Sentences with phrase «accepting the arguments of»

Thank you herbert you have reminded me why Christians are so unwilling to accept an argument of logic and reason.

And to accept the arguments of the abolitionist, our great - great - grandparents had to see beyond the «plain meaning» of proof texts like Ephesians 6:1 - 5, Colossians 3:18 - 25; 4:1, and I Timothy 6:1 - 2 and instead be compelled by the general sweep of Scripture toward justice and freedom.

Abbi, I meant that I don't accept the argument of «they turn out fine in the end» for excess crying or anything else.

While the initiative would not see any new money being injected into the system, it tacitly accept the arguments of critics who say the government's deficit reduction programme has no plan for growth.

They appear open to accepting the arguments of scientists and advocates who emphasize the benefits of research.

Also, see my earlier post, if you'll accept the arguments of this non-climatologist.

If one accepts the arguments of Cutler (1975), their potential longevity was about as great as ours, into the 90s perhaps.

Finally, the Court did accept the argument of the Dutch government and the Commission that a time limit should apply.

The court accepted the argument of the UK government that immunity of the Saudi state and its officials from legal action in UK courts, which had been upheld by the House of Lords, did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr. Justice Denny Thomas of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench did not merely accept the arguments of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees when he slapped an injunction on the Government of Alberta yesterday, indefinitely suspending a law that could have forced 22,000 civil servants to live with a contract imposed on them by legislative fiat.

The application judge accepted the argument of the respondent that the application had to be dismissed on the ground that the application was not properly brought under rule 14.05 because the request for a mandatory order was not ancillary to a claim for relief.

«We have been waiting for a long time for a clarification issued by the ECJ relating to the application of the VAT exemption to bitcoin transactions... In my opinion, the most important matter behind this issue is that if the ECJ accepts the arguments of the Advocate General, the VAT exemption would be applicable in the whole European Union, including those countries (Estonia and Poland) which stated the contrary [applied VAT to bitcoin transactions].»

Not exact matches

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice accepted the argument, adding that Linamar was entitled to take reasonable steps to protect its reputation.

Whilst accepting that there is two sides to every argument / position describing climate change as a big hoax and the depiction of a bleak medieval style future is not responsible analysis of the facts.

Regardless of whether courts accept that argument, the tech companies could also face liability under certain state or local anti-discrimination statutes.

Essentially, Stumpf's argument is that he accepts responsibility for the scandal, but that senior executives did not create a culture that encouraged the type of behavior that led to employees opening 2 million false accounts.

«I certainly do not accept the argument that 1 / 8Canada 3/8 should be 15th out of 29 OECD in terms of pay gap between men and women.

Arguments have been made that banks in general often do not face criminal prosecution for violating anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulations, but instead, according to the author of the aforementioned article referred to above,» (accept) settlements that either defer or erase the threat of criminal suits.»

I do not accept the argument that the supposedly narrow focus of an inflation target has contributed to the current conjuncture.

Admittedly, one could make the same argument about gold, but gold has been widely accepted by humankind as a thing of value for more than two - and - a-half thousand years — compared to less than a decade for bitcoin.

Even if we accepted the «kinds» argument where only families were on the ark, not all of the species, it still does not address why there are similarities among families.

Every person of every faith can make the same argument, and by that logic, it means EVERY god that has ever been posited should be accepted because there is no evidence to the contrary.

And, I'm not going to accept arguments like «Look at Barbara Eden, that's proof of heavenly design, look at CarrotTop, that's proof of Hell!»

Ken really exposed the arbitrariness of his arguments when he admitted that he cherry - picks which portions of the Bible he accepts as literal and which he accepts as figurative.

But even if we were to accept the proposition of «guided» evolution, we're left with the question of who designed the designer which only leads to arguments of special pleading... I.e. a dead end.

It is also a matter of political common sense: If you want an argument to be heard, engaged, and accepted, you make it in a language that those you are seeking to persuade can understand.

