Sentences with phrase «claimed the points if»

Of course we could also have claimed the points if Arsenal had added to those opening goals but you can not always rely on that.

Not exact matches

If you plan to return to work after 12 months and at 11.5 months you realize you still don't have daycare arranged, you probably won't be able to extend your benefits at that point because you've already been claiming benefits at the higher, shorter - term 55 percent rate.

But the «ethical» claim for the oilsands is a serious stretch — at least if it's supposed to point to a clear difference in moral status.

My point is that if you like a credit, and by that I mean a cash - paying entity, you can change where in the income statement you own a claim on the cash flow.

Vanderkam pointed out that if she'd been pressed at the start of the week to carve out seven hours to put toward a priority like mentoring people at work, the executive would have claimed to be too busy to come up with that extra pocket of time.

Financially speaking, determining the best age to claim your benefits is helped by considering the various breakeven points associated with your life expectancy, and the lifetime benefits you could receive if you claim at various ages.

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.

There would be no point in claiming a few Satoshi if it takes 5 - 6 minutes for you to do so.

My point was that if you propose that, as a society, we teach children that there is no God, then you are doing what you claim to oppose: indoctrinating children with what is your personal belief.

If as you say you have talked to others who claim to be Atheist the way you describe it then they are IDIOTS who also don't understand Atheism and yes at that point since they are claiming «no God» to be true, then by all means call their point of view a «religion».

Lincoln exploded this as preposterous, demonstrating their behavior's incompatibility with the Constitution, pointing out that if they really wanted to claim revolutionary grounds for action, they should have the courage to make that argument instead, and resting his own argument on the principles of the Declaration.

they would say point wands at you and claim you will get eaten by deatheaters if you did not accept their myth?

If he would fulfill my need, and prove he exists, I would pay more attention to what other people claim he wants and does not want, but at this point, he seems as invisible and irrelevant as Santa Claus.

They claim that if physicians are allowed to kill people, even at the patient's request, «it would come to the point of the Nazis in the past.»

:... still we have a ton of physical evidence that God is real...» One point of view: Most, if not all, Atheists would disagree with this statement and ask for solid scientific evidence to support such a claim.

Exactly my point; if according to the Bible and Christ's words himself — that even the Son of God has no idea about the 2nd coming; I am now supposed to believe what men on earth say??!!!!! Seriously, how stupid are some people — these are the same people who claim they are religious elite!

I think the point is that if he wans to claim to be a Catholic he should act like one otherwise abandon the label.

The answer is neither, even if you had evidence to back up your claim it is a moot point.

My point is merely that the analysis required to confirm Ogden's claim — even if the analysis can not fail to do so — itself mediates access to the allegedly primal phenomenon, and thus leaves Ogden with a «phenomenon» which is not epistemically «primal,» and access to which is neither epistemically immediate nor privileged nor error - free in principle.

How is he going to claim he was defamed if he does not point to specific comments, which the facts of the case undermine?

MyMainMan, one other point I'd like to make: If you're going to support Sagan's claim that athiests must presume to have much more knowledge than the rest of us, then the exact same must apply to Theists (those who believe in God).

If all these things in the Old Testament point to Jesus as Jesus claims (Lk.24: 27, 44), what is this passage saying?

At this point it's still not a choice, since politicians are too afraid to NOT claim a religious affiliation (even if they are atheist).

But if we use the Trinity as myth to point to this unknowability of God, we must make clear that we are not claiming that God is in fact tripartite.

A final point is that if Judas was simply another side of Jesus as you claim, how could Satan inhabit the body and soul of the Son of God who is also God Himself?

However even if that extraordinary claim were accepted it is not clear that it would negate the point that God would be different from what He is, in his concrete reality, if He did not know what He knows.

Some adherents to these religions will claim theirs is a «religion of peace,» though as often as not (if not more often), cases can be pointed out in the contrary.

Certainly, the Intelligent Design advocates have a point: if natural laws can be shown to be inherently unable to explain complexity, then one may legitimately claim for the entity in question an irreducible complexity.

