Sentences with phrase «apologist when»

You know you are DELUSIONAL and an Ar $ ene apologist when you can't accept facts.

You made yourself a terrorist apologist when you equated my country's actions in the war on terror to terrorism itself and suggested the fight against terror is the reason why it is spreading.

Not exact matches

DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation «your mind is too small to understand the greatness of science» or «evolution moves in mysterious ways» when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief.

Even the early Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr could not hold onto a claim without the help of the devil when they claimed that he was able to perform plagiarism in reverse time order in attempts to confuse the faithful.

Hmm — when I think charlatanism, I must confess, what comes to mind is this ridiculous excuse by early Christian apologists (Justin Martyr and others) that the devil was able to perform plagiarism in reverse time order (to fool people into thinking that other similar stories before the Gospels came first).

But Care Bear apologists say that evidence is everywhere, how can you say there is no Love - a-Lot Bear when there is so much love shown around the world?

«Hopefully there will be an inordinate number of Christian apologists who will flood this atheist «hotline» when it gets up and running to keep them busy answering legitimate questions over why the atheist is acting the fool.

When the crowds needed an explanation, Simon Peter emerged as a powerful apologist and convincing proclaimer.

At a time when secularists are doing all they can to drain the last drop of Christianity out of this country, I find it insulting that these same anti-religious zealots are becoming muslim apologists and arguing for the inclusion of muslim holidays in the NYC public school calendar.

OK, so when a Christian renounces their belief in the faerie tale, the apologists are quick to rise up and claim «well, he was never a RealChristian (tm) in the FIRST place!».

So we find repeated warnings like the following which Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165) an early Christian apologist, delivered to Trypho, «For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who... say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians... But I and others, who are right - minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned and enlarged.»

When challenged that the anonymous gospel writers plagiarized, all that several early Christian apologists could come up with as an excuse was that the devil had set up things to look bad.

I was caught before 1900 years ago or so when the apologists of the time were clever enough to notice that I had planted the early myths that the god of Israel and that fake jesus were based on earlier myths.

The Koran provides me the best evidence when debating muslim appeasers / apologists.

DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation «your mind is too small to understand the greatness of God,» «God is outside the Universe» or «God moves in mysterious ways» when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief.

I love it when you Muslim appeasers / apologists attempt to bring other religions down to the level of Islam.

When pressed on these types of issues, apologists invariably reveal their cowardly nature; sacrificing reason and empathy.

They talk about the Queen's Christian faith, why evangelists are giving out free hugs on the UK's streets, when God takes over your church meeting, the global phenomenon of Muslims turning to Christ and Christian apologist Larry Taunton's unlikely friendship with atheist Christopher Hitchens.

It is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists / appeasers when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence.

Why connect the dots when you can continue to confuse apologists and never report the possible motive for such acts that occur almost on a daily basis around the world?

When confronted with a contradiction in their dogma or scripture or just the ugliness of some of the things the bible says the first reaction of the apologists is to state absolute knowledge that it can not be so.

DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation «your mind is too small to understand the greatness of god» or «god moves in mysterious ways» when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief.

It is interesting that when the early Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire, the Christian Apologists pleaded for tolerance saying that society continued to exist because of Christians.

It happens when you call a honoured ex serviceman a «terrorist apologist» for having a different view to you about military intervention.

Why listen to the same uninspired choir that just repeats the same lies (the apologists you listed) when you can listen to someone who knows what he's talking about (me).

In a day when jihadist violence is an almost - daily occurrence, apologists for Islam sometimes claim religious equivalence — asserting that the sacred texts of the Judeo - Christian tradition have their own incitements to violence.

Their chosen quote, and I hope you can read it with as much incredulous merriment as I did, «When the intellectual authors of the modern right created its doctrines in the 1950s, they drew on nineteenth - century political thought, borrowing explicitly from the great apologists for slavery, above all, the intellectually fierce South Carolinian John C. Calhoun.»

It has not, however, been as prominent in the actual life and thought of religious communities — even in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the argument from design was frequently presented by Christian apologists.

Christian apologists must have found many responsive hearts when they rang the changes on the moral weaknesses of the gods.

For example, one prominent apologist, when commenting on the emerging church, decided to critique Brian McLaren's book on the basis of its title (alone).

When it comes to religion, far too often it's called «God's work» and gets a pass from the apologists.

Despite being co-opted and misrepresented by apologists for the corporate market system, Smith said that government intervention is sometimes necessary: «especially when the object is to reduce poverty... When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.&rawhen the object is to reduce poverty... When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.&raWhen the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.&rawhen in favour of the masters.»

He knows nothing about hockey and is an apologist and excusist when the Bruins are crossing the line, which happens a lot.

Moreover, although it seems almost de rigueur for apologists for soccer heading to comment that heading is much safer when proper technique is employed, I know of no empirical data that support the contention.

It would be easy for Clinton apologists to write off this poll (flawed model, not a representative district, etc.), but in a year when Donald J. Trump has emerged as the nominee of a major party it would probably be a mistake not to take this data seriously.

Of course, the study also proves a contention of piracy apologists: people turn to online piracy when that is the only way they can view the content.

Last week, students in Wisconsin and Michigan stepped up to such an opportunity when CFACT Campus, the student arm of a well - known cabal of fossil fuel apologists, hosted climate change denier Willie Soon at several campus events around the country.

Eastwood's devoted apologists will not doubt praise these sequences for something like their «bold alienation effects» — which isn't entirely nonsensical, at least when the film follows Stone, Skarlatos, and Sadler into young adulthood, allowing the men themselves to take center stage.

To these critics, the film seems like a guilty - with - an - explanation plea for support for racism apologists who agree with Trump when he said of the white supremacists in Charlottesville, «You had some very people on both both sides.»

There's a solid premise at the heart of this — «Woody Allen apologist rethinks his behavior when his daughter starts seeing Woody Allen» — but the devil's in the details, as C.K. makes miniature compromises left and right.

When commencing to read this review, you should first be aware that I am one of the leading M. Night Shyamalan apologists on the interwebs.

by Bill Chambers The Lucio Fulci apologists like to say that gore and general impropriety are the raisons d'être of his work, not storytelling, but there's a built - in fallacy to that implicitly macho challenge: It presumes that his films are light on narrative when in fact it's narrative drive that they lack.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Amazon apologist (In fact I pointed to their long game fairly early on) I just think we need to keep our heads and a fairly hefty dollop of skepticism in hand when we discuss Apple.

it's because you are a sony apologist and can't see them doing any wrong to their customers, others live in a world where they can see when a company does anti-customer practices and they are not afraid to call them on it.

it's because you are a sony apologist and can see them doing any wrong to their customers, others live in a world where they can see when a company does anti-customer practices and they are not afraid to call them on it.

I've been asked a number of times why I once used the work «disingenuous» when referring to Watts and his apologists.

Despite Dr. Gleick's apology his apologists are doing their best to spin what he did when he impersonated a member of Heartland's board and created the alleged false «strategy» memo.

But when the IPCC is challenged, it is of course, according to the apologists, not where the science is.

It is not comparing like for like when US agw apologists inaccurately compare what's happening today with China vs the cumulative impact of the USA.

When you look at it, you'll have no difficulty in seeing why Phil Jones's apologists would prefer you not to do so!