Sentences with phrase «free claim does»

Gluten Free (via web Sept 2015:)-- A food bearing a gluten - free claim does not contain the protein from wheat, rye, barley, spelt, kamut, triticole, farina, vital gluten semolina, malt vinegar or protein derivatives of these foods.

Not exact matches

If the restaurant claims something is gluten free, they certainly don't want a Nima - carrying customer to prove them wrong.

Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander and Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, have partnered with Democrats on bills that would reel in rate hikes by resuming reimbursements for insurers who pick up low - income customers costs on the Obamacare exchanges and freeing up billions for a «reinsurance» program that blunts the cost of customers with big claims, so others don't have to pay more.

ultimately, in case you are ate up On really conducting those rigid chore from claiming arrive a strong thereafter motion bankrupt within the manner, free - to - play is those manner with do it at some point of Bandarq on - line net club.

If the reason banks fail is because free markets in banking don't work, how do you explain the lack of the problems you claim plague free markets in the much less regulated pre-1934 Canadian banking industry?

The first thing you need to do before claiming your free crypto is to get set up to both collect... And protect yourself.

Even though a Google + Local listing is free and can improve your search visibility by leaps and bounds, many businesses don't take the time to claim their listing.

I don't think anyone would claim that specific groups can't have their own Facebook - like web site, but this particular site is perpetuating a gender segregation philosophy / ideology that many find abhorrent and readily use their free speech rights to argue against.

If people want to claim that Jefferson was a «Christian» who didn't believe Christ was the direct son of God, they are free to pretend that.

If modern Christians have a sense of martyrdom as you claim then please feel free to debate them in the here and now... I don't hear a lot of Christians saying «you can't say / do this because 2,000 years ago Rome was busy killing us.»

Spin it how you will, religion constantly gets a free pass in this country and when its ever called out for its discriminatory practices and beliefs it claims religion has the right to discriminate based on those beliefs... but everybody else doesn't have the right to even make the accusation that religion is getting all kinds of special rights allowing them to justify their own discrimination.

Or did you learn in in the «Sacred Ritual» at the Temple where you baptize the dead and claim Lucifer freed humanity.

You certainly are free to believe what you do, just don't claim that it is «truth».

Does that mean the throw away the ten in the OT, given by what seems to be a very hateful, spiteful and jealous god, and take up the free - thinking «god loves you» hippy who claims to be his son?

Two comments.One, the atheist / materialist claims that he / she... «Did «nt believe in free will»... O.K.Should we take that to mean some mindless, heretofore unknown force apllied those words in your behalf?Did someone put the proverbial «gun to your head «and force you to post your comments?we await you presumably forced answer with bated breath.Two.As for Mr.Gingrich, beware.Politics aside, the one question yet remains for Calista: How did you, a professed «devout «Roman Catholic, carry on a 6 - year affair with a man you knew was married?How does that square with the Biblical prohibition against committing adultery?Oh wait!I know!As a «devout «Roman Catholic you can sin with impunity; just go to your priest, say a couple of «hail Marys and Our Fathers», ask the priest to bless your sinning, and resume.Of course!I had forgetton how easily Catholics excuse their trangressions (ex opere operato, anyonDid «nt believe in free will»... O.K.Should we take that to mean some mindless, heretofore unknown force apllied those words in your behalf?Did someone put the proverbial «gun to your head «and force you to post your comments?we await you presumably forced answer with bated breath.Two.As for Mr.Gingrich, beware.Politics aside, the one question yet remains for Calista: How did you, a professed «devout «Roman Catholic, carry on a 6 - year affair with a man you knew was married?How does that square with the Biblical prohibition against committing adultery?Oh wait!I know!As a «devout «Roman Catholic you can sin with impunity; just go to your priest, say a couple of «hail Marys and Our Fathers», ask the priest to bless your sinning, and resume.Of course!I had forgetton how easily Catholics excuse their trangressions (ex opere operato, anyonDid someone put the proverbial «gun to your head «and force you to post your comments?we await you presumably forced answer with bated breath.Two.As for Mr.Gingrich, beware.Politics aside, the one question yet remains for Calista: How did you, a professed «devout «Roman Catholic, carry on a 6 - year affair with a man you knew was married?How does that square with the Biblical prohibition against committing adultery?Oh wait!I know!As a «devout «Roman Catholic you can sin with impunity; just go to your priest, say a couple of «hail Marys and Our Fathers», ask the priest to bless your sinning, and resume.Of course!I had forgetton how easily Catholics excuse their trangressions (ex opere operato, anyondid you, a professed «devout «Roman Catholic, carry on a 6 - year affair with a man you knew was married?How does that square with the Biblical prohibition against committing adultery?Oh wait!I know!As a «devout «Roman Catholic you can sin with impunity; just go to your priest, say a couple of «hail Marys and Our Fathers», ask the priest to bless your sinning, and resume.Of course!I had forgetton how easily Catholics excuse their trangressions (ex opere operato, anyone).

Why do Atheists claim to be «Free thinkers» while repeating the same lies that someone else told them?

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.

