Sentences with phrase «living argument even»

Balls makes it clear that Labour will stick to its cost - of - living argument even though statistics are likely to show that inflation has ticked down to 1.6 % in March from 1.7 % in February.

Not exact matches

The same is true for any argument about extra-terrestrial life in the cosmos in any form (even so - called «ghosts» and other phenomenon).

If examining rational arguments, perceiving God in transcendent experience, and delving deeply into difficult questions are what drew me closer to Christ, seeing Christ work in the lives of actual Christians is what opened my heart to Him in the first place, allowing me to see how He had been working in my own life all along, even when I had refused to seek Him.

But, please note that the majority of Jews living here are not from Israel they are Europeans, or Americans, even by your own standards your argument is unsound.

like former leader... we too have kept open house and had people live with us long and short term for nearly all our married life... we've had debate, argument, sadness, hilarity... even had someone with a disturbing psychosis... not at one stage have we felt the need to make any rules... that would almost be like copping out of relationship.

Even if the argument is valid or scientifically support, such as when human life begins.

Even among Christians, for whom scripture should be a guide to life's challenges, many cling to the idea that issues such as abortion and the end of life are so complex that only a simple - minded person, unable to see two sides of an argument, could possibly take a firm stance.

Abstract arguments from Natural Law even when they are true, and in fact they are true, will be dismissed impatiently unless they can be related to, and reflected in a living law found within the mind and heart.

She even openly admits in her argument that the sole basis of her argument was not a piece of literature meant to accurately depict the methods through which matter, energy, the Earth and life came about.

The tyranny of the PRO-LIFE argument is so retarded because it demands that NO ONE should be able to have an abortion, even if the fetus is (1) the result of a vicious r - ape, (2) the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, among other examples that prove that abortion is not always an «act of convenience.»

I am a scientist, and more importantly for this argument, a mathematician, and I can say that even the largest statistics creationists manage to make up would still allow life to form naturally.

Even in its more sophisticated guise, such as the argument of Immanuel Kant that life in heaven is to be a due adjustment of affairs after the obvious evil known and experienced in mundane life, there is for many people little meaning.

Even if we were to grant (for the sake of argument only) that God could or would intervene in this way in earthly affairs, God's resurrection of this one person can not logically support the likelihood of salvation for the rest of us: (A) It can not prove that God is able to save us from death and grant us eternal life; (B) it can not guarantee that God is interested in doing this; and (C) it does not even show that God will forgive our sEven if we were to grant (for the sake of argument only) that God could or would intervene in this way in earthly affairs, God's resurrection of this one person can not logically support the likelihood of salvation for the rest of us: (A) It can not prove that God is able to save us from death and grant us eternal life; (B) it can not guarantee that God is interested in doing this; and (C) it does not even show that God will forgive our seven show that God will forgive our sins.

For me the difference between the biblical gospels and the later Gnostic gospels was obvious when I read them, even before I was a believer; and there are plenty of reasonable arguments for the case that the four gospels of the Bible are the most accurate historical accounts that we have of Jesus» life.

My second argument is that even if by some measures vast growth does reduce the percentage of the world's population that is desperately poor, present policies will destroy the natural basis for our life together long before they resolve the problem of poverty.

Zygmunt Bauman's argument, that we live in a time when even the most longstanding and reliable social structures are in permanent flux, seems to me compelling.

Even if, however, all the contextual and exegetical material presented above is wrong, and this verse does in fact teach that God ordained these particular Gentiles to receive eternal life (which the arguments above show He did not), this verse is still not a good proof - text for the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election.

In fact, some of his greatest arguments with the soldiers / governments over the years have been over this very issue — the humans are afraid and so they want to kill the aliens while he wants to encourage life and cooperation (thinking in particular of the Ninth Doctor with Harriet Jones or even the battle of Canary Wharf when we lost Rose because of Torchwood opening the breach etc.).

The argument is particularly devastating today, for it is addressed precisely to the deprived, to workers, to those who live in underdeveloped countries (who are in even worse case than the besieged in Jerusalem), and it is true enough on its negative side.

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

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!

Joy itself is evangelical, and people are more easily shocked by a happy, chaste Christian than they are by hearing about statistical studies of homosexuality or even philosophical arguments, such as sexual acts having intrinsic meaning and being open to new life.

(Jeremiah 15:15) Moreover, the saving efficacy of good lives in a community had been an implicit corollary of the old sense of social solidarity, as is picturesquely evidenced in Yahweh's consent to Abraham's argument that if there were even ten good men in Sodom it should not be destroyed.

29 The reconversion is bolstered by a similar presupposition that all those who live in the geographical limits of India are nothing other than Hindus, even if there is a dominant and credible argument made by these communities that they are not only non-Hindu but pre-Hindu in composition.

