Sentences with phrase «never seen a reason»

that's really one of the problems with cooking so well... recipients of your food never see any reason to go elsewhere to eat!

I've never seen a reason given, so I've never questioned it before!

«I was always happy, there was always a challenge at United so I never saw any reason to leave.

The massacre of MASSOB / IPOB members in Aba, the Ezu - River, killing of six Igbo traders in Abuja (the Apo six) the invasion of Igbo land by the Fulani herdsmen, all these, Amnesty International has not and will never see reasons to indict Nigerian Government because they are being controlled by the North.

Pursuing this further, he added «I have never seen any reason why fidelity to the essentials of form - to strength, solidity, function, and the like - should prevent an artist being decently imaginative about things» (ibid.

We used to represent United Home Life, but never saw a reason to ever use them.

I never saw a reason to spend money on gear that might not even be what I'm looking for.

Not exact matches

There are reasons why you'll probably never see anyone Instagram their coffee cup from McDonald's.

Another reason people have become so heated about uBeam is that the product the company has promised has never been seen.

I see this as the biggest reason that buyer personas are built and then forgotten... those personas never helped enough to justify further investment.

The main reason that unemployment has been held in check (even though it has already risen by an amount never seen outside of recessions) is that new hiring has absorbed a lot of displaced workers in recent months.

I've never seen so many people impale themselves on something, for no good reason whatsoever.

In a statement, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos touted India's economic potential as a prime reason for the boost, saying, «We've never seen anything like it.»

Have you ever thought that maybe the reason you've never seen Buddhist politicians doing things is due to: a) there are no genuine Buddhist politicians in America; 2) reality, in Buddhism, is something to be escaped from, not embraced and helped?

There is a very good reason your grandfathers have never physically seen your god.

There is a very good reason you have never physically seen your god.

Atheists will never argue «let's suppose God existed» and use backward chaining reasoning to see if there's any plausible explanation, simply because it's like assuming Santa Claus exists and trying to build a plausible reason for how that could be possible.

I never wanted or deserved to see the Truth and Reasons of the Bible as a whole, but God showed me anyway, and He continues to uncover more every day, and because of that I will be forever serving and praising Him.

If we look at Scripture and history, we see that the reason God's messengers get condemned and criticized and killed is because they never go with the religious status quo, but instead, call on the religious people to repent and change their ways, and abandon the foolish and empty chase after religious rituals and regulations.

Without the use of religion you'd have no reason to deny the evidence but as long as you have that book that you require to get by in this world, you will never see the facts for what they are.

And you would never see such poor reasoning or bias expressed in a question from any legitimate inst.itution of higher learning.

I have never been there and see no reason to ever go given what Ive seen in the news my entire life.

The only person who can read minds is an all knowing being who Heavensent has never seen and has no reasonble reason to believe in.

Jeremy thanks for your comments alot of this i never really thought about before until you provoked me to seek the truth in the word it is what we all should be doing finding the truth for ourselves God wants to reveal mysterys if we are open to hear.If we have been christians awhile we just take the word of whoevers preaching or whichever clip we see on god tube its knowledge but not revelation.Because the story sounds plausible we tag that on to our belief for example for many years i believed that the rich young rulers problem was money so the way to deal with that problem is to give it away and be a follower of Jesus sounds plausible.Till you realise every believers situation is different so the message has to be universal.So the reason its not about money because it excludes those that do nt have it and does nt make room for those that do have it but do nt worship it.The rich young ruler was not a bad person he lived by a good moral code but he made money his idol he put that before God.The word says we shall not have any idols thats a sin and a wicked one.In fact there wasnt any room in his heart for Jesus that is a tragedy.So when we see the message is about Idolatry we all have areas that we chose not to submit to God thats universal everyone of us whether we are rich or poor.I believe we are unaware that we have these idols what are some of them that was revealed to me our partners our children our work our church our family i can sense some of you are getting fidgetty.

hawaiiguest Although I never took the time to see what the meaning was behind the word «property» in the two passages you cite I have no reason to doubt it referred to ownership.

As for his politics, i do nt agree with Obama's Policies and therefore pray he is not re-elected, but when it comes about God, Ya'll have no spiritual or earthly authority to Judge a man's faith for the simple reason that you really HATE his politics or the color of his skin, or the religion of a father he's never / seldom seen.

Never mind — I'll wait to see if 1stPrime has any more of a reasoned response.

Of course from my stand point I refuse to accept that he will be pay in the after - life, thus the reason we don't leave this sort of stuff for «god» to deal with, the courts see it similarly... if god is all powerful and all knowing he would never have allowed this to happen in the first place.

Hidden allusions are never easy to be sure of and particularly is this the case with an ancient text, but one can at least see the reasons why Martin - Achard comes to the conclusion that these verses from the book of Hosea not only apply the idiom of resurrection to Israel's hope for the future, but also show where it came from.

