Sentences with phrase «if the world agrees»

It will only work if the world agrees.

Not exact matches

And he doesn't see it as being all that different from being a doctor, even if his parents — or much of the world — don't agree.

«The priorities of his rewrite, if Canada and Mexico agree, are supposed to restrict North American trade and investment, not boost our competitiveness with the world.»

In December 2015, the world agreed to the Paris Accord; to slash greenhouse gas emissions to hold global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C (over what it was before the Industrial Revolution), and, if we miss that target, to as far below 2 degrees as possible.

Here's how that could work: Trump threatens to slap punitive tariffs on all steel imports, but makes it clear that they're temporary measures that could be changed if other countries around the world agree to join a summit with the US to discuss what to do about China.

What happens if the world's two largest economies can't agree on what counts as fair trade?

Most atheists will even agree the world would be a better place if people actually followed his philosophy (especially his followers).

If they are not willing to take responsibility for the violence their people perpetuate on the world, then they agree with their actions whether they are going to admit it or not.

people really need to study the bible — not for Christianity sake but for theirs - the athiest would like everyone to understand them and used this phrase — But when I explain that atheism is central to my worldview — that I am in awe of the natural world and that I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems — they often better understand my views, even if we don't agree.

ragansteve1 If you're saying that there isn't enough time in the world to prove your points, I'd have to agree.

If everyone agreed to contribute by their own sweat to the gain of the rest of the world rather than standing at the altar lecturing how God will show us «non-believers» rapture, suffering and pain is then worth wondering at that moment, how many other faiths at that moment are saying their God will do the same to you?

We also agree that the world is a wonderful place — except I would add, if you're rich.

This is upsurd and if the Vatican in any way agrees with this then they have absolutely no credibility in the modern world (not that they have much left in the first place).

In a somewhat different vein, Tracy and Lash, while agreeing that the anthropic principle is untenable in science, find a certain kind of anthropocentrism appropriate in theology: (1) human beings are both products of and interpreters of the evolutionary process; (2) human beings are responsible for much of our world's ills: «if we are the «center» of anything, we are the center of «sin,» of the self - assertive disruption and unraveling of the process of things, at least on our small planet» (Tracy and Lash, 280).

I agree with the analysis & have had similar experience but the reality is that, even with the best will in the world, if your paths don't collide on a Sunday morning or at some other «meeting» it is hard to maintain these previously triangular friendships in most spheres of life.

I agree with not going trying to change the world as in change to people by telling them they are wrong and I am right (IF I have understood your point of view) but I guess I'm not so convinced when it comes to society, and just accepting what ever **** is in there or anywhere.

But if they are good in themselves, and if by a «point» you mean some truth about the real world which one can take out of the story, I'm not sure that I agree.

But if we could unite, if we could love one another, if we could agree that love for others was more important than being right about the rapture, then maybe the church would stop dividing over doctrine, and start showing the world what the love of God really looks like.

And while I'm not sure I agree with the Distributist Review «s contention that this tradition «[remains] as vibrant as ever,» it's foolish to bet against its continued relevance or even resurgence in a world where much of political and economic life is emphatically not conducted as if people — or God — matter.

Paul states that his wish and standard would be unmarried since he believed the world was ending but agreed that if you couldn't keep your lusts and desires to one's self, it is better to marry than burn.

I would have to agree, if you have no sense of justice or mercy and you can live in a world where you are the master instead of the slave yet simultaneously believe that you are kind and compassionate, that is the perfect recipe for personal peace and happiness.

I also agree with the author's statement that we need to be like children and learn to trust that the world is unfolding in a way that if we take advantage of the good nature that surrounds us we shall enjoy a good life.

If 46 % of people in the world's most technologically advanced and free nation don't agree with Mr. Nye, then he needs to think that over.

If Jesus died to rid the world of sin, I think we all can agree that he failed.

This world has a lot of problems, but if everyone took a truly objective look, they would probably agree that the worst one is probably not that some people believe in Jesus.

And if you are hoping for something better — a representative of Islam who agrees with Franklin Graham about Muhammad or with Newt Gingrich about the Quran — well, it is the real world we are inhabiting.

