Sentences with phrase «then only reason»

Since FF games have no fantasy elements anymore, then the only reason to use the name is for name recognition, like Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, Final Fantasy Explorers, Ultimate Spider - Man, etc..

If the home doesn't have to go through probate then the only reason why it would take two months is because of the turn times of the lender.

If you gave the customer what he or she wanted, then the only reason to return to book is if the quality takes a major turn for the worse.

If Kroenke is not an Arsenal or football fan, then the only reason for him to purchase Arsenal is because he sees Arsenal as a profitable business.

Not exact matches

After all, if the only reason people started their own businesses was solely to make money, then entrepreneurs would only launch businesses in proven profit sectors, rather than creative industries or even restaurants.

According a personal account detailing her reasons for joining, a then 21 - year - old Arthur said she «heard... that enlistments for women in the Marines were open, so decided the only thing to do was to join.»

According to a personal account detailing her reasons for joining, a then 21 - year - old Arthur said she «heard... that enlistments for women in the Marines were open, so decided the only thing to do was to join.»

Severability If any provision of these Terms is deemed unlawful, void, or for any reason unenforceable, then that provision will be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable, and it will be deemed severable from these Terms and will not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions.

Whatever the reason, if you are emotionally debt adverse, then it makes sense for you to aggressively pay down your debt, even if it's financially prudent to pay only the minimum.

If we need to write more songs or design more light shows only to amuse ourselves and keep us focused (nothing wrong with doing those things; I'm pointing to the reason for doing them), then we have not yet understood that a worship tradition — a worship routine, if you will — is how we reinforce our worship desire.

When it is proven to exist, I might have reason to worry until then it is only your and your ilks absurd opinion based on absolutely no substantial evidence.

if your only answer is «well, its my belief» then there is no hope, because by that reasoning ANYTHING can be claimed to be real, and that's no way to have a society.

Now according to Dolt you are wrong... he has his wagon hitched to a religious only reason... then again there was his «undeniable» while at the same time being «difficult to break down».

If God is present in things in living ways, then no / less reason to pound on other brothers and sisters... sometimes seems the criticisms are only because God isn't present in our meeting either.

If believing historians can simply declare some event to be an exception to the usual modes of historical reasoning and then make up rules that apply only to that alleged exception, how can this strategy be limited to Christians?

If, as many seem to think, neo-Darwinism serves as a valid «design - defeating hypothesis» at the level of human reason but is rescued from any ultimately improper conclusions only by the intervention of theology, then it seems that my expansive definition is fully vindicated.

If saving faith is contingent upon belief only, then there would be no reason for the existence of verses that reference «the obedience of faith» (Rom 1:5; 16:26) and «faith working through love» (Gal 5:6).

If only those who are exposed to the gospel and express explicit faith in Jesus Christ receive salvation, I reasoned, then that would mean the majority of the human race is damned to hell simply for being born at the wrong place and the wrong time.

Only then can we attempt a reconstruction appropriate both to our faith and to our reason that will give us a way to explain Jesus» centrality.

So then perhaps it is no poem, or at any rate not one for which any human being is responsible, nor yet mankind; ah, now I understand you, it was for this reason you called my procedure the most wretched act of plagiarism, because I did not steal from any individual, nor from the race, but from the God or, as it were, stole the God away, and though I am only an individual man, aye, even a wretched thief, blasphemously pretended to be the God.

Only then can we rediscover, as a matter of reason, the truth of the human being, the truth of freedom, and the truth of truth itself.

The other says: Wait and see; reason will be able to answer everything; you will then be convinced that there is no God, that there is only man.

Moreover, if liberalism is indeed absolute, so that there is no longer any outside, then a contest of rights is really the only ground on which liberal public reason will permit itself to be publicly engaged.

You know that if the only reason you will but one thing is that by this, and by this alone, you will be set free from suffering, then you do not genuinely will but one thing.

If the issue is with my absolute use of «God disagrees...», then I'd appeal to reason and say that this is a Christian blog; for a Christian to proclaim what God does and doesn't approve of should not only be accepted but expected.

If evolution is the only thing providing any kind of purpose or direction to the development of our capacities, then our ability to reason has only been placed in us because it helps us to survive and multiply.

If we hate only our enemies then certainly we do not hate disinterestedly, but for self - centered and illegitimate reasons.

