Sentences with phrase «much argument with»

Actually you're partly right, in hindsight I can't believe I had so much argument with Themm as it was based on a misunderstanding of his main point, not helped by his strange way of saying it.

Well, maybe he wouldn't have much argument with the hair... And still Alan Rickman is front and centre in the new trailer for CBGB, which charts the difficult birth of the iconic and sadly defunct New York music club.

Not exact matches

Successful brainstorms incorporate a diverse group of people collaborating with one another and contributing as much as possible without any arguments, debates or snap decisions on their merit.

Think back at the last argument you had with so much at stake.

Much of your argument such as I've seen, for your sky fairy (and I really think that is an appropriate term for your obviously fictional deity with all the self - contradictory tales about it in the bible), really seems to consist of a combination of willed ignorance and arguments from ignorance.

With more than a hint of exasperation, Scalia concludes: «One will search in vain the document we are supposed to be construing for text that provides the basis for the argument over these distinctions; and will find in our society's tradition regarding abortion no hint that the distinctions are constitutionally relevant, much less any indication how a constitutional argument about them ought to be resolved.

• Reviewing Philip Gleason's excellent history of Catholic higher education, Contending with Modernity, our premier evangelical church historian, Mark Noll of Wheaton, says Gleason's argument has much wider application.

It's embarrassing that so many Americans, people who say they believe in freedom and equality, have spent so much time and energy trying to justify being anti gay marriage - with false arguments from the Bible (as thought that should be the only source of their decisions).

Add to that the variety of doctrines / Theologies within orthodox Christianity... with Consensus on a very small Core of Truths: God Is, We are not God, Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Salvation is Through Faith / Belief in Him... there is much that lacks Consensus and there are mountains of arguments and counter-arguments for each doctrinal / Theological position.

My argument is that if a reasonable, sane and reliable witness tells me he has experienced something which modern science, in all it's glory can not explain, much less degrade, then the simplest rationale is to accept that he has indeed had an encounter with the supernatural.

I may have preached words similar (but much better and with decent argument) for the christian church for several decades..

The argument is that the Chicago school arose in the context of the social gospel, a movement that had much in common with contemporary political theology and that, under the stimulus of political theology, this school can recover something of what it had lost as well as move forward in new ways.

Archie Bunker, in fierce argument with his agnostic son - in - law, is asked, «Archie, if there's a God, why is there so much suffering in the world?»

Still, without the personal level of knowledge that God exists, mentioned in my first sentence, no intellectual explanation or argument would hold much weight with me at all.

My question was aimed for the majority of peope that also disagree with you as much as me and cling to their faith so violently that if someone even broaches the subject, they immediatly lash out and try to either convert the unbeliever, condem him, or bring up the inane, breathtakingly stupid argument of «I can't prove there is a god, but you can't prove there isn't so we're at an impass» — I think that argument is probably the most frustrating thing EVER

How would any country in the mid east react if I and 30 Christians hoped in planes and took out 3000 people... (I am not Christian and would likely not ride in a plane with that many neurotic people, but for arguments sake... personally I think religion is the fastest road to hell, but that's another debate)... the answer is simple... Jihad... how do I make such a simple 1 word answer... Ayatollah in Iran... he has a Jihad panic button... Osama Bin Laden... he has one too... that dude in Iran that no one knows or cares how to pronounce... has 2... one for the world and one for Israel... and pretty much anyone with keys to a mosque.

Nevertheless, I pursued a running argument with Barkun: he was wasting too much intellectual energy on the lunatic fringe.

(11) The real argument, however, was not so much with tradition as with a church which used tradition authoritatively.

(Although there is a large segment of Christianity that believes God literally dictated the Bible, so my argument doesn't hold much weight with them) This is the journey, this is the constant search, is it not?

In many ways this argument with Brightman can be seen as a formative moment in Hartshorne's thinking which taught him as much about what he could not allow into his thought as about what he could.

If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it.

«I looked very much at both sides of the argument regarding if it was ok to be a Christian in an active gay relationship, particularly because I was in a relationship with a guy at the time.

Indeed, Arkes recognizes as much elsewhere in his argument, for he writes with approval: «During the First Congress, James Madison remarked that the natural right of human beings to be governed only with their consent was an «absolute truth.»

