies masquarading as neo-this and neo-that.

While the reader may wonder how effectively the book will serve to dispel the stereotypical view of American evangelicalism, at the very least it illustrates the diversity of the movement and so should serve to calm those who worry that evangelicals stand poised to reconquer American culture.

Anyway, despite all the confusion about pre-millenialism, a-millenialism, post-millenialism, the recent invention of the rapture, Paul's confusing statement about «we who remain», the entire book of Revelation not appearing to be written by John because of the Greek used, and the odd way in which eschatological views seem to change in the New Testament Pauline letters, and the bizarrely easy way people like Thessalonians became convinced Christ had already returned in their time, and all the other confusing things about New Testament prophecy — the truth is that it is all trustworthy and you should not question this.

The groups have «renamed the category formerly known as «Bible Antagonists» as «Bible Skeptics,» and now define the category as people who «selected the most negative or non-sacred view of the Bible from five options, saying they believe the Bible is just another book of teachings written by men, containing stories and advice.»

Deservedly celebrated is Frederick Crews of the University of California who, in the New York Review of Books and in his book Skeptical Engagements, has been smiting Freudians hip and thigh, no doubt putting many psychoanalysts back on the couch to dream of the days when their declining business was viewed as a science.

In view of the fact that there are many who would have discarded this book, are there any reasons why we must strenuously refuse to let it go?

The bible is not just a book nor a story, it is a book of overall opinion of various people about God, their view of (there in the Bible people who compared God to a mother), their history, their feelings and own method of worship God (like David).

I know authors who are afraid to share their egalitarian views on their blogs because they might lose their book contracts.

Those who view sex as a god criticize our book because it doesn't go far enough for them.

Those who view sex as gross criticize our book because we speak too openly and frankly about sex for their taste.

Another book which seeks to present Buddhism from the point of view of the Buddhists is The Path of the Buddha, edited by Kenneth W. Morgan and written by eleven Buddhist scholars, three Theravada and eight Mahayana, who were recommended by Buddhists as the religious leaders best able to speak for them.

To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc — ument.

The latter might be the first book to read since it gives a Western view of Tibet by an Austrian who lived there after escaping from a prisoner - of - war camp in India.

You probably don't even know anything about how the Bible was compiled, who write it, who decided what books to include and what to exclude and the criteria they used, yet you base your entire view of life, death and the Universe on it.

Those of us who are conservative are serious about our faith, our views of God, our views of our Holy Books and we are not going to compromise them for the sake of «getting along» because we have an eternal and truth paradigm view of God.

What he opposes most stridently in this book is not religious doubt itself or attempts to understand religion as a human construct or a biological phenomenon, but rather what he sees as a very artificial and incomplete view of human nature and its purpose: the very presumption that religion can be explained away as unnecessary and that such materialistic perspectives could be definitive or anywhere near ultimately satisfactory for beings who are obviously designed to crave so much more than mere birth, death, and extinction.

The point is simply that this imaginative book has been produced by a self - selected body of scholars who hold a set of unconventional views about Jesus and the gospels.

it is a shame that many plp think so little of our faith... they do no understand what is like to be a true christian... and no not one of those plp who say im a christian and go to church from sunday to sunday, not one of the fanatics who advocate hate, not a bigot who proclaim god's name without understanding... this life is a journey to find something greater than spiritual awareness... it is a journey to see the world the way god does, it is a journey beyond any book, any view... that is why i belive in my faith... im a christian and i love my god but im not the one who follows faith blindly and question every thing

And his book he calls charismatics his friends it is opening speech he said there are charismatics who have and orthodox view of the Gospel.

For the not so young, for those who already have an established way of life, the book is still likely to reveal some very useful ways in which patterns of family life and behaviour might be addressed, with a view to all members of the family attaining to sanctity of life and eternity with God.

It's interesting that Driscoll writes a piece about how others are criticizing his book — as he is one of the most vocal critics of others who don't fall into his view of how he thinks people should act and be.

Pentecost Christians who are described in the book of Acts worshiped wholeheartedly in the public celebrations at the temple, even though they were a sect of Judaism whose views were at some variance.

To lecture me that some book written two thousand years ago says it's wrong, shows that it's not me who has the distorted world - view.