Sentences with phrase «mean other arguments»

But I mean other arguments should come into play.

Not exact matches

It means deciding what one believes not by conforming to fashionable opinions, but by taking the trouble to learn and honestly consider the strongest arguments to be advanced on both or all sides of questions — including arguments for positions that others revile and want to stigmatize and against positions others seek to immunize from critical scrutiny.»

This does not mean you are ignorant, it means your argument has built in exclusion of other explanations.

My argument in a nutshell: many of the people who argue for such a right don't simply mean a right to be free from others» interference; they mean subsidized....

Others have pointed to this argument as a «might makes right» argument and I've noted the old axiom that «just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.»

Other concepts are also discussed: The meaning of the Word «God, Monotheism, «God» defined, God's existence, Polytheism, Arguments for existence of God, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Immanence and Transcendence, Creation, and God as personal.

But a compelling philosophical argument can be made for the view that gay is not good, which means that it should be considered a disease in the same way as all the other sexual disorders in the DSM.

If you mean that when we state our stance on something we are in danger of offending, then for sure offense is okay, it is when we build into our argument accusation of the motives of others right alongside our belief that we cease to operate in the spirit of Christ

There never was a time in History that atheists exist, only in this present stage of our intellectual developement that they deny His exisrence, but it can be easily explained that they are just part of the dialectical process of having to have two opposing arguments or forces to arrive to the truth, The opposing forces today are the theists or religious believers of all religions and the other are the atheists who denies religion, The reslultant truth in the future will be Panthrotheism, the belief that we are all one with the whole universe with God, and that we Had all to unite to prepare for human survival that will subject us humans in the future.Aided by the the enlightend consevationist, environmentalists, humanists and all of the concerned activists, we will develop a kind of universal harmony and awareness that we are all guided towards love and concern for all of our specie.The great concern of the whole conscious and caring world to the natural disaster in the Phillipines,, the most theist country now is a positive sign towards this religious direction.Panthrotheism means we will be One with God.

But all of these texts are extremely difficult to interpret: crucial words remain obscure (e. g., authentein; exousia); the addressed situations are difficult to reconstruct; the «surface meaning» contradicts other Pauline material; and the methods of argument reflect cultural thought - forms no longer in use.

To find a principle through the natural law reasoning of judges that makes the Constitution mean something other than, sometimes opposite to, what those who voted to make it law understood themselves to mean can hardly be sound moral argument.

Not meaning to contradict your argument in any way, but the truth is that the problem isn't only in pointing out se - xual impurities, but a general blindness to other forms of sin.

I'd be ready to accept the merit in your arguments if I could see what you mean by «sound hermeneutics» rather than being told that others lack them.

In addition to the argument from the wonders and the apparent intelligence of the world, and from the course of human history, past and future, as he believed it might he calculated, Second Isaiah had one other consideration which is presented with such brevity that there is danger of reading into it perhaps more than he meant.

In other words, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when in the course of an argument the meanings of an ambiguous word or phrase are traded unfairly to get us to accept the conclusion when in fact we shouldn't.

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

Indeed, their full meaning is likely to become more apparent in the future than at the time of the book's first appearance, as thinkers from other world traditions engage its arguments.

I'm an atheist, and I don't really care what others believe, as long as no one is trying to force me into their beliefs (and I don't mean things like putting Bible passages in courthouses, those arguments are just petty).

The old «Christianity is evil because Christianity has killed millions» argument... If you read the Bible, there are many times that God commanded His people to destroy other groups of people through, gasp, violent means, because those people had rejected Him completely and were ruining the earth, which He had made.

Then the lucid addition of «So Satan may not tempt you with your lack of self control» I mean one can easily make the rational assumption or argument that masturbation is a good remedy in this regard as well to help relieve the desires of the flesh that might other wise lead a married person to adultery.

This argument, based not strictly on deterrence but on incapacitation of known offenders, is inconclusive, since there are other effective means of protecting the innocent against convicted murderers — for example, imprisonment of murderers for life in high - security institutions.

Andrew, for your argument to be valid, all knowing has to mean something other than all knowing.

From what I have read, the argument for this apparent inconsistency is that Jesus» subordination to the Father relates to his role in the Godhead, not his ontological status; meaning the Father and Son (and presumably the Spirit) are one and equal because Jesus» subordination somehow doesn't affect his being even though it is a position he takes and has taken and will take for all eternity and can do no other.

The sermon itself conrextualizes them and thus alters their meaning by placing them polemically in relationship to other arguments, by selecting some of their features at the expense of others, by incorporating them into narratives, and by presenting them in a way that evokes a certain response or identification from the listener.

Others — most notably Ricoeur — have made the same observation, arguing that metaphor contributes to the multivalency of biblical meaning and thus to the enduring appeal of biblical texts.8 But Frye's argument is different.

