Sentences with phrase «not point in debating»

Not exact matches

The proposal has generated a great deal of often vitriolic debate over the future of the wheat board, and the C.D. Howe Institute recently weighed in with a report arguing that global grain markets have changed significantly over the past few decades, to the point that the CWB is more often than not a price taker.

My impression is that stocks will not see a durable intermediate - term low until the point where a recession in progress is taken as common knowledge, without the debate that persists even now.

They quickly pointed out that Europe is too large simply to assume that the world can absorb large changes in its capital and trade accounts, and as they debated about the ways global constraints would affect the assumptions about European surpluses most of them quickly decided that either the markets would not permit surpluses of this size, perhaps by bidding up the euro, or the impact of these surpluses would be very negative for the world.

The point of this post is not to debate whether an investment in Amazon is a good idea.

«We have the best damn care team in the business — at this point, that's not even up for debate,» Legere said.

Whether $ 100 million or $ 500 million in annual revenue is needed to justify a similar investment in the new market can be debated, but that's also not the point.

At that point, it was about masturbation only (no one had made a comparison to homosexuality), so, without much personal stake in the debate, I thought to myself «See, this is why people don't like the answers, not (always) because it doesn't let them do what they want, but because the answers are sometimes very poor indeed.»

It is what has lead me to my veiw that Atheism as a religion, the passion most Atheist have for their point of view from the start you may not fall in this category but I'm sure you know someone that does.The same applies to Christians that freak out on someone and start forcing their view on others, I see that as wrong also if someone asks or brings the debate to you then by all means debate but why be rude how does it help?

Scholasticism Theology moved from the monastery to the university Western theology is an intellectual discipline rather than a mystical pursuit Western theology is over-systematized Western Theology is systematized, based on a legal model rather than a philosophical model Western theologians debate like lawyers, not like rabbis Reformation Catholic reformers were excommunicated and formed Protestant churches Western churches become guarantors of theological schools of thought Western church membership is often contingent on fine points of doctrine Some western Christians believe that definite beliefs are incompatible with tolerance The atmosphere arose in which anyone could start a church The legal model for western theology intensifies despite the rediscovery of the East

History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history... Elaine

i; m not sure i follow your little brother thing, but sharing ideas and a conversation with two differing view points is a debate, and if both parties don't try to kill the other one this is a world of understanding thru conflict, for a differing point of view is in confliction with the others.

your immature, irrational and absolute blind remarks toward atheism have been proved that there is no rational argument beyond this point, I suggest you read my post to the fullest and absorb it's meaning, and continue to act like a civilized being, your behavior is not acceptable in any rational debate, you are not making yourself look good.

«If the Church is ever mentioned» in such debates, he pointed out, «it is in the gratitude expressed that we have not attempted to «appease» the Church or the Church hierarchy, or else in the (unintentionally) patronizing allusion to those who care about the University's relationship to the Church as implicitly conceiving the University along the lines of a seminary.»

No point in debating whos invisible big brother is bigger or meaner or will or won't punch whom before actually having your big brother show up at the playground.

As Erasmus pointed out in his debate with Luther, God would not have called us to choose him if Luther's position were correct.

There a lot of things in this Universe worthy of debate and should offend us to the point we take action, this is not one of them in my opinion.

Historians of the French Revolution have debated the point as to whether or not it was the ideas of the philosophers concerning human rights, equality, justice, democracy, freedom or the interests of the ordinary people pinched in belly and pocketbook that led to the uprising of 1789.

The point here is not to debate the relative merits of Hobbes and Locke, but to stress the atomistic individualism of modern political theory in both these forms.

It is a sad day when ministers, priests, and people of good conscious actually have to debate whether or not to speak of the great inequalities in America, and justifiably point to the systems that promote it.

Most of your assertions are really out there, so much so that I don't see any point in debating it.

A debate in which the thoughts are not expressed in the way in which they existed in the mind but in the speaking are so pointed that they may strike home in the sharpest way, and moreover without the men that are spoken to being regarded in any way present as persons; a conversation characterized by the need neither to communicate something, nor to learn something, nor to innuence someone, nor to come into connexion with someone, but solely by the desire to have one's own self - reliance confirmed by making the impression that is made, or if it has become unsteady to have it strengthened; a friendly chat in which each regards himself as absolute and legitimate and the other as relativized and questionable; a lovers» talk in which both partners alike enjoy their own glorious soul and their precious experience — what an underworld of faceless spectres of dialogue!

Per the Book of Galatians, the question of «sin or not» is a valid point to debate in Elementary School; but we can graduate from elementary debates of the Law, and enter into the great dialog about «how» to live the Law of Christ and «how» to experience the Unity of All Believers.