Russ Bauckham uses the Gospels themselves as internal evidence of their own eyewitness accounts but, if you're willing to accept the Gospels as trustworthy by their own declaration and you're easily impressed by the force of the author's argument alone then it might be compelling.

Which in turn means that the sustaining and strengthening of those communities — or, in MacIntyre's terms, those «traditions of moral inquiry» — must be a major task for anyone who accepts these arguments.

rea · son — noun / ˈrēzən / a.Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic — humans do not reason entirely from facts b.Find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions c.Persuade (someone) with rational argument — I tried to reason with her, but without success» I accept nothing on faith» can you prove we evolved from primates or that life started by random chance?

The rest of Nye's argument that believers in creation need to accept evolution because everyone else supposedly does is ludicrous.

Tenderness separated from the source of tenderness thus supports a «popular piety» that goes unexamined, a piety in which liberalism in its decline establishes dogmatic rights, rights that in an extreme» as presently in the arguments for abortion in the political sphere and for «popular culture» in the academic» become absolute dogma to be accepted and not examined.

On the other hand, an intelligent deity should accept the «I don't follow any of them since there was no proof» argument.

I love the argument he makes, even while I am a progressive Christian who accepts homosexuals as equals in the eyes of God.

For the sake of argument, if the article (which I didn't read) used only words that left no room for doubt (in a sense saying «We know with 100 % certainty that...), would you accept the conclusions?

You said, «I disagree, but let's accept the proposition for the sake of argument.

To understand why Behe's argument is so uncontested in the realm of fact, and yet why so many scientists find the concept of irreducible complexity not only difficult to accept but even impossible to consider, we should start by summarizing the modern understanding of Darwinism, as set out by Richard Dawkins.

Think of it this way — would you, or any other rational person, accept the same arguments you strive valiantly to demonstrate your god, if it were any other claim?

Kirsten: There's an article in The New York Times about Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens basically making this argument that for the first 200 years of the country it was just accepted that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a well - regulated militia.

The current trend would make it likely that gays will become fully accepted by the majority of Christians, perhaps within our lifetime, in which case your argument loses ground, right?

If sociologists have tended to center on the foregoing argument and to single out work as the basis of their assessment of our present inability to play authentically, theologians and philosophers have tended to: focus upon a second area: America's distorted value structure that has accepted as true the «mindscape» of technology 48 This is Theodore Roszak's phrase, and his discussion can perhaps serve as a helpful starting point.

So goes the first line of argument that leads Christians to accept the idea of violence and to associate themselves with violent movements.

Similarly, fundamentalist Protestants, believing in the inerrancy of the Bible as though every word of it, dictated by God himself, was to be accepted as indubitably true, ultimately rely in all their arguments on an external authority.

With the empirical evidence of the universe evolving, it is possible to accept the Thomistic argument from finitude and contingency as recast in evolutionary categories.5 Without the evolutionary category of birth, it would be impossible for us to argue that the universe had a Creator - Ground, for we would have to imagine process as a horizontal straight line that extends in either direction indefinitely and infinitely.

From Gina: How do you respond to the argument that complementarianism is the «traditional» interpretation of Scripture, and thus we shouldn't be quick to accept egalitarian interpretations?

This can be done from many points of view, but I have suggested above that the crucial attack is that which accepts the same data and then shows that the argument does not exclude the presence of contingent elements in God's total nature.

... What I really want to do is to enter into dialogs where I can talk about the weakest part of my argument and you can talk about the weakest part of your argument, and I can accept and celebrate the strongest part of your arguments and visa - versa... This demands a difficult level of vulnerability and transparency.

But the falsity of this is now fairly widely accepted, and repeatedly pointing it out does not progress the argument.

Accept for the sake of argument the logic of intelligent design, based upon the premise that things which are complicated must result from design.

This argument presupposes a false dilemma, as I see it, that either one accepts the notion of a separate soul - substance enduring through time or else one must accept the thesis of process philosophy.

Kant set the problem with his argument against any knowledge of the Ding an sich, the thing in itself, and Schleiermacher represents the first great attempt to accept that turn and still talk about God in a meaningful way.