Sentences with phrase «claim your points when»

Montella's men thought they had claimed a point when keeper Samir Handanovic could only carry Giacomo Bonaventura's 81st - minute shot into his own net, but Icardi's late heroics condemned them to a fourth Serie A defeat of the new campaign which leaves them 10 points adrift of their city rivals.

Look for programs that don't have blackout dates or many restrictions so you can claim your points when you want to.

Not exact matches

The right thing to do when confronted with a mistake is to own up to it, not to make a series of bizarre claims in defense then insult the profession of the people who correctly pointed out the error.

Humphrey points to Microsoft, which was born when Bill Gates had the idea for a PC upgrading system that he claimed he could deliver before any code was even written.

As Selena points out, your lifetime benefits are a factor of when you claim Social Security and how long you live, so if you anticipate living to your life expectancy, it's rational to front - load your Social Security, so long as you're comfortable with the future consequences.

When you make ridiculous claims like that to make your point, it just seems like you're utterly prejudice towards us.

To one point, it's false to claim that Christians weren't persecuted when I gave an example of Nero roasting Christians aren't persecuted — well I don't follow the logic.

To one point, it's false to claim that Christians weren't persecuted when I gave an example of Nero roasting Christians aren't persecuted - well I don't follow the logic.

Why did you disappear when I pointed out that you weren't giving any basis (scientific or scriptural) for your claims in the previous page?

Yes I know this will happen because I have been through these arguments time and time again and when I pull out my Bible that people claim to have read and match it to the scientific evidence that points very clearly to the validity and truth of the Bible they shut up and don't want to hear it.

Like the good Dr. has pointed out, using your book to refute someone elses book when both have the same historical significance, outlandish claims and religion is probably the dumbest thing you can do.

You claim I'm making assumptions when I point that out, yet you refuse to actually engage the scholarship.

No other structure in the world can be called on to promise eternal salvation, and when such salvific claims are made in the name of some nation, race, social class, religion, or ideology, the church must fight such idolatry and blasphemy with all its means of persuasion, even to the point of martyrdom.

For some, credulity to the point of foolhardiness (at least when judging their particular claims) is the definition of an open mind.

When we add the obvious point that the term itself is very frequently to be found in the synoptic tradition and comparatively infrequently outside it, then it becomes clear that we are fully entitled to claim that the real and significant differences between the use within the synoptic tradition and outside it call for an explanation.

When any religion, in this case islam, espouses ideas that are in direct conflict with the Constitution and openly work to impose an alien political / religious system called sharia on the United States, at some point the right to claim constitutional protection is lost.

I think the larger point was lost here though which is when believers make the claim for God the non-believers say «Prove it.»

When magical theistic claims violate our natural understanding of the universe, experts in the various fields can most certainly point out scientific inaccuracies.

@ME II: My point is simply that you fail to abide by that which you wish others to do when making claims about the Bible.

For those of you who are interested in reading the arch of a sad, sad bitter life, crusie through the remarks by «the son a Piper man» aka Tom Tom, Stands for nothing, hates everything, curses when left with nothing to say, then hysterically claims victory for hurting someone's feelings, and stands for nothing, but will gladly point out your poor syntax, grammar and spelling errors like a weary retired 3rd grade teacher.

My point is simply that you fail to abide by that which you wish others to do when making claims about the Bible.

This month, Christianity magazine reports on Todd Bentley, attacked by some for his exotic claims of angelic visitations and for his forceful and loud style, while others point to an extraordinary sense of God's presence when he preaches...

Capital punishment's lack of demonstrated superiority as a deterrent (the evidence for its effectiveness being at best mixed), the capacity of society to protect itself equally well by permanently imprisoning those who are currently being executed (which is possible at limited marginal cost, especially when one takes into account the cost of the extended trial procedures and interminable appeals and reviews which usually accompany capital punishment)-- all these points are important, but their utility is chiefly as rebuttal arguments in response to the empirically weak but emotionally strong claims made on behalf of capital punishment.

Indeed, in a world of many points of view, there is a deep philosophical problem involved in trying to defend the claim that one point of view is right and all others wrong when fundamental beliefs and values are involved.

But the point is: having two contrary thoughts like this amounts to I - want - to - feel - good nonsense when it comes to empirical claims.

As Alexis de Tocqueville points out in Democracy in America, however, we modern democratic persons refuse to defer to the privileged claims of aristocrats even or especially when they're deserved.

I want to weep when there's a disaster and people are hurt or die and some self - described Christian personality claims that God made it happen to punish X because of Y. Unfortunately there are people who are gullible enough to believe such drivel to the point of sending the drivel masters money so they can continue to spout their nonsense.