The point is that «if we do not intervene in the debates concerning the interpretation of religion, we are simply playing into the hand of Fundamentalists.

[2] In expressing this point Ratzinger subtly shifts the debate away from an assessment of what the historical - critical method has achieved or not to a new openness for something which goes much further than historical - criticism itself.

As several of you have pointed out, NT Wright does indeed consider his views to be in keeping with Calvin and the Reformed tradition, and his recent debates with John Piper and company over justification are something of an internal skirmish rather than a theological divide.

There is a troubling circularity involved in such debates — the circularity of defending your own point of view from your own point of view, of defending your values in terms of other values you also hold, but others may not.

It has been pointed out that as long as Christians remain embroiled in endless debates about what women can and can not do for Jesus, we are only utilizing half the Church.

I am truly sorry that you don't have the capacity to engage in intellectual debate and discussion without - hating someone that may have differing view points from you.

Almost thirty years had passed since the last major, comprehensive, and theologically self - conscious study of Protestant theological education.1 It is also remarkable, indeed unprecedented, that such a sustained debate emerged, not in response to one large study of theological education, but as a conversation among several quite different theological points of view.

Humility does not prevent us pointing out that Faith has published numerous articles over recent years which have addressed in detail many of the attacks levelled against the Church in the debate.

While recognising that in such an analysis, which targets both Christians and Muslims, we do not have the points for any kind of debate but rather are confronted with a diatribe, nevertheless, I believe that in such a forum as the Gurukul Summer Institute, where an honest spirit of inquiry prevails, and where there is a commitment to a rigorous process of theological exploration, we need to address some of the issues raised.

someone that resorts to insults in a debate just confirms that the person resorting to insults can not discuss valid points

This book is not the place to debate this question, but I think it is important to point it out as an important dimension latent in the deeper layers of the chance vs. design dispute.

Anyways... I quote scripture in my debates with Christians in an attempt to speak their lingo and present my points in a way that can not easily be refuted by saying «well, it isn't in the bible so it isn't so».

«pointing out» that I don't know what I'm talking about, without actually quoting what I got wrong, or even understanding the conversation topic in no way makes you look intelligent or even nominally good at debating.

But the point of this article is not to engage in the frankly tiresome debates about whether fat people can be healthy (they can).

For now, you can shot your TVs or cry every or other week end... Not sit here picking teams and players to go or stay; we have really nothing, pathetic to be point where article like this have people actually debating on who go or in... What difference that make, an average player replaced by another... Better off promote youngsters.

Anyways I do nt think there's a point in having a fair debate here anymore.

I don't care to debate with you any further because there is no point in it.

The move itself may not generate sky is falling as I inferred, but we will certainly get worked up, debate it and tend to act like our one point is the sole reasoning of moves or non moves, regardless of what the team may or in most cases hasn't shared.

I'm not going to debate it with you, it's pointless given we've just won the FA cup and nobody can accept any player critique at that point in time.

Most dyed in the wool football fans I have ever met whether from Leeds, Millwall, North Korea (though I admit to not actually meeting any from NK face since the 1966 World Cup in England when North Korea played in it) and esp Arsenal, like and appreciate honest, to the point, passionate debate from other knowledgeable and attending fans.

Is there any real point in debating whether we would have won or not, The fact is, we were cheated in more ways than one, by a Ref, Player and a Manager who could not afford to lose against us!

The ingredients that make up a proper football fan are the subject of persistent and perpetual debate, but one thing remains a certainty: whenever somebody who walks and talks and sings and shouts like a football fan is caught doing something racist, somebody else will be along shortly afterwards to make the point that they are not, in fact, a football fan.

Ivan Actually on re-reading, it was only your 3rd point that is in debate, not point two, which many would agree with (though not much in the 90's, I would have thought.

It can be quite distracting (or amusing) to debate the issue with people like Tom who usualy see or choose to interperet something different to real events — but that is not important — the important point is that the refs need to get the decisions right in real time — they are not doing that and the denial of the aid of technology by the PGMO is incomprehensible.

If the point is that all relationships are acceptable (a debate I'm not interested in having), then why «must» a platonic male - male relationship that has existed for decades be morphed into something different?

As I wrote in my blog post they debated, rather than see it as time off for caring for a baby, see it as time off for caregiving, which all of us will most likely face at some point, whether we have children or not.

Having written about the debate in the recent past, I don't see much point in rehashing the controversy in detail.

Braverman doesn't do anyone a favor by acting as if these are debating points in the «Mommy wars.»