I do not claim that we believe in everything, nor that we are free to.

Don't know where your post is going with these incredibly stupid claims but I was talking about free will and the inconsistency that poses for an omniscient God.

The Corinth saints were big on claiming authority to do what they wanted because they were «free in Christ».

Central and eastern Europe didn't break free of the shackles of totalitarianism without trying, failing, and then trying again: It took a critical mass of people, determined to «live in the truth» no matter how difficult, to implode the communist culture of the lie and give a new birth of freedom to the lands Stalin claimed as his prize for helping beat Hitler.

For instance, in a discussion of apartheid, David Field remarks: «From a Christian point of view, it is important to examine the case for apartheid in some detail... because among its strongest supporters it numbers Christians who claim to have tested their attitudes and opinions by the standards of Scripture» (Free to Do Right [InterVarsity, 1976], p. 19).

We are free to eat and drink in remembrance of Jesus without claiming that in, with and under our work of believing, loving and hoping we also have to do God's work.

But, you are right, David, when you claim that serving God doesn't always bring a trouble - free life.

In 1995, roughly three dozen groups representing numerous faiths as well as a secular humanist organization designed a joint statement on religious liberties, showing support for what could be done legally in the schools, and disputing the claim that schools were «religion - free zones.»

If he committed the crime, and in the same time claimed innocence by playing victim, using his race as a scapegoat, hoping to be set free, and yet put his faith in Christ... his sin could not be forgiven, becaue he did not confess it and acknowledge it publicly.

But if he did, and he's infallible as you claim, and he created us as you claim, and he gave us free will as every religious person I've met claims, then we most certainly can blame god for free will.

The «Claim» upon God So, does this not undermine the free act of Revelation?

... you can claim free will and by so cover all of the human actions done to the world but how can say that god is real and controls nature when nature has killed more purely innocent lives then anything in history ever... if god was just and comp@ssinate why send the wave that killed 300 thousand, why create the plague that killed nearly 75 million in the middle ages when nearly everyone was a VERY devout believer....

For someone who claims to be «free grace» you do not exude much grace.

In «The Fightin» Side of Me,» he lampooned antiwar protesters: «I read about some squirrelly guy who claims he just don't believe in fightin» and I wonder just how long the rest of us can count on being free.»

The unlimited freedom of everybody to claim absolute freedom for everything works like a sort of secret brain - washing by anonymous powers which does not necessarily abolish freedom but narrows in advance the sphere in which the individual can make his free decision.

They do not yet know what achievements and claims are, and they can accept free gifts.

Feel free to list away, don't be overly hurt though when your claims are further debunked.

Finally, once we realize that most FWTs do not claim that «God in fact deliberately creates conditions producing suffering in order to stimulate moral and spiritual qualities,» we see that there is no basis for maintaining that the affirmation of a free - will theodicy «could promote callousness» in the sense that it could cause FWTs «to belittle the importance of liberating persons from conditions producing suffering» (ER 19).

In America, the claim is that we are all free to do what we want but in reality it is expected that we all grow up, go to college, get a job in a cubicle, get married to someone of the opposite and have kids.

I have come up with enough to refute you and others while you have come up with nothing and it has not made a difference in your insults, or claim of victory or anything so it I am free to do as I wish just as you always took that freedom.

Is that which is objectively immortal exempt from perishing, as Neville claims, freed from the perils of undergoing a second death, or does the past perish insofar as it is not included within present prehending (cf. PR 517)?

If on the other hand, people claim that they do not have free will, then they are robots.

Most Christians claim their pets do not have a soul and are truly just a bunch of chemicals; but, the honest ones will admit that their pets demonstrate free will, choice, etc..

The pre-Smith precedent, despite Ginsburg's argument to the contrary, doesn't expressly address whether for - profit corporate forms are ent - itled to free exercise claims.

So did U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who on December 9 rejected the archdiocese's claim that WMATA's refusal to post the ad violated its First Amendment right of free speech.

The issue here, IMHO, is that the pre-Smith precedent doesn't directly speak to for - profit corporations, but it does speak favorably to for - profit organizations bringing a free exercise claim (i.e. Braunfeld).

but earlier you were spouting that free - will requires god so is your claim being that free - will does not in fact exist at all or what?

To say that He ought to do this to all humans is synonymous with claiming that He should do away with free will.

... you can claim free will and by so cover all of the human actions done to the world but how can say that god is real and controls nature when nature has killed more purely innocent lives then anything in history ever... if god was just and comp@ssinate why send the tsunami that killed 300 thousand, why create the plague that killed nearly 75 million in the middle ages when nearly everyone was a VERY devout believer....

Jesus was free from many claims on him in terms of family, law, and authority; he was free to speak on his own authority and to do so without making any claims for himself.

While they do not claim to be a gluten - free bakery, they make their delicious gluten - free cinnamon rolls in a completely separate gluten - free baking area.

However, I don't see how you can claim they are sugar - free!

If the use of gluten - containing growth media does not preclude a gluten - free labeling claim, then the FDA should clarify how products containing bacteria should be tested to ensure safety for gluten - free consumers.