I agree with you one hundred percent if the spirit of god is in you he will bring to your attention those will full sins that we commit and we will recognize them ask for forgiveness confess and move on because you believe in the son of God his spirit is here to convict us of are sins if it wasn't important to god to allow us to see and convict us of our sins we wouldn't need the holy spirit john 16:8 and when he comes he will reprove the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment of sin because they believe not of me.

If it worked like that, all bible believers would agree, and furthermore, it would be the most believed book in the world.

If we today would see a Christian, and we have seen some well known names in the Christian world, commit one of these sins there would be a whole lot of doubt concerning the state of their soul (I think it is biblical to have concerns but I don't agree with self - righteous fruit inspecting).

I know most Christains don't agree with his statement, but if you are a christian, then you are in the same group and the world will see you as such.

But the succeeding acts of the drama must take place on another level; they must occur in a new world into which, at this moment, we are being born: a world in which each thinking unit upon earth will only act (if he agrees to act) in the consciousness, become natural and instinctive to all, of furthering a work of total personalization.

They are not prepared to agree with the medieval hymn - writer who said that «the times are very evil» — if by those words it is being said that the world itself, the things of this world, the experiences known in this world, are in and of themselves bad.

If we could only agree on the essentials and let go of the non-essentials, we would be a much better witness to the world.

I understand and agree with you Toby, however Christians and other religion were not the only ones who carried out acts of violence, Atheists famous people did as well, You see it doesn't matter if your a believer or not, people are imperfect and we created an imperfect world because of our imperfections.

When they themselves must agree that the world is broken that something has going wrong, that the world is not the way it is suppose to be (just look at the largest section in any book store — self help) and refuse to show the world how aid should be provided if they think the Christians have it so wrong.

all religions will agree on one thing «God» and for the people who choose not to look for him because its to much trouble for them, God tells us whats going to happen in the end, and even if the end of the world doesn't come in your life time, when you die its the end of the world for you....

Even if their theology about the future of the world differed, they were likely to agree that America was God's chosen nation.

I agree with you that seeing suffering in the world leads to the question, «If God exists, why doesn't he do something to stop it.»

Don't become part of the spirit of the world... stay away from it... if it means that you are «called» offensive because you don't agree with the world then so be it... Jesus taught that the world will «hate you» because it first hated me...

We commonly (if tacitly) agree that the human world has human meaning, which we can discover, and the given natural world does not.»

And, if you really read the bible, you would have to agree that the god of the bible is the biggest mass killer in the history of the world.

I don't agree that if you focus on what is paramount, then the right partner suddenly appears - not in today's world.

In other words, I agree that Christian faith must see God in the world but that it can not remain content with «the world» as if it exhausted all there is of God.

If you don't agree with the 95 % of the world it is okay!

That the world would be a better place if human population were smaller is a point on which I, as a Whiteheadian, strongly agree; so the issue is a different one.

Before we go further, let's see if we can agree on certain basic attitudes toward the problem presented by the world's various faiths.

Jeremy I agree its not about what we can do but all about what Jesus has done for us it is all about his grace not following mans laws or trying to please the pastor or the church.Be respectful for those in authority and show them Gods love work hard as for the Lord as you serve them and pray for them but do nt try and please them.We no longer follow the ways of the world we live to please the Lord and worship him not man because that is idolatory.Thats why religion does nt work we can do nothing to add to Gods grace.Grace is also not a licence to sin as some christians believe and God is not fooled if we do not repent and turn from our sin he does nt hear our prayers if the intents of our heart are wrong.God listens to the humble and the repentent sinner or saint.The journey in following Christ is about how much do we want to follow Jesus to discover the abundant life and richs in Christ we must fully give him all our hearts and serve him wholehearted out of thankfulness for his grace and mercy towards us.brentnz

However, if we now agree that Premise X is only metaphysically false (and not logically false), i.e., if we agree that it is only metaphysically impossible (and not logically impossible) for one being's activities to be completely determined by another, given the analysis of «X is omnipotent» with which we have been working, there would be no apparent reason for supposing that it is not within the power of an omnipotent being to completely determine each of the activities of all other beings and thus to bring about a world devoid of evil.

Just like if I don't agree with atheists or liberals, or whoever, no way would I say keep your beliefs to yourselves then my world would be much nicer.

But if he does, if he wants to destroy everything God loves, especially the Savior of the world and his followers, can you agree it would be incredibly dangerous not to know it?