Sentences with phrase «argue other points»

We can argue the other points as much as we like, but it mustn't distract from the central goal.

And I'll leave it to others to argue other points, but you assume way too much on the very first point.

Not exact matches

In the other corner sit mainstream business economists, who argue that Carney, in a rare occurrence, missed the point.

Others will point out Brady's fantastic skill, his natural leadership ability, and his incomparable experience as reasons for his success last night — and I'm not arguing that.

In court documents filed with the Northern California District Court on Thursday, Uber argued that the class - action part of the suit should be dropped because the 160,000 drivers, «have little or nothing in common, other than their use of the Uber App in California at some point over the past six years.»

Other executives including Discovery Communciations CEO David Zaslav have taken a different point of view, arguing that there will be even more cable consolidation and that content companies will follow suit.

In addition, the massive demand refutes the point that other automakers have made that no one wants electric cars, he argued.

Both points argued against a purchase: continuing to sell to other companies removed the only plausible strategic rationale for buying the company instead of simply buying robots, but to stop selling to Kiva Systems» existing customers would be value - destructive.

Churches in other nations that are persecuted don't have the luxury to sit around and argue the finer points of theology until they find their depravity getting the better of them.

He suggests two other points of view, and proposes that the chaplain be their advocate in the professional mix: a focus on meaning, arguing that the mentally ill have lost or have never found meaning in life (Tillich, Frankl); and a focus on morals, suggesting that a violation of moral obligation or social responsibility accounts for mental distress (Mowrer, Boisen).

A «colossal hypocrite with a chip on his shoulder and a lack of good sense,» no, though others would argue the point.

For example, Moses Stuart of Andover Seminary in Massachusetts (who was sympathetic to the eventual emancipation of American slaves, but was against abolition), published a tract in which he pointed to Ephesians 6 and other biblical texts to argue that while slaves should be treated fairly by their owners, abolitionists just didn't have Scripture on their side and «must give up the New Testament authority, or abandon the fiery course which they are pursuing.»

Among other points, Gioia argued that poetry had become obscure, self - referential, and detached from common experience through the influence of university writing programs and trendy ideological nostrums.

4) you never said you were an atheist either, and yet you didn't mind arguing the point as one (whether devil's advocate or not) until i pointed out that you had not read others who shared that same basic presupposition.

If you are going to argue a point, support your ideas with something other than a «good» book.

We're in an energy crisis, stupid religions are fighting each other, men are so afraid of women in other countries having any kind of personal freedom, people are starving, the world is becoming over-populated to the point where it simply can not support itself, and you prefer to sit around and argue this stuff instead.

Nor do I find any other cogent arguments in Hartshorne against the attributes of the second group, though I will not be able to argue this last point in detail.

I would argue from all view points (theological, philosophical, biblical, etc.) and from experience that to trust one is to not trust the other.

Or the secularist may argue that we believe in God because we want to claim Divine sanction for our worldly interests and desires, and points to the allied and German soldiers in World War I singing hymns as they tried to kill each other, and the religious believer shakes his head sadly and admits that many Christians have done this from the beginning.

So far I have argued three points: that persons engage in behavior patterns which can be characterized as purposive, i. e., as exhibiting a structure of aims, values, and methods of attainment; that individuals and institutions are interrelated, with each side influencing and being influenced by the purposes and activities of the other, although with neither being in any way reducible to or explicable solely in terms of the other; and that the institutional pole in this interaction shares with the individual as its opposite those characteristics that define its behavioral patterns as purposive.

While Wright argues that Jesus speaking to Roman authorities in John 18 and 19 presents a mandate for political engagement, Boyd points out that Jesus does not bring up the injustices of the Roman Empire, nor other governmental issues, in his dialogue with Pilate.

Though many Calvinists argue that double predestination is the only logical conclusion to the Calvinist position on God's election of some (but not all) to receive eternal life, I am not going to belabor the point or try to refute the idea since most Calvinists claim that they do not teach or believe it... (for more on reprobation and double predestination I recommend this book: Vance: The Other Side of Calvinism, pp, 250 - 333).

