Sentences with phrase «by question wording»

In sum, Republican respondents were more skeptical that global climate change is a real phenomenon when an otherwise identical question was worded in terms of «global warming» rather than «climate change»; no other political group (Democrats, Independents, and Others) was significantly affected by question wording.

Republicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it was referred to as «global warming» (44.0 %) rather than «climate change» (60.2 %), whereas Democrats were unaffected by question wording (86.9 % vs. 86.4 %).

But the remaining difference can be easily explained by question wording.

Not exact matches

Just like any filler word, «so» is used by speakers at points of uncertainty to stretch the time their brains have to think about the next point, response, or question.

How to... These are the two words that will come to dominate webpages everywhere as webmasters will now seek to answer the questions that could be posed by potential traffic and customers seeking answers.

The question is, will you harness the power of word - of - mouth marketing for your small business by giving it a nudge in the right direction or will you choose to stick your head in the sand and hope for the best?

Currently, we type our question into the search engine and the algorithm chooses words from it, often sending us on a wild goose chase by bringing up links that have those specific words in them rather than finding links that relate to the context of the overall query.

The filing also argues that the 9th Circuit made the test for defeating a trademark too strict, and that it should — based on an older decision by a different appeals court — instead have simply looked at how most people use the word in question.

Answering her own question, she talks of disrupting the convenient - and processed - food industries, before dropping the words every investor likes to hear: «to be a billion - dollar company by 2020.»

Krishna Guha, vice chairman of Evercore ISI and a former top Fed staffer, took the view that dropping of the two words was a move by the Fed to sidestep questions about how trade tensions and other Trump White House actions might impact the economy.

The wording of the question suggests Mueller may well be aware of such «outreach,» presumably informed by the cooperation he has received from Manafort's former deputy, Rick Gates.

The word archetype is used to describe what a buyer persona is, even David used the word in his book however the question missed by most is this: what makes up an archetype?

Having lived with a servant of the Word for more than fifty years in three Lutheran churches, I have this question: Why is it that the «white, middle - class, traditional, orthodox theologians» being told that their understanding of the church is no longer relevant, are told this by «white, middle - class theologians?»

As he did on so many issues before the Assembly, Archbishop Carey clarified in both frugal and temperate words the questions raised by the Assembly:

You keep your angry condescending replies up by focusing on semantics and syntax, to avoid answering the question, so if the word belief is wrong then give me a proper defended understanding

How ARROGANT for people like Scott to pontificate and assume that if you don't believe his beliefs one is without question going to burn in a Hell he's come to believe because of some words contorted by some MAN thousands of years ago.

Whatever he might have meant later by using the word «indoctrination,» there is no question what «prejudices» and «atavistic» mean.

I will not argue whether or not the bible is the word of a god translated by man, my only question is, why would you follow a book that supports and idolizes a single deity who seems to have intentions of converting the world to his worship alone (for if there are no other gods, why then would Yahweh require that you «hold no other gods above him» — he just confirmed their existance) when said deity's followers have proven that their purpose in life is to grind any opposition to their «holy law» into dust?

When you used the word «must» as opposed to asking a question or stating something prefaced with... «in my opinion»... you, by using «must» are claiming something that you do not absolutely know as a fact, but is * opinion.

«If God created religion, he could rememdy the whole mess by making certain each human he creates has «his word», and there would be no question which religion is «correct».

Might the contemporary church hear itself and its situation addressed by a surprising prophetic word that, in the name of God, calls previous words of God into question?

IF God created religion, he could rememdy the whole mess by making certain each human he creates has «his word», and there would be no question which religion is «correct».

I think the question is more to what we mean or understand by the word «holy».

I am using the term «dialectic» in its ancient and etymological sense, and it seems appropriate to describe the process by this word; for instead of an aprioristic, deductive method of procedure, the process was one of answering questions and objections as they arose, not in anticipation, and not as the unfolding, more geometrico, of a system implicit within a body of axioms or first principles which one needed only accept and then all the rest followed logically to the final Q.E.D..

oops again, then if it said G - d spoke then G - d spoke inerrent through the writer which we may believe in the same way we believe the more sure word of prophecy, the gospel itself, foolishness to those perishing and so on,... does it give me words to live by, then the answer to your question and my application in my own life the answer would have to be Yes.

