Sentences with phrase «men than the answer»

Some people think where to meet single men than the answer is online dating websites.

It wasn't necessary, as the life of Hoffa would probably be fascinating enough on its own, and while there are some genuine moments of interest here, as envisioned by DeVito, this is a flashy but empty experience that probably raises more questions about the motivation of the man than it answers.

Not exact matches

More men answered the question correctly than women (64 percent vs. 56 percent); however, both genders had sizable portions tripped up by the answer «Income after taxes» (15 percent male vs. 17 percent female).

Women had a higher percentage of correct answers than men (71 percent vs. 65 percent).

While hunting for answers as to why women — more than men — run into greater barriers when financing their businesses, I realised that just finding the answer wasn't good enough.

Atheists would much rather believe that we have not yet discovered the answers than believe that some magical cloud man just decided he was bored one day and created everything.

Yes I know these «answer» men claim one genealogy was actually Mary's rather than Joseph's.

For all things are yours; * Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Please, any Christian, honestly answer the following: The completely absurd theory that all 7,000,000,000 human beings are simultaneously being supervised 24 hours a day, every day of their lives by an immortal, invisible being for the purposes of reward or punishment in the «afterlife» comes from the field of: (a) Astronomy; (b) Medicine; (c) Economics; or (d) Christianity You are about 70 % likely to believe the entire Universe began less than 10,000 years ago with only one man, one woman and a talking snake if you are a: (a) historian; (b) geologist; (c) NASA astronomer; or (d) Christian I have convinced myself that gay $ ex is a choice and not genetic, but then have no explanation as to why only gay people have ho.mo $ exual urges.

@fimeilleur actually i can back up the claims i make both personally and historically, one example Abraham, Machpelah (actual location of his tomb and remains along with 5 others in Israel right where they are supposed to be) Kedorlaomer king of Elam, (defeated by Abraham and recently discovered) it is said Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.More than that Abraham saw God and spoke with Him, not the god you are on about that men use to justify their evil intent, but the God who has created all things, the God that no one especially you can not contain.Ignorance is your choice but that will not negate the existence of God in any way.No one that i am aware of has all the answers at this point regarding spiritual things, evolution or evilution there are areas God has not yet revealed to mankind but every day more is discovered.I find it amazing that God is big enough to share discovery even with those who would reject Him.

Science is made up of more theory than proof, and i am not quick to believe any mortal / finite man saying he found the answers to the universe which is infinite.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

I will answer you, for God is greater than man.

scott god also told us not to judge, so let cleflo do cleflo and you do you if you do nt understand how to percieve gods word than it could also be you i remember when i first got saved i was taught a lots of religion stuff but i kept running after god and not after man and he revile some things to me thur his holy spirit watch what you say about gods people cause we all have issues and with that being said be blessed and if hes doing wrong by gods word than he has to answer to god not you so why set yourself up to be curse for it god do nt need your help in nothing stay free cause who god set free is free indeed.

Although we have proceeded with this discussion in a structure much simpler than that of Professor Paul Tillich, we shall attempt what he calls a «method of correlation,» whereby man's existential questions are met by the answers of our Christian faith.

I'm sorry but «God did it» is not a valid answer and is nothing more than the last refuge of morons, lazy thinkers and con - men.

Part of the answer is that these ancient events are moments in a living process which includes also the existence of the church at the present day; and another part is that, as Christians believe, in these events of ancient time God was at work among men, and it is from his action in history rather than from abstract arguments that we learn what God is like, and what are the principles on which he deals with men, now as always.

The answer is that it comes down to a conviction that God who is everywhere at work and everywhere available to men and women is indeed nothing other than Love - in - action.

Paul clearly states that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities in high places; He is suppose to be setting a principal and he is in fact destroying the thing that God stand for, serving the flesh and the creation more than the creator who is blessed forever; Man will always have a battle between flesh and spirit; he is more flesh than spirit ever in his dress muscles and tight shirts; which has no place in the spirit;» dealing with matters of the holy ghost «he can speck it but he can «t live it; which is the trouble with a lot of modern day Christians; do as i say not as i do... old fashion parents had the same concept, its not just Eddie he got caught, he was just falling weak to the flesh and his own desires; only thing is, he is responsible for the souls of those under his leadership; He must answer and atone to God for those actions, you think for a moment we are being hard on him; God has a way of letting us know when we are wrong that lets us know we need to change.