Jesus spoke to Peter about feeding his sheep, and to his apostles about people who lacked the eyes to see and the ears to hear and how they will never understand his parables even if they try (and, interestingly, he said this as the reason he taught using parables rather than just stating things out explicitly).

They see it as a slap in the face for some reason (I'm not against them, though, just the idea that somehow a 2000 - year old Middle Eastern carpenter «died for me» (they never have a good answer as to what that really means)-RRB- and question why they spent so much money on my Catholic education.

It seems that with such generalizations and stereotypical reasoning folks, such as yourself, will never see or live within peace within your own lives.

How would you react to a friend who came to you and said they had been praying to Edward from the Twilight series and they believed that vampires were real and the only reason we never see them is because they are all sparkly in the sunlight so they hide among us...

Even I, who am not one of Darby's followers, was surprised to learn that the word «rapture» never occurs in the Bible, but at least one curious side effect of his scenario has been the political alliance between Christian evangelicals in this country and the Likud Party in Israel, both of whom — for their own reasons — want to see Israel, not Palestine, in charge of the Holy Land.

================== @Chuckles «Listen, I understand that from a believer, it's easy to do the mental gymnastics for god to say «we follow the rules because he made them and we follow him because he made us» so you don't have to try and explain the WHY of it, only that he said so and thats good enough, but I could never understand why I would follow a rule if I didn't see any reason» @Chad «Here is the reason: And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.

It's the reason why you'll never see Chad admit he's wrong, ever, on this forum.

I'll never forget being glued to the TV three states away after Katrina looking for any kind of info and seeing this clown telling the world the reason New Orleans was hit was because there was too much sodomy going on there.

Which brings me to the second reason you will never see the recipe on my blog.

I've never tried with gluten free flour, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work as it is just changing the flour.

I have never made the sugar free version, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work.

I've never made this with cow's milk, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be used.

Our coconut oil is not sold in the Philippine market, for the simple reason that we never saw the value of marketing a traditional product that almost anyone living in the Philippines could produce in their own kitchen with fresh coconuts using the same methods their parents» and grandparents» generation used.

I've seen a lot of sweet potato chili recipes and for some reason, I've never tried them!

I never saw this variety during my two trips to Trinidad, where the «Congo Pepper» is so dominant, for good reason: its extreme heat and extreme size.

Whether it's an ingredient I've literally never seen before at the farmers» market, or just making myself grab mushrooms when I never typically cook them at home for some reason, it's a really good way to get out of ruts and discover new ingredients, recipes, and techniques.

Also, I've never tried torching it, but don't see any reason not to try.

I see some have already turned this in to an anti-Wenger rant — the same people who «only want whats best for this club» and for the club to progress and to see ruthless management and build proper squad depth are getting teary eyed and eulogising over a fantastic, brilliant, exciting player with almost perfect technique who for whatever reason has never lived up to his potential.

whether for the right or wrong reasons, our leader chose to stay on when things took a turn of sorts... a new owner arrived on the scene, plans for a new stadium emerged and Wenger became the bearer of bad news... he sold us on a new story, one that required patience on our parts... financial constraints were the order of the day, so that the enormous sums spent on the new venue could be recouped... although some would question the validity of such claims, why wouldn't they believe their faithful leader... according to those within the hierarchy, the future never looked so bright, as this new home would ensure our place among the elites for years to come... as we all know now these claims were a well constructed fabrication and so those who feel they were duped in the process are infuriated and rightly so... the fact that this club and it's manager have continually misled the fans, especially following Gazidis's claims about our financial liquidity, simply rubbed more salt in an already gaping wound... this surely isn't how you treat your «family», especially when they supported you through the supposed «lean» years... it was a dirty trick played by Kroenke but the fact is was orchestrated by Wenger himself hurt the most... as for those in the media, many of whom are former players or longtime pundits, who observed the early years firsthand, saw this as the perfect opportunity to vent the anger they felt towards this pretentious man once and for all... all in all, karma's a bitch

This has not happened, and I'm surprised that no one has ever hauled Wenger over the coals about the fact that as a qualified economist he never saw that the FIFA FFP rules would NEVER EVER bite the big spending clubs, yet this was the major reason we were never involved in big money transfers, although we were paying the highest process of any club in Europe for season ticnever saw that the FIFA FFP rules would NEVER EVER bite the big spending clubs, yet this was the major reason we were never involved in big money transfers, although we were paying the highest process of any club in Europe for season ticNEVER EVER bite the big spending clubs, yet this was the major reason we were never involved in big money transfers, although we were paying the highest process of any club in Europe for season ticnever involved in big money transfers, although we were paying the highest process of any club in Europe for season tickets.

if i am correct @ SD... your analysis shows you see the forest for the trees, most comments just give their opinion like they are playing Championship manager - as JT said coquelin has helped slightly fix the problem of the overexposure of our defence to counter attacks and the full backs don't both bomb forward as much, the reason monreal starts ahead of Gibbs - walcott always looks lost and confused now when he makes appearances, and never wants to create or get too involved in build up play just wants to run into the middle and get on the end of balls.