Sentences with phrase «with accepted views»

Not exact matches

New Delhi has questioned if China would accept an identical situation in Tibet or Taiwan, or if this is a new phase in Chinese policy with China accepting Pakistan's claims as opposed to the previous stance of viewing Kashmir as disputed territory.

This consolidated measure is not determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP) and should not be viewed as a substitute for the most directly comparable GAAP measure, shareholders» net income.

«Some RIAs I work with focus on mid - and large - market 401 (k) plans; they won't accept rollovers, they view it as a conflict of interest and will flat out not handle rollovers.»

The Localist parties also steer independent of the pro-establishment and pan-democracy camps, but unlike the Centrist parties — which accept negotiations with Beijing — the Localists view the policies of the Chinese central government as an encroachment on Hong Kong's autonomy.

Giving three extra seats on the board to the CEO was certainly founder friendly; that the expansion happened at the same time Uber accepted a $ 3.5 billion investment from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which came with a board seat, suggests Benchmark viewed the board expansion as a way to protect its own interests and influence as well.

Yet, even with yields hovering around 3 % for the first time since 2013, investors should not be so quick to accept the bearish consensus view.

The non-GAAP financial measures provided should be viewed in addition to, and not as an alternative for, results prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America («GAAP») that are presented in this press release.

The non-GAAP financial measures provided should be viewed in addition to, and not as an alternative for, financial measures prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America («GAAP») that are presented in this press release.

I chatted with Neelima at La Porca about why she made the decision to accept bitcoin and her... View Article

You accept only your view and theory but when someone with a different view comes along then all of a sudden you are not as accepting!

Largely I would echo what Christine has already said about the way in which we feel accepted within our community, but if you'll bear with me for a little bit, I'd like to attempt to explain to Trey in particular what I see as the difference between this type of acceptance and the attitude of the many Christians who view homosexuality as sinful such as what you have encountered with your sister.

Accepting this fallibility not only makes it easier to respect a view you disagree with, but to have understanding and compassion for the person with the opposing view, since you recognized that we all make mistakes.

I believe those with differing views also feel accepted, and do not feel ostracized or accused of intolerance for their beliefs.

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!»

All I can offer is an attempt to tolerate and accept your differing views as I would want you to do with mine.

Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it.

So for me personally, since I accepted the view without question, I defended it with zeal perceiving any challenge to it as an attack on the church, the moral fabric of my country, and on God Himself.

Figures showed 61 per cent of Christians agree with ideas rooted in New Spirituality, a little more than half resonate with postmodernist views, 36 per cent accept views associated with Marxism and a third believe ideas based on secularism.

Preliminary questionnaires designed to gauge their significance, popularity, and influence produce inaccurate results, because respondents to these questionnaires prefer to voice «commonly accepted» points of view that may not coincide with what they believe.

For the faithful in Christ can not accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teach about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own» -LCB- Humani Generis 37).

New readings are offered in place of conventional or accepted ones, not with the view that they necessarily correspond more adequately to the reality in question in toto, but that they are a discovery / creation of some aspect of that reality overlooked in other readings, or one especially pertinent to the times, etc..

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.

If this positive view of celibacy is conveyed, «then we shall see the most distinguished among the younger generation fired up with the inspiration to feed the flock of God... and their deep hearts will grasp the whole idea of the Church and accept it into themselves as a living power» (p73).

He or she might agree with some of the Bible's teachings if those things line up with his view of life, but he or she doesn't accept anything just because «it's in the Bible.»

It might be argued that the failure of thinkers to accept the data as they really are has been due to special factors such as their preoccupation with forms or essences and that common people have always viewed things as finite existents.

Until we can at least accept that those with differing views mean to be sincere and we are willing to consider their views, not dismiss them before they are even presented, I can't see how we can have a fruitful discussion.

This view accepts that humans share ancestry with all other forms of life, and that our species arose as a population, not through a single primal pair.