Great — so, either these four young men never were abused, but simply saw an opportunity to shake down an individual with a questionable reputation (the «where there's smoke» strategy), and Pastor Long either caved in to the pressure, or sought an expedient route (possibly used before) to make the problem go away; OR, these really are four young men who've been abused, but rather than make the pastor answer for what he did to them in a court of law, and spare other young men in the future the trauma they experienced, they allowed their silence to be bought.

In answer tothey not him.There is no place in the book, the Bible, that says the planet is only 6000 years old, it is the word of God, just because the Bible has been misinterpreted by men and women over the years does not make it (the Bible) a work of fiction.The Bible has been proven to be more accurate and unchanged than any other text of antiquity.Case in point Kedorlaomer.

My answer is simply this, that it is because at present our magnificent Christian charity lacks what it needs to make it decisively effective, the sensitizing ingredient of Human faith and hope without which, in reason and in fact, no religion can henceforth appear to Man other than colorless, cold and inassimilable.

This speaking of God may ultimately only point to the question which is man himself and thus hint at God's mystery in silence, the result may be less adequate than any statement on another subject, the answer, aimed at God's bright «heaven», may ever again fall back into the dark sphere of man or may consist in inexorably upholding the question that transcends any definition, formula or phenomenon.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has felt sometimes the WCC has not placed its thinking on the social content of salvation solidly within the perspective of the ultimate goal of salvation... the eternal life in God, «with the result that appropriation of eternal life is made to depend on social conditions rather than social conditions on the appropriation of eternal life»; and the Ecumenical Patriarchate has warned us that in «turning towards the anguish of the man today», the WCC must not forget the basic truth that man sees himself as hungering for an answer to a basic question over and beyond his acute interest in the most vital socio - political problems of the day.»

But someone who sits on a science committee should have a better answer for a magazine interview than «I'm not a scientist, man,».

Jeremy have been asking the holy spirit for his help with this and in regards to the lame man that Jesus healed I do nt believe that sin was the issue for him just like the blind man was it his parents or did he sin the answer was neither but so that God would be glorified.What was the sin that may have been worse for him.The two situations are related of the woman caught in adultery the key words being go and sin no more only two references in the bible and will explain later the lame man we see at first his dependency on everyone else for his needs he cant do it he is in the best position to receive Gods grace but what does he do with it.Does he follow Jesus no we are told he goes to the temple and Jesus finds him now that he has his strength to do things on his own what his response to follow the way of the pharisees that is what is worse than his condition before so he is warned by go and sin no more.We get confused because we see the word sin but the giver of is speaking to him to go another way means death.Getting back to the two situations of the woman caught in adultery and the lame man here we see a picture of our hearts on the one our love for sin and on the other the desire to work out our salvation on our terms they are the two areas we have to submit to God.My experience was the self righteousness was the harder to deal with because it is linked in to our feelings of self worth and self confidence so we have to be broken so we are humble enough to realise that without God we can do nothing our flesh hates that so it is a struggle at first to change our way of thinking.brentnz

The reason for that is man, in his weakness needing answers, makes deities up to fill the gap in his knowledge rather than admit it is unknown and strive using science to find an answer based on facts.

that was the best evidence... rather than cause someone told me so... thus no man can prove me wrong or convince me to change... I will answer more tonight when I return home

Rather than giving a direct answer that the man could easily have rejected, Tiebout responded, «I suppose that what really matters is your answer to that question.

These scientist, and doctors, can not remake skin, bone, eyes, brains, oval eggs, sperm, none of the sort, so they have no real answer to create a life other than how procreation works, where again what, and how is the very first man, or woman, animal, other creatures, either in the sea, or creeping on this earth was originally created from, as where did they first come from?

The resulting Aquinas is one who is closer to Augustine and, yes, closer to Protestantism than is the know - it - all, answer - man who is sometimes conjured by Catholic supporters and derided by Protestant detractors.

Far more important than the question as to whether such occasional prayers can be answered as we wish is the basic need of all men to be sure that life has meaning.

Its state - supported cults could command less respect from men seeking the answers to the riddle of the universe and of human existence than could those of the others.

In that system of processing those things which elude our natural mind, we must at some point settle that the greatest thinkers in history failed to answer quite a bit more than they obtained in their understanding & they certainly, even at the height of their skill set were unable to elude an inevitable natural death that no man can evade.

