Sentences with phrase «even understand the point»

My existence seems utterly useless and I can't even understand the point to why I was born in the first place.

I don't even understand the point of this poll.

Not exact matches

In other words, you value friendliness and empathy, even when you're just getting your oil changed... Above all else, always be nice, and make an effort to understand and empathize with your buyers» and sellers» points of view.»

Nearly as surprising was the willingness of Russia and private oil companies in North America to carry on at prices that were understood to be well below their break - even points.

He hopes that businesses will be more explicit in describing how third - party companies can use data collected by technology companies, offering bullet - point summaries in terms the average person can understand when policies are updated, and even explore the idea of creating an ombudsman to field concerns and mediate conflicts between platforms and users.

As Fain points out, «The ability to more fully describe and understand a consumer's behavior is more complete than ever before, and that kind of data will make AI marketing tools even more effective over the next few years.»

Yes, he'd understood the science of DNA testing was incomplete, and that there was vigorous debate over the efficacy (and even potential downside) of population screening, and that it still wasn't clear if the process had reached the point where two different testing companies would even arrive at the same results.

It means that you be communicate with clients, understand what their pain points are and offer a solution that may solve those needs — even if you're making a compromise on your usual service offerings or suggesting something offered by a company outside your own brand.

Even science - and you know it better than I do - points to an understanding of reality as a place where every element connects and interacts with everything else,» the pope said.

A true understanding of all their pain points, even if they are not directly related to the problem your product is solving, will help you develop a solution that customers will trust.»

«What we'll be seeing more and more of is that as the suppliers [businesses] have gotten more sophisticated in understanding the market, they're looking for ways to customize offers and even price points,» he said.

When Slava Rubin, the founding CEO of Indeigogo, one of the very first crowdfunding sites that launched in January 2008, talks about it, he hits a point rarely discussed and even less frequently understood.

Understand also that the evidence pointing to steep market risk over the completion of this cycle is quite robust, as the valuation criteria in the overvalued, overbought, overbullish syndromes we now observe would be satisfied even if stocks were significantly lower than they are at present.

I explain how I understand it, show some indicators that reinforce the point, and add my own wrinkle, one I consider very important: allowing for more running room has the potential to create even more running room.

He also pointed out that even if what happened with Daniels was the sort of thing that was very common for Cohen as part of his duties, the Daniels scenario could still be a contribution if Cohen understood it would aid Trump's electoral effort.

You seem to believe that you are aware of what everyone is thinking, as this is the second time you have made a sweeping blanket statement... but to answer your question: I can assure you if that woman did see an angel telling her to kill her children, it certainly would have been a fallen angel, or demon if you prefer and not from God... If you had even a basic understanding of angels and fallen angels and the protection of God, this would be a moot point... but it appears that you want to play the game of how ridiculous can I be...

«A full reading of Bernstein's email reveals an important point ---- his assertion that, in the 1980s, we never denied the possible role of human activity as a cause for climate change, and he further makes clear that, at that point in time, there was a great deal of uncertainty and lack of understanding of climate change, even among leading scientists and experts,» said Keil, adding that today, Exxon «believes the risk of climate change is clear, and warrants action.»

I would have the urge to open it as fast as possible, but knowing my christian friends» inability to acknowledge or at this point even understand what truth is, I would first arrange a live PayPerView event with thousands of recording devices and as many people as possible to witness the opening.

@fimilleur from time to time mankind experiences the presence of God, there have been and continue to be events that testify to the presence of Him.The multiple gods you continually point to have an unique difference from the God who first revealed His presence to ancient men i.e. the Hebrews.The particular gods you mention roman etc. are all man made and in many instances men themselves i.e. hercules, but even the ancient greeks realized the limitations of their understanding and included an «unknown» God in their worship structure.many cultures did likewise, having a glimpse of God but not the fullness of understanding that was given to the Jews.Whether or not «we» believe, does not alter the fact that God exists as an unique being, whether or not «we» acknowledge Him «we» will stand before Him.You do not choose to understand, but we are actually standing in His presence right now as He is much bigger than the doctrines and knowledge man ascribes to Him those things you find so questionable are the misconceptions and misrepresentations of God made by men throughout history.

Yet even in this outburst of wonderment Augustine is pursuing a vital point: the relation of memory to self - understanding.

I understand the professor's point even if his delivery was a bit callous.

I understand your point, but even athiests admit there is some evidence for the bible and Christ, altough they do not believe in a god or that Christ was anyting more than an average man.

Or i could point out that the big bang is the biggest joke ever told... That even the top physicists can't figure out how their own theory could work, not to mention the fact that for it to work they would need for the Universe to break the fundamental laws we understand as true since the beginning i.e. (No matter in the Universe can be created nor destroyed, you can only change it's state (solid to liquid, liquid to gas etc.).

Even atheists who have an understanding of the social sciences are pointing out the problems with this study.

This is a markedly different basic understanding of the God - world relationship than in the monarch - realm metaphor, for it emphasizes God's willingness to suffer for and with the world, even to the point of personal risk.

