Sentences with phrase «wrote about this belief»

Secretary of Education DeVos writes about her belief in education.

· Write about your belief: it may sound strange, but many students forget to actually state their belief.

Not exact matches

«Through clever research studies and engaging writing, Dweck illuminates how our beliefs about our capabilities exert tremendous influence on how we learn and which paths we take in life.

«Social norms, which are people's beliefs about what institutions and other people consider acceptable behavior, powerfully influence what people do and don't do,» the pair wrote.

Jonah Lehrer has written about «the brainstorming myth,» or the supposedly misconstrued belief that groupthink produces a higher number of higher quality ideas.

7th US Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor, was questioned intensely about her Catholic faith as a result of past writings expressing her beliefs on whether Catholic judges should recuse themselves from death - penalty cases if they believed they would be unable to impartially uphold the law, writing that — in limited situations — judges should step back in cases that conflict with their personal conscience.

The document's author also wrote that employees with conservative political beliefs are discriminated against at Google and lamented about how «leftist» ideology is harmful.

I do not care one iota if you like what I write or say about your irrational beliefs.

Romanek has also written An Open Letter to All Journalists, challenging widely held beliefs about CEO pay.

I'll write about the bogus «China gold demand» theory again in the future as it's one of the most persistent false beliefs within the bullish camp, but in this post I'm going to quickly deal with another China - related false belief that periodically shifts to the centre of the bullish stage: the idea that China's government is preparing to back the Yuan with gold.

Now, if you want to talk about religious theory, that's a different definition, as religious theory is based on belief and assumption and written statements that can not be verified or proven without having faith and belief.

I guess those who do not believe in God have nothing better to do than spend their time writing negatively about God and those who believe in God in a blog called «belief».

I ask this for three reasons: 1) Warfield begins the chapter with Edward Gibbon's conversion to Catholicism, which was related to Gibbon's belief in the continuation of the miraculous; 2) he spends several pages in the same chapter critiquing another famous convert to Catholicism, John Henry Newman, noting what he sees as Newman's shift toward the miraculous; 3) even though he knows that Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, and Jerome all wrote about saints in which the miraculous was prominent, he still makes the claim that these «saints» lives» follow other Christian romances and thus represent an infusion of Heathenism into the church.

On another note if I make up my own stupid, irrational belief system do I get to write about it on the front page of a «news» site too?

Also, I couldn't quite get this into words as I was writing before, so: I am believe that I am correct in my view of Scripture as it has been handed down to me from teachers, preachers, writers and others; I believe that I am correct in my beliefs about who God is, and about His self - revelation, in the same way that all people believe that the opinions they hold are true.

So - to say that it is not confirmed if he was married or not - means that everything written about him is a make belief.

Finally a well written and concise article about the LDS Church and it's beliefs.

just goes to show — a person can be smart enough to invent the calculus and write lucid books about optics — all the while maintaining delusional religious beliefs.

The stuff I've written on topics like getting to know neighbors and being the church in the community doesn't seem to connect with church people, who usually think church is about sermons, a belief system, music, political causes to be for or against and so on.

• Traditional liberals, writes our friend Robert P. George, have promoted their views as a way that people holding conflicting comprehensive doctrines» «an integrated set of beliefs about the human good, human dignity, and human destiny»» can live together.

This morning I wrote in my journal, «I am so bogged down by the opinions of others that when I wonder about my beliefs about God, I think about what others think I should believe.»

Now, if the material in the gospels has been used and to some extent adapted to the changing needs of the early Christian community and it is written in the light of the belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead, there is room for much difference of opinion about what Jesus actually said and did.

Leonie Caldecott writes in a style and with assumptions that make her offerings interesting and acceptable to people who have been brought up to believe in a market - place idea of religion, that it's «all about choice» and that we need to evaluate belief - systems in the light of our own knowledge and skills, or what we imagine to be our own knowledge and skills.

The kind of things that can lead to churches splitting, people leaving churches, pastors writing condemnatory blogs about the beliefs of other pastors and relationships falling apart.

In my opinion, she was attempting to sincerely write about her experiences as an alcoholic in a group that has an extremely strong belief in «God» or «Higher Power.»

