Sentences with phrase «at least an understanding if»

Over time, the relationship will develop to the point where there is at least an understanding if not a full - on friendship.

I'd have to hold one year and a day at least I understand if I did move in it as a residence and hold for five years to get tax free gain.

Not exact matches

They can talk about neural pathways and neurotransmitters as if those big words definitively concluded anything, which they don't, at least with our current understanding of such things.

Even if you don't find employees at these industry events, you will at least make contacts who understand your needs and will put you in touch with other people they know.

In a deposition brought by Sir Martin Broughton, the Liverpool chairman at the time is asked if he understood «there was at least an attempt to contact Bill Gates and Bob Kraft in the US?»

If you understand and embrace the following four traits of millennials, you will see the wisdom of letting them have their way — at least some of the time.

And if not, at least make sure they understand that marketing can never truly be great if exists in a separate silo from sales.

If you really understood the role of an entrepreneur, you'd know that there will eventually be a middle person (at least one) between you and the rest of your staff.

He says he's followed the gold market ever since that pivotal day and recommends that everyone should have at least some allocation to precious metals: «I think if you don't own some gold in your portfolio now, you either don't understand history, or you don't want to understand history.»

I'll be quite happy if at least stocks are being held by those who understand the full narrative of the recent half - cycle, and have seen, considered, and discarded our work.

So if you're in a developed country and you understand what bitcoin is and you don't want charge backs and you don't want to accept credit cards, at least accept my bitcoin.

If you want to understand why the federal government has clocked deficits in every single year since the 2008/09 financial crisis, save one (2015), and why there won't be another black - ink budget until at least the mid-2020s, look at the pre-budget picture with Finance Minister Bill Morneau where he changes his shoes.

If you don't personally use an app but employees regularly rely on it, you should still have at least a cursory understanding of the application.

If you don't understand or at least know what a company does and how it makes money, then you will not be able to tell why the stock is going up or down, you will be at the mercy of the stock and this is a fast ticket to losing money.

Similarly, if we had written a blog post explaining the Google Knowledge Graph based off of just one news outlet's understanding of the change, we could easily pass along incorrect information, or at the very least not present the entire scope of the story.

These statistics are incredible, and with social media usage increasing every day, it is important to make sure you at least understand what it is and if you choose to use it with your company, what you can do with it.

If I have a better understanding of the outcome, ie, what a Scenario looks like once developed, it will give me a better handle on how to develop it, or at least a path to learn the right way how to actually develop one.

If you would read some of it at least once, you would understand.

The errors in estimating the costs of the war, the incompetent planning for the occupation, and the failure to understand the sheer length of the commitment are at least as important in understanding questions of when, if, and how, the U.S. should get into wars.

If it is understood in a strongly mentalistic way, as consisting exclusively in what the agent has it in mind to do, then the agent can at least try to avoid formal cooperation by excluding from his plans the evil effects of the action he is cooperating with.

Most of all, even if we couldn't agree in what we believe, I shall have better at least a better understanding through this amicable exchange.

If your god is real, why hasn't he inspired every sincere seeker to at least understand one or two basic aspects of his existence right, such as the idea that there is only one god as opposed to multiple gods?

Such a survey will also demonstrate the need for at least a basic grounding in philosophy, if we are to better understand and communicate the mysteries of our faith.

If there really were a god, why hasn't he inspired and guided sincere seekers to understand at least something about his nature?

If two apparently contradictory passages are both true in the higher understanding, this means that at least one of them doesn't mean what it says, which means it is true (in the higher understanding) precisely because it is false (in the literal sense).

They understand at least the theory of a congregation being a cohesive community — the «body of Christ» in New Testament terms — even if they have little sense of what they must let go of to contribute to the shape of this community.

If it is rare to find a bishop, shall we say, giving time and thought to understand the elements of a scientific process, it is, in my experience at least, also rare to find a scientist giving his serious attention to the meaning and significance of Christianity.

He will not be content with the blessed assurance which comforts beyond all measure: that eternally the Good has always been victorious; the blessed assurance which is a security that passeth all understanding; the blessed assurance that the unprofitable servant may have within himself at each moment, even when the time is the longest and he seems to have accomplished least of all, the blessed assurance which allows the unprofitable servant if he loses honor to speak more proudly than that royal word: All is lost save honor.

Our task is to work hard, master the arguments (scientific, ethical, philosophical, social), understand the history of how we arrived here, defy the temptation to give up through boredom, build a coherent movement of defiance, and thereby prepare if not ourselves, then at least the next generation, for the moment when the revolution collapses under the weight of its own delusions and contradictions.