For a Whiteheadian and indeed for any process - thinker, any claim for the uniqueness of Jesus and any notion of his «finality» would require careful re-statement if they are to be accepted; they would need to be brought into congruity with the general line of thought appropriate to such a view of the world as the evolutionary and societal interpretation would provide.

In that case, the generalization began with the accepted scientific view regarding the electromagnetic field of activity pervading space and time, and rose beyond the limits of that physical theory to posit the ontological framework which the theory itself presupposes.

The Basingers» conclusion «that even when starting with classical premises one still ends up with process - like conclusions concerning divine power» (PS 11:23) would seem to apply even more thoroughly than they realized, for it would seem that the classical theist would have to accept the view that God can not create without limiting his power.2

But you must accept this view that the phenomena are irreducible if you are to go along with Bohr.

It is, however, basically compatible with a Whiteheadian world view, in my judgment, provided that one accepts a key point on which I differ, if not from Whitehead, at least from some Whiteheadians.

But Hartshorne, as his career progressed became less and less willing to use the term monad,» and he accepted Fechner's distinction between the two types of panpsychism (or «psychicalism,» as Hartshorne came to prefer): the «monadic,» which he associates with Leibniz and rejects, and the «synechological» which he associates with Fechner's view and is willing to accept with some qualifications.

Having settled into a comfort zone where I acknowledge my belief that one one in our lifetime is going to answer this question, I have chosen to live life accepting of others» views, even if I disagree with them.

While these scientific ideas, insofar as they are accepted as true, disprove false metaphysical views, they can not prove process theology's view, but they can show that all the known empirical evidence is consistent with it.

I suppose that if supporting my arguments with what I consider to be reliable evidence is the limitation of ideas in your view, then I'm willing to accept that.

For better or worse, one accepts or rejects views of this sort in a more immediate engagement, I will not say with experience but with the facts of reason - involved - with - experience.

Then in my view if they do nt accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour then they do nt receive eternal life with Him.

After relating his personal experience with homosexuals in counseling and after analyzing the contemporary movement toward gay liberation, Williams devotes successive chapters to a discussion of four social scientists» views of homosexuality, to an analysis of the Biblical teaching, and finally to a presentation of the positions of three representative theologians - Barth (traditional), Thielicke (moderating), and McNeill (accepting).

I also noticed that your moderator tend to agree more with the liberal views only... which means he accept contents that are inline with the liberal views.

For me, this isa typical example of «parasitic exegesis» - you live off the tradition, but undermine it with your views, and don't accept responsibility for the full logical consequences of those views.

but I just can't accept the Church's view on sex / condoms / homosexuality [«it usually seems to be something to do with sex!]

Having stated his thesis that one must begin with Whitehead's diagnosis, Rorty quotes him as follows: «The difficulties of all schools of modern philosophy lie in the fact that having accepted the subjectivist principle, they continue to use philosophical categories derived from another point of view» (PR 253; WEP 134; italics mine).

It questions your world view which, incidentally, is too flimsy and weak to accept a coexistence with any other.

Values must be defended by appealing to other more fundamental values and beliefs that are also yours (perhaps you will refer to the Bible or the Qur «an or some other sacred text) which are not going to be accepted by those who have basic disagreements with your point of view in the first place.

Identification with accepted social standards is a moralistic view of sin.

He had consulted with the older counselors, who apparently retained some sense of political realities, if not actual memory of events in the reign of David; but he accepted the view of the young fellows of the court, his boon companions reared, like himself, in the diseased artificiality of the harem - infested court and doubtless for long anticipating the day when with his enthronement they should do as they pleased.

Are there instances where ND has worked with churches to move them toward viewing gay sex as accepted by God, or to have partnered gay Christians ordained?

In spite of it being the older, mainstream view of most churches, I'll admit to being frustrated at times with the apparent control issues of folks who accept gay people, but not gay relationships.

With the evolutionary view and distinction, we are able to accept the biological definition of man as a «rational animal.»