Comments here are not about disparaging «faith» — that's the fundamental of any religion — it's about each religion being «the religion», about the belief that person (or persons) who wrote the books are infallible and that scholars who interpret them do so accurately.

All of a sudden the Jews started believing in YHWH, wrote scrolls about this belief, and you think that this is somehow different than the way the Egyptian, Greek, Chinese, or Norse gods came into being?

Try following this again, it's not about education level it's about belief, the secular argument is that people of that age were not skeptical and that is just not true to think otherwise is «chronological snobbery» > Just cause it's written doesn't mean it's true.

In the meantime, they live in a sort of self - imposed spiritual isolation — never telling people what they really believe about various things, because those are the things they are going to write about in their book, and they are deathly afraid that anyone they share their beliefs with will take them and write their own book about them before they can get THEIR book finished.

If the article above was written by a grown adult about the existence of Santa Claus, and if that argument was essentially based on asserting Santa Claus» existence based on faith and the popularity of the Santa Claus myth, then anyone would be justified in scorning those beliefs, especially when that argument extends to declaring that recent findings confirm the existence of Santa (after all, children are still receiving Christmas gifts).

I'm ready to see the same type of article written about Romney & Mormonism... if you are going to question if a candidate is «the right or wrong» kind of Christian, I believe a great number of the Christian Right would be stunned at some of the practices & beliefs of the Mormon faith.

This is, like most of what Nietzsche wrote, unfair: Eliot was neither a «little bluestocking» nor a «moral fanatic,» and moreover drew almost all of her ideas about how to sustain Christian morality without Christian belief from reading Germans like Strauss and Feuerbach.

In college I joined the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and discovered that some people actually think about their faith and write rather sophisticated arguments defending their beliefs.

Mainly, because in all the verbiage about freedoms of beliefs there is something so important, so blatantly acute yet everyone do not even mention it, except - oh genial me: Why would anyone in the whole world support any type of creed / belief / religion where a whole lot of humans — as in millions of human women — are not allowed to go to school, to even just read and write - less become a teacher, doctor, lawyer, president of their own companies, their own countries, mutilated by the millions when they reach puberty, WHY is this allowed?

Last week I wrote a post for the CNN Belief Blog about millennials and the Church focusing on how church leaders hoping to win twenty - somethings over with coffee shops and concerts may want to go a little deeper and consider substance over style.

In a similar vein, though with much stronger words, the Calvinistic author Spencer writes this regarding his belief about what Jesus is saying:

As a strong Catholic who is of service to the community on a regular basis, loves the faith, respects other's rights to have their faiths as well, and — yes — has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I would love to see CNN's belief blog write a story about the positive of the Catholic faith, instead of always reading about the people that have left and the problems people have with the Church.

If you want to share your beliefs beyond talking about them they have to be written.

Right, so that in the way you use the term agnostic theist it is to say that that it refelcts your belief about someone being skeptical about those who wrote scripture have any special knowledge of God.

You also wrote that the only poll you pay attention to is the poll you conduct «among» yourself about what your own personal beliefs are.

In order to write a piece about Christian beliefs, you must first, be a Christian!

I wrote an article about millennials and the Church for the CNN Belief Blog today.

I also wrote a piece for the CNN Belief Blog about how, when it comes to church, many millennials desire a change in substance, not just style.

In her lovely chapter on «honoring the body» in Practicing Our Faith, Stephanie Paulsell writes about the deepest Christian beliefs concerning the human body.

I never understand why people want to waste their time writing comments about other peoples» religious beliefs.

Based on how much they've written about it and go on and on about how «fundamental» it is to their belief system, physicists have obviously made a religion of it.

Rodney Stark wrote an amazing book called «The Victory of Reason» where he argued that something like the Enlightenment is only possible in a monotheistic culture where a belief in a Creator leads to a belief in a created order, which in turn leads to the possibility of an orderly set of observations about the world that we today call «Science.»

These can be as simple as the Scandinavian belief in vaettir (nature spirits) or as complex as the poems and songs about the Aesi that were written and are still sung and performed in Iceland.

«This case can not be finally decided without delving into Christian beliefs about baptism, generally, and Presbyterian beliefs, specifically,» Tucker wrote.

So many rant and rave, about what someone has wriitten about their belief in jesus, and others write how foolish it all is.