If you would like to claim that human life has some unproven magical quality that only those with certain other unproven magical qualities can end, then good luck proving those claims that you must first prove before even putting forth your argument.

The problem with the anti-choice argument is that there is no legal precedent for anyone to be obligated to save another person's life, even without threat to their own.

It has not, however, been as prominent in the actual life and thought of religious communities — even in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the argument from design was frequently presented by Christian apologists.

I've got a lot to learn on this front, and I need people to keep me accountable, but I'm convinced that my best «apologetic» is not an argument or a defense or even a published book, but a life transformed by the love and grace of Jesus Christ.

Or of the reality that with new life comes swollen breasts, dry heaves, dirty diapers, snotty noses, late - night arguments, and a whole army of new dangers and fears she never even considered before because life - giving isn't nearly as glamorous as it sounds, but it's a thousand times more beautiful.

Those of us who have made the effort to engage Mormons in friendly and sustained give - and - take conversations have come to see them as good citizens whose life of faith often exhibits qualities that are worthy of the Christian label, even as we continue to engage in friendly arguments with them about crucial theological issues.

His rationalism is a sustained argument that most of what is, even in the life of God, is contingent.

We're getting way off base into a semantics argument that is even more irrelevant to life than our actual conversation at hand (which is also still pretty irrelevant to life).

Harrington, a journalism professor at Illinois, has written a passionate argument that hunting can be a powerful, uplifting force in men's lives, even for him, an unapologetically sensitive 21st - century guy who has emotional rap sessions with his son that end in hugs and I - love - yous.

I find the question so absurd, not to mention possibly racist in its motivation, that when I am confronted with «birthers» who believe otherwise, I find it difficult to even focus on their arguments about the difference between a birth certificate and a certificate of live birth.

Recently even The New York Times got into the act, interpreting an argument from philosopher Nick Bostrom to mean that «it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else's computer simulation.»

This argument focuses on a class of chemicals called dioxins, and suggests that in the modern world, overburdened by pollutants, these fat - soluble chemicals accumulate specifically in the fatty tissue of animal products, making a vegetarian — even vegan — diet a necessity for those living in the modern world.

«Persepolis» pulls off something that's not easy for any film, even a live - action one, to do: It gives us a sense of how a kids» - eye view of the world — particularly the way kids are capable of grasping the idea of injustice, even when more delicate political arguments are beyond their reach — can emerge and grow into an adult sensibility.

I wouldn't even bother addressing the spurious argument that people freely chose where they live and therefore what schools their children attend.

Everywhere we turn there are compelling arguments citing one of a myriad of reasons how and why drugs and alcohol destroy lives and some sources even offer information on where you or your loved on can get help.

Hell, you could even make the argument that I'd be better off indexing, and I write about stocks for a living these days.

Well, there simply isn't a single shred of evidence that it saves even one life, so this argument falls flat.

Their argument was that since the cats were â $ œwildâ $ or â $ œunsocialized, â $ they were better off dead, even though they lived in a largely wooded campus, in a good climate, with plenty of shelter, and people willing to care for them.

Multiple narrative voices bring these characters to life, allowing players to switch perspectives, and even make different choices based on what side of the arguments they fall on.

Even as arguments against modernism's supposed transcendence of daily life were issued by a host of global players — Hélio Oiticica and the tropicália movement in Brazil, Guy Debord and the Situationist International in France, the Art Workers» Coalition and early land art in the us — many influential curators and critics doubled down, most notably Michael Fried in his 1967 essay «Art and Objecthood», a defence of medium specificity and the priority of immediacy and opticality.

And even then it is not easy — look only how hard lived is that stupid argument that the GHE for the Earth represents 33 °C that makes about as much sense as saying that a parabole is approximated by a horizontal line over the whole space.

I'll argue that if you're one of the ~ 3M persons living in the Ben Tre and Long An provinces of Vietnam situated on the Mekong Delta, unsupported claims such as Lindzen's «The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal» is hardly a tight argument and is ethically extremely dubious, aimed as it is at paralyzing the public policy response necessary to protect those people at risk.

The client might want the lawyer to make an argument that implies with dog whistle type statements that the victim was a gay Jewish black man who didn't deserve to live anyway, while the client was the descendant of a plantation owner who was active protecting KKK interests in the county, and effectively nudge the jury to engage in jury nullification and acquit the client even if they believe that he is guilty.

And even though the argument could be used that you are still young, keep in mind that the earlier in life a whole life policy is purchased, the lower the premiums will be.

When targets are clear and accomplishments are tracked, it is much easier to make the argument for a raise — even if the company policy is «cost of living adjustments only across the board.»

Families can feel they are experiencing an unprecedented amount of conflict, and arguments seem to arise from even the smallest details of daily life for and with adolescents.