Sentences with phrase «argue against all»

But the argument is constructed so that it is difficult to argue against.

I argue against traditionalists who say that there are not 66 million Catholics in the U.S. but only ten or twenty million, or fewer, who qualify as being really Catholic.

Indeed, those who think of marriage as only about love tend to argue against these duties, since they are regretted when feelings change.

But even without religious beliefs, we'd still not all agree on things like that, so here's a more practical reason to argue against religion:

I want to argue against this, instead proposing the opposite position — that only with faith in the resurrection is an ethical life possible.

When I write about non-violence, people sometimes say to me, You can't argue against God.

When he could not argue against Karl Friedrich he simply commented, «You may knock my block off, but I shall still believe in God.

If the monument brings comfort and peace to people you really can not argue against it.

But I do argue against trying to resynthesize the spiritual from the physical.

I think he would argue against stoning people to death for working on sundays.

Someone please argue against me that Jesus and his teachings are a bad example of how we should live as human beings.

I can, however, argue against what is done with those beliefs.

Second, one may well argue against my view, that although the Hebraic development as consummated in Jesus won out over the decadent Hellenism of the first and second centuries, this tells us nothing of its relationship to the healthy Hellenism of the axial period.

I cant argue against your point.

So in this context, religion can be a vehicle for evil but it would be easy to argue against it being the primary vehicle for evil.

The only thing we argue against is your right to encode into secular law your religious beliefs.

You might argue against gay marriage if you want to discuss the potential for fraud, for example.

And while I'm coexisting and letting everyone act like idiots I'm also going to argue against the insanity I have to tolerate according to American law.

It's weird that you would argue against me.

I can not understand how anyone who regards Scripture as authoritative can argue against the personhood of the fetus.

It's a great stretch to state that we've learned religious facts to argue against religion.

I know John 14:6 is the «go - to» verse in order to argue against this, but the Gospel of John could have easily been wiped from the slate - again, it is because Irenaeus chose to include it that Christians embrace it word for word.

And if you reply with anything that says that Jesus is a facet or aspect or anything else of God, then you can't turn around and argue against mixing God (s)-- and the theory that Allah, or Yahweh, are other names for the same God, because you've already by < definition argued that God can have multiple aspects — why just the three names for them from Trinity theology?

Wishful thinking of this sort is difficult to argue against, but it may be relevant to note briefly that the status of «action at a distance» is by no means so clear cut in contemporary philosophy of science as they seem to suppose.

If I were to argue against abortion the way you argue for it, I would point to late term abortions, regretted abortions, or the abuse of abortion by people who use it as a form of birth control, etc..

So, in conclusion, us born again followers of Jesus Christ should not argue against each other but rather try and listen to our fellow siblings in Christ.

As for muslims, I haven't studied the Koran as of yet and therefore tend to keep quiet in those debates (though I have and will continue to argue against sharia law).

Baker holds that Mays» interpretation is difficult to argue against, not because it is obviously incorrect, but because it is so heavily dependent upon a kind of argument from similitude whose value is difficult to assess..

They do not take the time to gain a deeper understanding because they are content in their falsue understanding because they can argue against that.

It is completely made up by creationist because they can't argue against micro evolution because it is continually happening right in front of them.

One thing is certain: his interpretation is difficult to argue against, not because it is obviously correct, but because his interpretation is so heavily dependent upon a kind of argument from similitude whose value is difficult to assess.

Many religious folks accept evolutionary theory because they know they can't argue against factual evidence.

Fourthly, if we subscribe to the notion that there is no separation regarding work (viewed as worship — Col 3:17, 23 - 24; Rom 12:1) in the church and the marketplace, why shouldn't Christians (who argue against receiving God's provision in the form of a salary) just «trust God», and reject their employers» salary structure?

but you would argue against that because you want cops just «doing whats right» — which is suspect to personal feelings of right and wrong!

7 This is in no way meant to argue against immortality and / or resurrection for everyone.

Some will use the above to argue against paying the preacher, the problem with that position however is that it forces the preacher into serving two masters.

Statements like the NCCB's well - known 1983 pastoral on peace and the Catholic bishops of France's 1979 declaration do not emphasize the doctrines of creation and human persons but argue against abortion by granting priority to the gospel.

Many would argue against a life sentence because it is deemed cruel and inhumane.

So again, I urge you, if you want to argue against Christian theology, that is fine, but first learn what Christians actually believe and teach.

-- to correct believer bullsh!t — to argue against religion driven laws and influence — to keep an eye on the crazies that want to put the USA and Canada on the road to becoming a theocracy — to influence undecideds away from joining any religious cult (and all religios are cults)-- for the humor of the nuttiness of things believers believe, say and do

You continue to argue against the radiance of God as expressed through Jesus.

observer You continue to argue against the attributes of God as recorded by the Chosen Ones in the Old Testament.

So this would seem to argue against the «pre-Tribulation» view of the rapture.

Therefore, the non-Calvinist has just as much right to say «Who are you, O man, to argue against God?»

Von Hayek and his friends argue against new egalitarianism - very relative - of this period.

The means by which we produce such abundance are good: Who would argue against making human toil easier by means of machines?

If you're on the left, you might insert «abortion» and use that logic to help argue against any and all restrictions and regulations — even in the wake of Kermit Gosnell and StemExpress and 926,190 abortions in 2014 (and 1,608,600 in 1990, and 1,497,670 in 1979, and on and on, up to 60 million since Roe).

Sarah Coakley and Brian Leftow argue against «social» trinitarianism, the former on historical and the latter on conceptual grounds.

If you're on the right, you might insert «assault rifle» and use that logic to help argue against any new gun control — even in the wake of Parkland and Las Vegas (and Columbine, and Aurora, and Virginia Tech, and San Bernardino, and Sandy Hook, and Sutherland Springs, and Orlando, and on and on).

People will argue against that statement, but it boils down to will.