The movements are frequently confounded, for it is said that one needs faith to renounce the claim to everything, yea, a stranger thing than this may be heard, when a man laments the loss of his faith, and when one looks at the scale to see where he is, one sees, strangely enough, that he has only reached the point where he should make the infinite movement of resignation.

Perry failed to score political points when one of his supporters claim mormonism is cult.

I don't care what you believe — I have a lot of friends with a lot of different beliefs — but when you claim your belief is fact, then I will point out that you are mistaken.

Rather, my point (made clear by succeeding paragraphs) is that we should not take new communitarians seriously when they claim they are merely reinforcing existing egalitarian values.

The primitive Church includes the claim of the credibility of the witnesses as part of its kerygma, a point to which we shall return later when we come to the resurrection.

In the light of that claim, it is reasonable to attribute the New Testament's use of the phrase «the Jews» to the point of view of an era when the church was in conflict with the Jewish community, hence to conclude that the anti-Semitism in the New Testament is incidental.

And when she has, in the past, pointed this scripture out to you it was because you were making claims that scripture is easily understood, which this scripture makes clear is not always the case.

Because this is the sole ideal that has the solidity once owned by Catholicism and the flexibility that this was never able to have, the only one that can always face the future and does not claim to determine it in any particular and contingent form, the only one that can resist criticism and represent for human society the point around which, in its frequent upheavals, in its continual oscillations, equilibrium is perpetually restored, so that when the question is heard whether liberty will enjoy what is known as the future, the answer must be that it has something better still: it has eternity.29

I'm sorry, when you make a point you're supposed to provide evidence for your claim.

There is a role for pointing out the higher education and IQ of atheists, such as when Christians wrongly claim the opposite or when discussing analytic skills and education, but is not, in itself, an argument for atheism.

Brigitte, you made it * your * point when you claimed that preventing those bad things was the reason why sex before marriage is bad.

With Ricky Silberman's assistance he reassembled his brief of facts and allegations, suppressed disconfirming evidence, strong - armed a hostile witness, and blasted Mayer and Abrahamson's book to the point of denying at least one claim that he knew was true: «Up to this point in my career, even when I fell short, I had always believed I was pursuing accurate information.

When a group claims they have a monopoly on the truth (insert your faith here) there is no point in trying to have a meaningful dialogue.

I no longer believe because I am done listening to people claim to have answers they don't have, it is dishonest, irresponsible, immoral and can be dangerous I am glad you trust science, to a point, but when science is not able to provide an answer you insert god and like I said, that is lazy.

But the Romantics then miss the point of their legitimate insight when they claim that Milton would have been content to let that sympathy work its effects outside of the economy of salvation.

One recalls the sermon of Paulinus when he pointed to the swallow flitting through the Saxon banqueting hall from darkness to darkness as a parable of the life of man, were it not that Christ has shed light and hope on the darkness beyond.25 Again King Oswy at Whitby is claimed to have decided for the Roman representative because he was the agent of St. Peter, holder of the keys to the gates of heaven.26 At the other extremity of the empire Cyril and Methodius impressed the Bulgar king by a picture of the judgment to come.

When Petr Cech came to Arsenal, I recall a particular footballer, John Terry I think, claiming that Arsenal had bought a goalkeeper who was gonna save us 12 points, every season, and true to his words, Petr Cech's first season in Arsenal was superb!

Just like he is getting desperate by claiming age discrimination when it is clear that people are protesting over being 33 points behind.

He was the field trials winner; He'll claim that honor yet, Except (oh, what embarrassment) When told to point he set.

Then we can look at this last window when Gazidis got Sven to find targets, Gazidis was still trying to penny pinch on the Auba deal, the deal where Wenger was part off... Yet people like you claim it was Wenger penny pinching all these years and I was pointing at Gazidis.

They'd rather wait for the one time it fails so they can bash You blame the manager for being favourist yet a fellow blogger praising a player he previously bashed is called being two faced You kill Ramsey for a blind pass attempting to enter the opposition final third yet you won't blame Sanchez for turning over the ball in a pointless dribble with three free team mates You kill metersacker for deflecting a shot into his own net but won't touch kos for getting out of the way of a shot he could have sufficiency blocked You claim with no substantial proof that arteta, mert, Ramsey, can not lead arsenal anywhere substantial yet they have each at a point been a massive cause for stability and progress when called upon Even after reading this comment, you will ignore the fact that kos was awful until partnerd with mert, our defensive mid with song leaked more goals than the one with arteta and we've struggled to win without him at least until late last season.

I don't think anyone would blame the Arsenal players and Arsene Wenger for having gone out on the lash last night, when they got back to London in a great mood after claiming all three points with a terrific battling performance against Man City.

His team were trailing 2 - 0 to Colombia with 25 minutes to go when the new Gunner produced a fine finish to spark a comeback that saw them claim a point.