The jews just worship the god these folks are the prophets of, althou some claim jesus is the son of that very same god and therefore better — if a son of a god can die so easily, whats the point i ask you!

So the point of this is, atheists, is that if you're claiming someone is a lune for having God intereacting with them, it's similar to saying they're a lune for receiving a phone call from someone they know, because phone calls are selective too, they can consume someone's senses, and there's no guarantee that the person calling, will contact everyone over the planet... just to prove themself to someone that isn't a friend... or someone that doesn't love God.

We should greatly err if we were to claim that at ~ is point the idea first dawned on human thought through the insight of this Hebrew poet.

For Revelation in the ultimate resort and in principle claims the whole of reality as the possible subject - matter of its affirmations, even if only sub respectu salutis (in relation to salvation), and from this point of view even events and realities which are accessible to secular experience fall within its material scope.

Here was Alyssa Rosenberg at the Washington Post claiming that the whole point of Wonder Woman is that she's a role model for prepubescent girls, a kind of «Fearless Girl» avant la statue: «[T] he movie... argues that it's... little girls all over the world who stand to gain if they can grow up free of the distorting influence of misogyny,» Rosenberg wrote, with a schoolmarm's didacticism.

Von Campenhausen believes that if the story were simply a legend «it would not have specified three women (who, by Jewish law, were not competent to testify) as the decisive witnesses ’25 and he is supported at this point by H. H. Rex who claimed that «This is in itself a point in favor of the authenticity of the tradition.

But Topher, keep in mind that if God can bend scientific laws as He chooses, there is no point in using ANY science, including science you claim supports the Bible.

If you can't verify the truth of your claim, there's no point in letting others hear the claim, because they will not understand what you are talking about.

as Keller pointed out: if one claims to live in an existence that is — from inception — meaningless, then ALL of life is meaningless.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

the point here: if so (as many of your referenced speakers do above), it is logically inconsistent to claim the fundamental nature of existence is meaningless (lacking any significance) yet our personal lives are significant.

Nii, looking at many of your posts, if you are as educated as you claim to be, you would have been introduced to grammar and composition at some point.

If a finely - tuned robot could mimic all human behaviors (including reporting what would be pain if it were human), then the mechanical naturalists would have proved their point that the brain is nothing more than computerized flesh» or so they claiIf a finely - tuned robot could mimic all human behaviors (including reporting what would be pain if it were human), then the mechanical naturalists would have proved their point that the brain is nothing more than computerized flesh» or so they claiif it were human), then the mechanical naturalists would have proved their point that the brain is nothing more than computerized flesh» or so they claim.

As for your other point; if someone does claim to be a Christian, and is rich, they are indeed commanded to give of their own money.

If a person believes and behaves differently than we do, it's easier just to claim that they are not Christians than to admit that there might be something legitimate about their point of view.

If love has a history then here is the point at which that history is shaped by a new understanding which claims to have its source in the history of Jesus.

If I post a quote that has a few key words in it from our discussion I can claim it backs my point even if it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I'm claiminIf I post a quote that has a few key words in it from our discussion I can claim it backs my point even if it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I'm claiminif it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I'm claiming.

A good man would not claim to return to earth from heaven at a later time (as you pointed out Jesus claimed) so that people would continue in faithfulness to him if he was merely a human being and not capable of fulfilling that promise.

If there was any other book claiming to be the authority on everything that you kept having to make excuses for like «Well, that part is ment as an allegory» or «God years are different than man years» or «Well, its says to not eat shelfish or pork in the hebrew scriptures, but apparently God changed his mind later, but that part about ga y's stays» I don't think anyone would have given it a second look had it not been at the point of a sword.

Fortunately, the major point of the passage does not vary with these cultural details: the Corinthians should not so readily disregard customary liturgical dress, if indeed, as they claimed, they «maintain the traditions» gotten from Paul.

If we claim that He «showed up» at a certain point of our story, are we saying that He was absent until then?

My point is if someone goes around telling other people there is a god they are claiming knowledge.