Accordingly, if every being or entity is a potentiality for process and if an occasion is a potentiality for process only when it is a superject, we can then conclude that when Whitehead says that an actual occasion has become a being and is, for that reason, a potentiality for processes of becoming, he means that the occasion has become a superject.

If that truly reflective state of mind was brought into a conversation with out «neighbors» then, and only then, as I see it, will we put aside the «rationalization» and begin to «reason» toward solutions.

They then must use prudential reasoning to decide whether even a justified use of force would produce more good than harm, would have a reasonable hope of success, and would be the only course likely to be effective in achieving the justified ends.

If one doesn't believe in the big bang, then not only is there no reason to suspect that the CMB exists, or that it is polarised, but certainly not that the way the polarisation averages on particular angular scales should look like that.»

Because if not, then you can be very glad that there are scholars and pastors who study and research Greek and Hebrew, because they are the only reason you are able to read a Bible in English so that you can supposedly believe what it «plainly means.»

Only then can our doctrine make sense and our reasoning be faithful.

The reason this verse is so critical is because it is the only verse in the Bible which specifically speaks of the inspiration of Scripture, and if we have misunderstood the verse, then we have misunderstood inspiration.

I suspect that there is, if not a way out, then at least a temporary respite grounded in the observation that the only reason why marriage is even palatable to disordered moderns is that the meaning of marriage has already been twisted beyond recognition.

Any religion that teaches hate of anything but what God hates such as fornication idolotry or murder is not a true Christian there is only one Christian faith that has never been accused of doing nothing but teach people the bible going door to door but this is why people ridicule them for doing what the bible says they do nt charge for their material they do nt have communions they do nt pay their members for 2 years or send them to a college for doing so they do nt pay the speakers like other churches and they do nt hate anyone based on any reason they only give them bible knowledge then once they know the knowledge its their choice what to do with it.

Perhaps the reason then, that elements of the film feel so familiar is that it not only retraces the franchise's lineage, but our own.

For if the ascetic way of life was the only reason for which Jesus came into the world, then only those who are ready to follow this rigorous way in «his fellowship in incorruption» and «the form of a new person» constitute the church.

(Maybe not... based on your ramblings I guess I should not take that for granted) But for some reason you have chosen to accept the revelation of science only up to a specific point in history and then no more.

The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubt and then to ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it.

@Mike, not me «The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubt and then to ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it.»

I thought I couldn't be forgiven anymore and I reasoned that if Jesus said there was a sin that couldn't be forgiven then the only way to find out of I was forgiven would be to know what that sin was and to see i hadn't committed it.

Common sense, if Jesus suffered what no one will never suffer then He has proven to humanity that it can be done and that He was willing to sacrifice himself in flesh, He did it to prove that he loves us more than anything and love is the only reason to exist.

If you're only reasoning or defense for why something is right or wrong is begins with «the Bible / Qur «an says...» or «Jesus / Muhammed said...» then perhaps you need to do a bit more souls searching and critical thinking for yourself.

If one insists he only acts on reason, then we must put into account that it's human reason he is using, therefore his reasoning can be faulterd, being he is useing human reason, which we all know can be incorrect.

Unlike Hegel and Nietzsche then (and the general traditions which each may be seen to represent) Whitehead's general account of the relationship between mind and nature not only acknowledges the role of nature as a condition of mind (as the general theory of evolution demands), but it also recognizes the place of mind (or reason) in nature.

If the only reason you can't believe in God is based in the fact that you're all offended that the universe isn't all puppies and rainbows, then you didn't understand the contents of the Bible or its intended lessons and you just instead subscribe to New Age feel - good modern church cultures.

But if this is asserted and if we do not wish to think of the orientation of the development by God as a series of arbitrary measures taken by him and as giving impetus to the development from outside (a way of representing the matter which is absurd in fact and method, for all kinds of reasons), then this orientation can only be conceived as happening precisely through, and out of, 11 the of course ultimately divinely - created reality of what Is itself developing in that way.

Idealism will not admit, however, that man transcends his reason; consequently, it equates the individual self with the «Absolute» and loses individuality in the universal spirit.11 The self then becomes only an aspect of the universal mind, the cosmic reason.

Some wise individual back then added it, because they knew the only reason for you to keep your religion would be out of fear, and that's how it spread so swiftly.