If you want to make a point about people not having jobs... I think you can do a better job of arguing that CNN and other groups are spending too much time concentrating on a single subject.

Other work on the history of the synoptic tradition will be mentioned in the course of our own work; at this point our concern is simply to argue that the reconstruction of the teaching of Jesus must begin by attempting to write a history of the synoptic tradition.

But I'm not going to argue this point one way or the other.

«when you argue with an idiot and a stranger passes by they wont know which one is the idiot» So no more comments other than this: not one word of profanity was necessary to make the point!

Future posts will argue your second point, that we still need some doctrinal statements, but for purposes other than condemning and judging others.

I would argue that it is an important part of recognising the other side of any position as well as one's own point of view.

I have christian friends from other churchs and there women do these things and they do it because that is how they interpret the word.Its optional and not inforced by the church or by there husbands.They do it as an act of worship to the Lord.The point is how you interpret the word that was what i was getting at as we know the word is the inspired word of God to understand it we need the inspiration of the holy spirit otherwise the word is dead and brings no life.In the case of mother etta she was called to preach and God used her as an evengelist in her day her ministry grew she witnessed to thousands she healed the sick and saved the lost you can argue over a point but the proof is there that God uses women just as he uses men in ministry today.

Nicklin argued the above other view points with the following:

The counselor, after listening to them argue from their own points of view suggested that they reverse roles and argue for the other side.

Maybe you were arguing for my point though, or maybe you were just supplying the definition of ideology, leaving it to others to sort out whether atheism qualifies or not.

others will argue with it, desiring the role of tradition to be enhanced, or a christocentric concentration within biblical interpretation, or desiring the Holy Spirit to provide our theological entry point.

Here again Hasker has confused the frameworks, arguing as if hypothetical points relevant within one were relevant within the other.

The current game of «Capture the Flag» is a case in point, with one side arguing «my country right or wrong» and the other side arguing «America: change it or lose it.»

In his book, Campolo follows a distinct pattern» first, he somewhat apologetically admits that he holds to the «conservative» and «traditional» point of view; then he argues persuasively for the other side; and finally he hints suggestively that young and progressive Christians have moved beyond him on issues like abortion, homosexuality, and premarital sex.

One of my own teachers told me a long time ago to be sure to understand all sides of an argument (and my extension is even to the point to argue in FAVOR of the other side).

It's a sad way to argue a point, but it makes more simple sense than many other comments.

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

Many others would agree on the second point, arguing that confession of the apostolic faith means much more than confessing the creed — whether that «more» involves sacramental unity or acting on behalf of justice.

On the other hand, however, I argue that the cross itself holds the key to solving this problem, which leads to my third point.

It is the market economist who argues for hope, who points to creativity when others push for control, who recognizes that people are good, in a fundamental, real sense: assets, not liabilities.

Some agri - food scholars argue that their ever - expanding transnational supply chains have established an era of stable production - consumption relations (or Food Regime), while others point to the conflicts they are encountering with governments, social movements and «alternative» consumers.

I am merely pointing out other possibilities to put more of them out there, not to argue that you are wrong.

I imagine other schools have different definitions of simple but I can't argue the point.

It's an interesting point to make, and given our strength at other positions, it looks weaker by comparison, but I'm starting to see people argue that we are a player away from a national championship.

He came off the bench on the weekend and turned 1 point into 3... yeah there were 3 other goals but the fact is he scored in 85th min and secured the win... one could argue he is already worth 2 points to us.

In fact I respect it and the fact that I am allowed to come on and argue my point with other fellow gooners.

While one political side routinely points to massive, European - style budget cuts (known as Austerity) as the answer to our fiscal problems, others have argued that the best way to stimulate the economy is through a balanced approach which includes both cuts and revenue increases.

Then take the recent Arsenal game, Chelsea were denied two penalties during the game that left little to be argued, a draw for Chelsea was enough to set up the league at Crystal palace but Chelsea were denied two points that on other occasions could be decisive.