Biblicism falls apart, Smith says, because of the «the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism,» for «even among presumably well - intentioned readers — including many evangelical biblicists — the Bible, after their very best efforts to understand it, says and teaches very different things about most significant topics... It becomes beside the point to assert a text to be solely authoritative or inerrant, for instance, when, lo and behold, it gives rise to a host of many divergent teachings on important matters.»

Peter seems to bounce from one verbal extreme to the other — at one point saying more about Jesus than he really understands, later denying that he even knows him.

I'm not saying that when you'll do this you'll become an atheist (though personally I believe if you truely do think about it, that you will become one soon enough) there are a few people on this board (like JW) who has thought long and hard about god and rationalized it enough to still be a believer and make some sense, but fred, I will not be even remotely swayed to understand your point if you only use the bible as your bullhorn.

There would otherwise be no point even attempting to communicate; it would be like speaking a different language and expecting to be understood.

Perhaps I may not even have understood some of these things, perhaps they are simply demanded by love for the others, for the Church, which means a certain member of the Church at a certain point of time.

People like you just like to willie - nillie grasp at any scripture you think would convey your hateful point and you don't even understand what it is you're reading.

That is a point ordinary Muslims around the world understand, but, alas, not so even sophisticated Westerners.

This article does point out that people claim others are committing blasphemy for what they themselves don't even understand.

I did not understand him to be equating Freudian therapy with modern neuroscience; I thought, rather, that he took his own distaste for what he sees as certain mystifications in the former as a point de départ for reflections on a deterministic and mechanistic philosophy he finds even more distasteful.

The point is that, even today when we attempt to develop a conceptual scheme for the understanding of man, we ordinarily bring to our task an understanding of concepts and a set of concepts which arise in our dealings with the external world as mediated by sense experience.

Even if the philosophical argument does not entirely persuade, we should not therefore conclude that there is no point to Taylor's insistence that we can be selves only by understanding ourselves in relation to some defining community.

well just thinking about these wars in the muslim / mid-east world over religious differences (which may reflect mental states in many ways) in a world where most realize that living in the present moment is best way to happiness and being in the moment in non-strife and awareness through the teachings of masters such as found in the buddhist, taoist, zen, etc., etc., etc. spriritually based practices of religious like thought and teachings, etc. that to ask these scientifically educated populace whom have access to vast amounts of knowledges and understandings on the internet, etc. to believe in past beliefs that perhaps gave basis and inspiration to that which followed — but is not the end all of all times or knowledges — and is thus — non self - sustaining in a belief that does not encompass growth of knowledge and understanding of all truths and being as it is or could be — is to not respect the intelligence and minds and personage of even themselves — not to be disrespected nor disrespectful in any way — only to point out that perhaps too much is asked to put others into the cloak of blind faith and adherance to the past that disregards the realities of the present and the potential of the future... so you try to live in the past — and destroy your present and your future — where is the intelligence in that — and why do people continually fear monger or allow to be fear — mongered into this destructive vision of the future based upon the past?

Even though the Church of Rome acquired particular respect because of its association with the apostles Peter and Paul and eventually became the point of reference for the whole Church, the relationship among the local churches and with Rome was not understood in the sense of jurisdictional superiority or subordination.

You state «Even so, most people understand that these references are legitimate»; I'd point out that most scholars, instead, recognize that the Testimonium Flavianum was not written by Josephus, but is a forged insertion into his writings placed there long after Josephus» death.

You know — I am not there — but sometimes when I discuss this with people of the faith and they struggle to understand even your basic points — I could see the road there.

But given Christian philosophy, I'm trying to understand why this point even matters.

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

Mike i have been thinking hard on this subject i hope you do nt leave the forum as i think we will get into a good debate / discussion the Lord has shown me alot of insight into this subject that i hadnt even thought about until Jeremy proposed his point of view.The word say iron sharpens iron we need to understand what we believe not just walk away because we feel it is treading on our beliefs because they change as we learn and understand because we have believed something for a long time does nt make it right.Use this opportunity to grow to learn and to understand what the Lord is wanting us to know if we cant do this as brothers how are we supposed to do it with unbelievers.brentnz

Even I, although I have argued throughout this chapter for understanding the ministry basically from a monoepiscopal point of view, have sometimes been nostalgic about the first century, where everybody seemed so keen and enthusiastic (literally filled with God) that things got done and «offices» were not established.

i can not understand why this discussion even takes place... from a realistic stand - point, anyway.

In his exposition of Psalm 90 he even used the daring metaphor that the subject of faith was a mathematical point, so far was he from regarding faith as a subjective experience through which man's understanding of himself is illuminated, and so exclusively should faith be defined in reference to its object, the extra se of the historic Christ.

The point is this: While the question of authorship is vitally important for understanding Scripture, the question of meaning is even more significant.

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!

Yet, at the same time she did it while respecting and even trying to understand the other points the religious members had.

We can not even begin to explain the origins of this state of cognition — perhaps the bridge between instinct and language, perhaps even Einstein's gap — and yet we trust our intelligence anyway (I understand that my description of intelligence may not be entirely accurate scientifically, and apologize for it, but my point holds true).