Sentences with phrase «wrong way of thinking»

Although, this is a wrong way of thinking.

But this is a completely wrong way of thinking.

«That's the wrong way of thinking,» said Roosegaarde.

The article had significant reach, and having trained equity and credit analysts across three continents through the course of my career, I know that instructing investors on how to «unlearn'the wrong ways of thinking about things is a lot harder than molding a fresh thinker into a great investment professional.

Not exact matches

The point is, it doesn't matter if it's Apple or Google — it's wrong to disparage a company just because it thought of a better way to do something that somebody else did before.

«The moment it becomes economic — like it did in the case of Magna — where that large shareholder was using it as a way to facilitate greater payments and economic value to themselves, that's when I think it's disgustingly wrong,» Seif says.

But he's wrong if he thinks the tone, volume, or nature of that coverage isn't having an impact on the profile Trump has and the way he is seen by TV audiences.

This burst of candor may strike the reader as disarming or annoying, but either way, by the standards of the countless books that offer business or self - help advice, it's startling: The whole premise of such titles is that you know very little, and whatever you think you know is dead wrong.

Sixty percent think the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction, though a majority of Republicans — 67 percent — think it's headed the right way.

After reading the book, I realized the way I was thinking of sales was all wrong.

But I believe this is the wrong way to think of it.

Cayton's approach — he has lived in Nepal and melds Eastern and Western schools of thought — also rubbed her the wrong way.

While there is no right or wrong when it comes to content creation and sharing, I'd say that a loose guideline may be helpful as a way to think about the various uses of social networks.

There's absolutely no worth in defending yourself when you're wrong, and you have everything to gain by offering the olive branch of «you know, I never thought of it that way!

Second there are plenty of people who come to their faith as it were through something more than bible verses its called critical thinking people can critically think their way to the idea that they are rather small beings in a relatively huge universe and that they realize that they can't know everything and leave some things including the nature of the universe to faith and acknowledge it as faith if that's how they see the world fine is there anything particularly wrong with that?

All of these things that «reason» says are wrong, which is why we should do what Galileo did, and see how the world REALLY works, rather than the way Aristotle approached it, which was to simply think about how things SHOULD work.

I think this guy is suing because he lost his job... not because those around him do not believe the way he does... you are kind of making a good point just for the wrong side.

I'm a little confused why you think this is a «lighthearted» way of addressing pastors you think are in the wrong... but that's ok.

You can't «believe in» God because you don't know for sure whether God exist (by most religious people's own admission, I think, though I coud be wrong, but either way its a fact that the existence of God has not been proven).

«I think in many ways the changes as I see it would be a good thing and would ease some of the pressures on doctors, but I'm afraid they've just got off on the wrong foot and it's just got worse and worse.»

If you think the wrong way, we will attack you for it, instead of tolerating you and letting you enjoy freedom of conscience.»

By the way, if you think there is no scientific evidence for the origin of love (as apposed to similar emotions, like lust), you're wrong.

and I think it also wrong that you who do not believe «trash» the way some of you do on my God whom I know and love, the God who changed my world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that we all ought to be carbon copies of one another but fundamentally I think we want to say that there is ONE PARTICULAR way to be fully human and fully alive and that ONE PARTICULAR way is unique to Jesus, not unique to us.

But I suppose that, to a religious person who's been indoctrinated to believe their ideology is the only true one and has been brainwashed into thinking that it's their obligation to «save» others by bringing them into their way of thinking, somebody standing up to that might seem like that person is pushing their beliefs on them, but they'd still be wrong.

A lot of what religion does is get you to fall into line with their way of thinking and anyone outside of that is wrong.

Personally i think those specific prayers are a distraction most of the times we pray these prayers because its what we think we need and often thats not the case.The better way is to just trust the holy spirit let him lead i think we miss the awesomeness of doing it Gods way its easy not difficult.The struggle is difficult when we are walking by the flesh and trying to do it our way.When i got to the point where i said to the God i am not going to do it my way anymore and i submit to you because know whats best for me.Change me and when i feel the wrong desires or temptation to walk by the flesh i just say Lord you know i am weak and i can not live a christian life without you help me.As soon as i do that it is effortless theres no struggle thats how we should grow.I am excited with what God is doing in my life he has opened his word i am seeing the fruit of his life impacting mine and i am changing day by day.I am walking by faith and not slipping back into my old desires i know what it means to be an overcomer sin does not have dominion over me anymore.In myself i can not boast because it is the power of God at work in my life and i give all the praise back to God.brentnz

As I continued to puzzle in various Christmas morning pews, I still sensed something wrong in this way of thinking about the Word made flesh.