Christians will find this aspect of the book especially challenging and, in general, there is much to disagree with in Goodman's argument by both Christians and Jews.

But lurking beneath the surface of this argument are arguably much darker sentiments, with some questioning whether Farage's position is influenced by fear of the other and isolationism.

Why wrestle with the substance of their argument when it's so much easier to just sigh about «kids these days» and be done with it?

Compared with serious critiques from the past, much new atheism reads more like a tantrum than an argument.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and others were and are much taken with Cullman's argument that the confessional divisions of the sixteenth century are the work of God's «left hand,» and the resulting differences must somehow be given the opportunity to play themselves out rather than being «negotiated away» in ecumenical dialogue.

Naturalistic explanations have already been successful enough in explaining natural order to conclude with assurance that the argument from design simply does not carry much weight any more.

Unless, you can come up with a sound and reasoned argument, since your most recent attempts are just a much «larger» re-hashing,» I am going to decline to post on this particular topic any further.

It's true that Chad's God has not provided him with enough material to frame an argument for its existence, much less its identity as Creator, or qualities of omnipotence and omniscience, or even status as a necessary being.

One group was a Rightist School of philosophers and theologians with some openness to Christian ideas, e.g. Karl Friedrich Goschel, Hermann Friedrich Wilhelm Hinrichs, and (much later) an argument can be made to include Rudolf Karl Bultmann as well.

I learned a long time ago, if you want to attach, familiarize yourself with the other side of the argument and you will be much more effective

A much easier argument for a christian with background in these areas, which I have, but there is staunch refusal to admit to basic premises from non-christians on the most simple issues.

A fourth argument has to do not so much with meaning or validity or doctrine as with the utilitarian and prudential question of what to do.

The deepest convictions of men in favor of future hope, therefore, have come not so much from those who have framed arguments for it as from those who have heightened life's spiritual value, given it new meaning, made it wealthy with fresh significance and purpose until it has seemed as though it ought to go on.

The problem with this argument is that it proves too much rather than too little.

My argument is that while science does tell us much about the world around us, IT (science - our most favored epistemological standard) obviously only deals with the physical and can not disprove the spiritual, and that there are other ways of knowing truth that do prove (support is the word I prefer, since no «proof» is satisfactory to al epistemological standards) the existence of God.

You can throw up all the arguments you like, and quote The Babble as much as you with, you still have nothing.

Thus, the argument of a «White» Jesus with so much historical facts contradicting this notion, shows total ignorance and disregards to knowledge.

It turns out, however, that these presumptions fit nicely with a wide array of different and perhaps even contradictory metaphysical schemes, and I doubt the arguments in the area of Hebrew philology change much if one is an ancient Platonist, a medieval Aristotelian, or a modern - day logical positivist.

Finally, the fact that I treat with respect an idea that has much in its favor, that is believed by the great majority of scientists, that has no decisive arguments against it, and that may well turn out to be true — I am speaking here of the scientific theory called neo-Darwinism — is not «appeasement» but intellectual humility and honesty.

However, know that sniffing out only the stories of greed and abuse in the church while ignoring all the stories of actual progress for society that it brings pretty much negates all of your arguments to that of an obsessed critic with nothing better to do than make up facts against the church.

Now you can argue some people's interpretations are irrelevant and dangerous, much like scientists on the bleeding edge often do with other scientists, and you will get no argument from me.

Thank you SOOO much for sharing this... I was looking for something like this exactly, I needed arguments because a youth leader has been saying that he is in another lever spiritually so he can't hang our with sinners.

I feel remarkably blessed to be faced with little more than petty arguments and silly resentments in my life... especially in a world of so much injustice.

You have it all wrong, let's start with this but there are much more arguments that will enlighten you on the subject matter.

Unfortunately, you don't back up much of this article with sources so your argument is pretty thin.

fred likes the quantun physics argument, because most people don't even know what quantum mechanics deal with, which is mainly a mathematical description of much of the dual particle - like and wave - like behavior and interactions of energy and matter.

As we shared our experiences, she agreed with all my well - rehearsed reasons for not giving too easily, but then she said, «You know, if I could do those years over again, I wouldn't worry so much about all those arguments.