However, none of what I have shown above will matter to you or others like you because acknowledging it would mean your arguments and stories against the board and Wenger were invalid and insubstantial and people would listen to you or bother reading what you had to say.

I try to be balanced in my beliefs, meaning that I try to look at both sides of an argument logically before choosing to side with one or the other.

@laninja, do nt get my last post wrong mate i am not defending that it was embarrasing and keane, as captain, should hav been a man and told the ref he made a mistake, but the way he grabbed the ball amidst the georgians complaining to the ref smacks of everything i hav been complaining about this week, but listen does that mean the other 15 squad members should suffer because keane lacks as much integrity as henry?i hav been surprised how easy lads hav found it to favour the french in this argument....

Her argument didn't make any sense to me: just because her children got distracted by iPads doesn't mean other children shouldn't have them.

They might jump to conclusions and think arguments mean their parents don't love each other anymore.

But parents» arguments usually don't mean that they don't love each other or that they're getting a divorce.

But what I've learned is that there are actually strong arguments in favor of going totally in the other direction, i.e., universal free lunch for everyone, regardless of means.

Ignoring your insane, made - up statistics, your argument is that because babies die in hospitals and elsewhere by other means that we should all accept home birth deaths as well and refrain from discussing how to prevent them?

The great irony of the history, in my view, is that accepting Churchill's critique of the appeasement policy of the 1930s was very explicitly a choice that our interests were inextricably linked with what happened in Europe (there is an argument, made by Paul Kennedy and others, that this can be said of much English and British history back to 1066) and that this inevitably meant speeding the decline of Empire and global power status.

In fairness I don't think he meant it in a development context - he'd be clearly wrong since the Washington Consensus is long dead and overwhelming evidence from Stiglitz, Ha - Joon Chang, Oxfam and others show that no country in history has lifted its people out of poverty without an active state, the infant industry arguments etc..

Drugs way nastier than marihuana (including methadona, heroine and other opium derivatives) are part of standard medical treatments; making marihuana a prescription drug is not an argument for marihuana legalization because that would mean being for the legalization of novocaine, morphine and all of the other nasty stuff.

The work re-ignites arguments to ban neonics, and certainly comparable studies are now need on other pollinator species given that honey bees are by no means the contributor to crop pollination.»

In other words, if climate sensitivity is toward the low end, 2 K is more dangerous than we currently give it credit for, and arguments for low risk because of low sensitivity are less valid because that means that more ecological changes occur for a given temperature change than currently thought.

I mean, I guess if the kid has his hair stuck in an escalator or some other machine of mass destruction, or if bees have built their home in his hair, you would have a solid argument as to why you were forced to make a game - time decision and chop it, stat.

There appear to be two differing schools of thought regarding Metacritic; one argues that its inconsequential and its flawed nature means that it should be disregarded in an objective assessment of any games in question and the other school relies on its results to prop up its arguments, even if it makes an admission to the flawed nature of its findings.

In those places, Greene's argument is exactly backward: Charter schools and their teachers pay the same high employer and employee contribution rates as all other schools, but higher turnover rates mean their teachers will get much less in return.

We (meaning all of us — educators, parents, businesspeople, politicians and others) often default to an economic argument in discussions of public education, no matter the particular initiative at hand.

His advice for others wanting to go down the crowdfunding route is to set a realistic target (Pozible's «all - or - nothing» option means if you don't hit your target you don't get anything), put forward a persuasive, plausible argument, and make sure your donors feel valued.

The other side of the argument is that the hair is meant to be there, that it protects against anything entering the ear canal and starting problems, and if you pluck the hair, out you are leaving a tiny hole at the follicle that is vulnerable to germs and causes of ear issues.

;P Not that I care, nor is it the point of what I'm about to discuss) Aside from the latter, just some constructive criticism, no offenses meant... I CAN repeatedly say I'm a seasoned vet of 35 years who definitely has experience with more than two dozen animals and spout an argument, but it doesn't make any of it true until I have evidence... you know, what you badgered others for, but only had excuses why you couldn't provide yours.

This, however, is a flawed argument as Titanfall's maps need to offer a tight layout as player's are meant to make the most of their jetpacks to get the jump on other players.

You know that means we get to hear plenty of nonsense arguments and statements, but we wouldn't have it any other way!

The argument he makes it basically, «well, this might all be new stuff thematically for a videogame to explore, but it's been done by other forms of entertainment», which is the strangest god damn point that means absolutely NOTHING.

There's an elision of important differences going on in your argument between the nature of a game meant to be played by people sitting in a room together with the human rulesmaster and a game meant to be played by strangers separated in time and space from each other and from a potentially non-human rulesmaster.

The argument here is that the game is both more fun with and meant to be played with others, and that's probably the case... if local multiplayer is an option for you.