If you understood the purpose of what Jesus preached about and I mean all of it, you might at least admire Jesus or him wanting do something right for humanity.

If you don't know about Islam, then learn about it to understand and be able to at least speak out of knowledge, not just opinion by association (that is to Christianity).

If you're going to attack something for being what it is, at least try to understand the words you're using in your attack.

In seminary I heard that if you want to understand what Paul or Luke were saying in the Greek all the way, you would have to read at least 7 different translations.

I get all kinds of «hate mail» for loving Muslims the way I would want to be loved which is to get an understanding of Islam from people who are at least sympathetic if not ardent supporters of the faith.

If you are not going to believe something can you at least understand what it is you arent believing?

Believe in God is not solely found in intellect (although if at least little intellect isn't used it turns kinda silly) at it's core it is a spirit thing that surpasses human communication and imposable to believe or understand unless experienced.

I think my congregation might have done better — or at least might have understood what was happening — if it had received some of the information that came to the conference participants at Honolulu.

«If you think that the context becomes the ground on which the seed of the gospel grows, and if you're willing to allow the gospel to fall onto rocky ground or fertile ground, then you will tend to cultivate the context on the understanding that whatever grows out of it is at least some kind of an authentic expression of ChristianitIf you think that the context becomes the ground on which the seed of the gospel grows, and if you're willing to allow the gospel to fall onto rocky ground or fertile ground, then you will tend to cultivate the context on the understanding that whatever grows out of it is at least some kind of an authentic expression of Christianitif you're willing to allow the gospel to fall onto rocky ground or fertile ground, then you will tend to cultivate the context on the understanding that whatever grows out of it is at least some kind of an authentic expression of Christianity.

Yahweh in hebrew means my Lord and is a common reference meaning supreme God.In the bible satan is referred specifically as the adversary in hebrew or slanderer in greek its quite clear there is no confusion.Satan is not in the same league as God he is sovereign in fact God has satan on a leash and limits his control particularly over his people as we read in Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that way?

Wouldn't he be more of hypocrite if he just stood on one side (of his beliefs) throwing stones at the other side without at least listening and making an attempt to understand.

And if I want to know what theology to read, I'm going take the word of someone who seems to at least understand what they read enough to summarize it in a meaningful way...

It is so easy for people to judge, but till you have something like this happens in our life, then we can understand, my son ended his life 6 years ago, we had no sign of anything, any of all the parents or not parents pointing the finger at this family, shame on you cuz, things happen when you least expect them, if we had known what to do, do you think we would not have done it.

But even if one does not wish to baptize this principle, it is now at least clear that there are many stunning, and as of yet not well - understood physical coincidences that needed to be present in order for life to evolve.

sounds more like «corporate brainstorming», but what I was trying to suggest is that it appears that we're witnessing (not intentionally) an evolving understanding of what wd become more central to the narrative and eventually orthodox.That is, if you cdn't believe it, you were out the door.A good example wd be the higher Christology that the fourth gospel reflects and more specifically, the virgin birth which it (like Mark and Paul) doesn't mention.If the birth narratives that we're familiar with are absent from the earliest gospel and the most theological gospel that came decades later, and can only be found in the other two gospels that we know used the first, it at least suggests a growing and evolving understanding of who Jesus «was» and «is».

If I understand him correctly, the distinction between the outlaw and the law - abiding is, at least with respect to immigration policy, morally irrelevant.

If cosmology and evolution are too full of holes to be acceptable, then surely the superior explanation of «divine orchestration» should be understood in at least same the level of detail as natural processes.

If we understand it as accurately telling what was in the mind and heart of God, then we have to deal with the issue of why did God create us in his image, knowing that he planned to destroy so many of us, and tell the rest of us that, at least in certain circumstances, it is fine with him if we destroy each otheIf we understand it as accurately telling what was in the mind and heart of God, then we have to deal with the issue of why did God create us in his image, knowing that he planned to destroy so many of us, and tell the rest of us that, at least in certain circumstances, it is fine with him if we destroy each otheif we destroy each other.

If it is in the Bible, then aren't we required to at least try to understand it.

I am not sure why Satan and his angels ever thought they could defeat God by rebelling against him, but we must believe that they know God at least as well — if not better — than we do, and so the lack of understanding must be ours.

If the Trinity is not to be understood tritheistically, the generation of the Logos from the Father is God's self - expression, whereby God's nature is articulated in ways at least partially accessible to discursive reason.