And do they think that believing that an invisible magic man (who will torture you if you don't believe in him) is really better answer to universe origins than their caricature of scientific conjecture on the subject.

For him, it would not suffice that absolute might sat enthroned at the center of the universe; such power must itself answer to common standards of equity, not less than the lowliest man.

So, to answer your question, is, Welbeck better, at this moment in time, than the Pool man.

Why now and not verse Southampton (H) league cup (A) EPL, Swansea (A) Stoke (A) Leicester (A) Man Utd (H) City (H) Spurs (H) Chelsea (A) Hull (H) The win asks more questions than it answers.

If we get a result at OT and Geoff «I'm can only ask obvious WUM questions I already know the answer to» Shreeves versus LvG may be a better spectacle than the Mayweather / Pac - Man fight.

playing with g - rod up front is like sticking to fingers up to traditional arsenal play of fast movement one twos and pass and move football this is very unlike wenger to make such a major shift away front his normal trends of style of play big man up front with no pace just isn't the wenger way really he needs to go back to the past really to answer the current problem i have noticed all the other top 4 teams are more wenger they are (wengerites to coin a phrase) than wenger himself playing with a big srtong pacey team like we use to have they all copied wengers blueprint and left him behind somewhere along the line and he altered his and its not been the same since do nt change a winning system of power and pace if it is was working for you mr wenger

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Picture this, we don't come out of the gate firing on all cylinders, Wenger speaks of how there wasn't enough time for the first - teamers to build chemistry, several key players aren't even playing because of Wenger's utterly ridiculous policy regarding players who played in the Confed Cup or the under21s and the boo - birds have returned in full flight... if these things were to happen, which is quite possible considering the Groundhog Day mentality of this club, how long do you think it will take for Wenger to recant his earlier statements regarding Europa... I would suggest that it's these sorts of comments from Wenger which are often his undoing... why would any manager worth his weight in salt make such a definitive statement before the season has even started... why would any manager who fashions himself an educated man make such pronouncements before even knowing what his starting 11 will be come Friday, let alone on September 1st... why would any manager who has a tenuous relationship with a great many supporters offer up such a potentially contentious talking point considering how many times his own words have come back to bite him in the ass... I think he does this because he doesn't care what you or I think, in fact he's more than slightly infuriated by the very idea of having to answer to the likes of you and me... that might have been acceptable during his formative years in charge, when the fans were rewarded with an scintillating brand of football and success felt like a forgone conclusion, but this new Wenger led team barely resembles that team of ore... whereas in times past we relished a few words from our seemingly cerebral manager, in recent times those words have been replaced by a myriad of excuses, a plethora of infuriating stories about who he could have signed but didn't and what can only be construed as outright fabrications... it's kind of funny that when we want some answers, like during the whole contract debacle of last season, we can't get an intelligent word out of him, but when we just what him to show his managerial acumen through his actions, we can't seem to get him to shut - up... I beg you to prove me wrong Arsene

In the land of the Blind the one eye is King...... Welbz is not the answer either, better option than Lampost maybe, we all expect too much from a man that was sidelined for a year and that in all honesty is not a great finisher himself, same we are now hoping Jack is the answer, well sit tight.

The Emirates Stadium was treated to an Arsenal masterclass with a 2 - 0 win over arch-rivals Tottenham Hotspur, however, the victory has posed more questions than answers to what has already been a turbulent season for Arsene Wenger and his men.

Dear Abby: May I answer «Ed in East Illinois, «who asked: «Is it true that closely guarded tribal secrets on how to please a woman are passed down from father to son, making Indians better lovers than white men?

There's no simple answer to the question of why women choose science - related fields less often than men.

The authors examined data from the «Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe» in which more than 31,000 men and women over the age of 50 from 13 European countries answered questions that tested cognitive functions including memory, mathematical ability, and verbal fluency.

Loke was fully prepared to answer the man's questions about the parasites he knew so well, but what he did not realize was that his companion had more than just questions — he had worms burrowed in his intestinal walls, worms he had deliberately swallowed.

I'm not sure how to answer you second two question except to point out this sentence from the post above: «Vegan men tended to have significantly higher testosterone levels than both vegetarians and meateaters...» So, being vegan looks to be a safe way to have higher testosterone levels naturally.

These missing enzymes can answer why women get autoimmune diseases more often than men or why stress makes autoimmune disease symptoms worse?