The answer is given and must be given by God himself, in his own word in Jesus Christ, for no one can answer this question except God himself, in his self - revelation in history, since none can speak the truth except God.11

In other words, the questions and issues I raise in the post aren't new; these questions and issues are recurring ones in American religious culture (though they have manifested themselves differently through the years) and have been inherited by my generation.

This word supplements the cross and makes its saving efficacy intelligible by demanding faith and confronting men with the question whether they are willing to understand themselves as men who are crucified and risen with Christ.

Studying theology leads me to a better understanding of God and His word, which changes who I am and how I think, and better enables me to help others by being able to answer their questions, or guide them away from snakes.

The question was opened up as to what is meant by the Bible as the revealed Word of God.

The word «nihilism» has a complex history in modern philosophy, but I use it in a sense largely determined by Nietzsche and Heidegger, both of whom not only diagnosed modernity as nihilism, but saw Christianity as complicit in its genesis; both it seems to me were penetratingly correct in some respects, if disastrously wrong in most, and both raised questions that we Christians ignore at our peril.

It is not simply a matter of debating whether God exists or not, for this begs the basic question of what is meant by the word «God».

A young woman I had known earlier, a seminary graduate still unemployed and unordained by the church of her rearing, came up to me and whispered one of the questions I had been asking myself, her words lost in the rising clamor of the crowd facing the gunmen.

It was, in fact, the independent realisation (confirmed by scholarship), when doing a word search on «Sodom», that Sodom is incorrectly used to condemn homosexuality which led me to question the treatment of homosexual people.

No, dear lady, we can ABSOLUTELY questions someone's faith — and they need to answer, not by using mere words, but by acting like Christ, since THAT is what it means to be a Christian.

According to his wife Susan, he was haunted by what I call the impasse of modernism, in her words the realization that «there is no longer a reasonably obvious set of questions that will lead one, with hard work and intelligence, to produce a good piece of scholarly work.»

What you are describing sounds like a simple word flip by someone being inundated with questions about what religion he practices and if he is, or ever was a Muslim, NOT the President saying he is a Muslim as you and SugarKube are insinuating.

Although no explicit feedback arrangement is shown in the image, the authority of the minister's interpretation of the Word depends upon his dedication and competence and is not above question by those who hear.

And his presentation of «The messianic question» is permeated by the new view of existence, when he explains that Jesus presented no independent doctrine of his person precisely because «the «messianic» aspect of his being is enclosed in his word and act, and in the immediateness of his historical appearance».

In John 3:11 - 13 we get the second main point of the discourse: that an answer to the question about Jesus will not be given by scanning the heavens, but by attending to the human words and deeds of the one standing before you, the Son of man - that is, this concrete earthly man.

I am not minimizing the importance of the controversial questions concerning abortion, homosexuality, the role of pastors, separation of church and state, the priesthood of believers, or whether the holy scriptures are to be interpreted by the words and actions of Jesus Christ or by a group of elected leaders.

The wording of the presbyter's remark leaves open the question of Mark's use of other sources than Peter, whose «interpreter» he was: sources, or traditions, in circulation among the Christians in Rome no doubt from the first founding of the church in that community, long before Paul's arrival and perhaps some time before Peter's coming; and also, no doubt, traditions that were added to the common stock by every believer who came to Rome from Palestine.

The pledge had those words added during the McCarthy hearings by delusional zealots who were questioning peoples patriotism.

In other words, he assumes that accepting the fact of reasonable pluralism entails denying that differences on what he labels «ultimate questions» can be accounted for by saying that somebody has made what he calls «mistakes in reason.»

I do not question that when Paul used the word it had a richer meaning than was borne by its usual Greek usage.

If, however, I try to proclaim God's word, I am utterly called into question by my very pretension.

This is, of course, an opportunity for the Church to show by word, sacrament and service that there are answers to ultimate human questions that are not, and can not be, answered by the current scientism.

It is no longer a question of word but of hands; there is no more ordering and commanding through the word, but by the power of material constraint, including killing.

These words and the concepts associated with them were very useful for intellectual purposes, but they made no contribution to life, and Levin suddenly felt he was in the position of a man who had exchanged a warm fur coat for a muslin blouse, and who the first time he finds himself in the frost is persuaded beyond question, not by arguments but by the whole of his being, that he's no better than naked and is inevitably bound to perish miserably.16

In the words of Walter Johnson, written twenty years ago, «To refuse to pursue the question of the radical change effected in our situation by the hearing of this word is to be ethically irresponsible.»