I guess I feel the same way about a liberal agenda that say that to get out of debt we have to spend more, or that my tax dollars have to pay for something I think is morally wrong (Obamacare sets up a fund to pay for late term abortions) or a government that confiscates kids lunches, or tells me how much soda I can drink, or uses my tax money to choose winners and losers (mostly losers but Obma doners) in energy production that produces no energy yet we are sitting on more coal and oil than any other nation on the planet.

It may be evidence of something wrong with the way our mind works, but we almost thought we detected a ricochet of John Paul II's 1991 encyclical, Redemptoris Missio, in Mr. Cox's reflection.

This discussion seems to have moved from a discussion on 1 Corinthians 9 (which could be used in a wrong way) to the issue of whether those lead a church should be paid so I offer the above thoughts to restore some balance.

But — if I do happen to be distracted by her lovely form, I do not feel the slightest bit of guilt... because I now know that what I am thinking is not «sinful» or wrong in any way.

That is, all the wrong ways people have of thinking about church center on something other than Jesus (buildings, times, groups).

Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to do these things let alone live and do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,

I can't help but think of Matthew Scully, who put it this way, «Justice is not some finite commodity, nor are kindness and love... a wrong is a wrong, and often the little ones, when they are shrugged off as nothing, spread and do the gravest harm to ourselves and others.»

Science gets better, and what we thought now is not likely to be shown entirely wrong tomorrow... it might be shown wrong, but in a minor way, needing a more intricate correction rather than a total earth shattering removal of what we believe.

I think that maybe you shift your view of masculinity or affection because there is nothing wrong with expressing your love for God in this way.

The number of ways that is wrong, combined with the number of people who think it is ok, is scary.

I think the worst of it is, I mostly saw it as something wrong with me, or just feelings of confusion as to why others weren't the same way.

I would find it laughable if it weren't so disgusting that so many so - called «Christians» go out of their way to demonize gays, and incite violence and discrimination against gays, and yet when someone turns around and calls them bigots or explains why they think the «Christian» position is wrong, then they moan about how horribly they are being oppressed and discriminated against.

We could go book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse through the Bible in such a way, seeing that it is an accurate, truthful, and inerrant record of what people thought, even though they might actually have been wrong.

People refusing medical treatment because they think they can pray disease away, The demoralizing way religion makes you feel about yourself (I am a wretch, a sinner, a bad person by nature), the religious wars that have been fought for millenia, the self righteous passing laws based on THEIR beliefs (change to the pledge of allegience which now excludes anyone who does not believe in a fairy godfather, the change to the national motto that turned it into the lie «in god we trust», the bigotry that «my religion is the right one and you are wrong so I'll pray for you» kind of crap... don't you realize that it is insulting to me when someone says they will pray for me... its the same as saying I'm going to do something for you but there won't be any effect, so it is just a waste of time.

Part of the reason why we ordinarily think this way is that we want to get on with life and can't be preoccupied by what might go wrong.

I believe this is so wrong those people who cheat should go to hell and those people who stay faithful but love have fade they have the right to divorce is good not the other way around so your saying cheating is okay so many people do suicide cause of cheating but divorce is bad / divorce to save your partner from getting cheated from you I think god on this is so wrong and should send them straight to hell cause they are going to continue to cheat and divorce people should be forgiven cause they didn't hurt no body and nobody did suicide

My approach shows what is wrong with Locke's flight of fancy that an unstructured material body might think, or Kenny's suggestion that our ways of speaking are compatible with our heads being full of sawdust, so that indeed bodily function is internal to normal mental function (pp. 336 - 339), so that thought and understanding while integrated with the imagination nonetheless transcend it, and transcend the body.

Less persuasive, to me at least, is the claim that this probably continued until 1931, the year in which Lewis converted to Christianity (and would now think a relation with a married woman to be wrong) Wilson's way of making this point is, however, an instance of a very undesirable trait in his writing: the tendency to assert indirectly and to be glib while seeming to eschew it: «It would be far too glib to suggest that he consciously made the second change, to adopt Christianity, merely to give himself an excuse to abandon sexual relations with Mrs. Moore, whatever the nature of those relations had been.»

The problem this author advocates is that of thinking anyone has the ONE COMPLETE TRUE WAY - and everything and everyone else therefore NOT advocating it completely must be wrong.

(When you think about it that way it may not seem so surprising that such a search should lead to the Golden Rule and universal principles of right and wrong applying to everyone, like the Commandments — though the steps involved in getting to these results are by no means trivial.)

the truth of biblical religion is pure and not the problem»... I envy yr faith... human artifacts, especially religious narratives are rarely as pure as you might suggest... at best, I think the scriptures shld be a means and not an end, so in that sense need not be pure... they are merely signposts along the way... ultimately, we are the judges of what is pure or impure, higher or lower, right or wrong

We took occasion to note that Amos» thought of the universality of God was in some way dependent on his sense of a common human standard of right and wrong.