Sentences with phrase «old argument in»

There's an old argument in the real estate industry that you've probably heard — listing data is aggregated by real estate search sites like Zillow, which makes big bucks on that free firehose of data, but doesn't send a cut of said profits back to the content providers (and should).

«Tired of having the same old argument in your marriage?

The reliability of human judgement versus Bayesian methods is an old argument in AI research.

This is the oldest argument in the Christian book, that America IS Christian.

But just how difficult is one of the oldest arguments in finance.

Not exact matches

On December 28, 25 - year - old Tyler Barriss called police in Wichita, Kansas, falsely claiming he'd shot his father during an argument and was holding two other people hostage in a home there.

But in January, Rozenberg discovered that his old friend was in love with his then - fiancee and now wife Kate, which led to an argument that ended their friendship.

Fellow board members — and even her ailing 92 - year - old father — were unswayed by her argument that Viacom's leader «should be someone who is not... intertwined in Redstone family matters.»

In what is likely to be a heated argument over the legacy of Uber's lightning rod of a founder and former CEO, attorneys for both Travis Kalanick and one of the car - hailing company's largest investors, Benchmark Capital, will square off in the first oral argument in the month - old casIn what is likely to be a heated argument over the legacy of Uber's lightning rod of a founder and former CEO, attorneys for both Travis Kalanick and one of the car - hailing company's largest investors, Benchmark Capital, will square off in the first oral argument in the month - old casin the first oral argument in the month - old casin the month - old case.

During the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we non-Catholics arguing moral theology could point to learned and compelling arguments coming out of Rome and say, in effect, «The oldest and largest part of the Body of Christ agrees with us, and it does so with remarkable sophistication.»

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical but sly arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.

Religion encourages the need to cloak one's self in a security blanket which only belittles any argument presented by the religion — and they do it with a 2000 year old book.

In presenting an argument, I just wish that those who try to tear down the integrity of the Old Testament prophets would at least be honest, transparent, with the other point of view.

Obviously, so the argument goes, if we want to cut teenage pregnancies and abortions we must have access to sexual health services — in other words, teenagers are less likely to get pregnant if they are using contraception; failing contraception, then we should give them access to the morning - after pill, which may be seen as preferable to a twelve - year - old getting pregnant.

The scientific theory was itself attacked by religious thinkers in order to preserve the force of the old argument!

There is little need for delusion... and in my experience, our delusions were shattered many times over... so we that are older tend to just ignore the argument of positioning «Holding beliefs lightly» with «Deluding Oneself».

Chesterton's Autobiography is not always a reliable source; but there is corroborating evidence for these protective feelings from his childhood onwards: and since this evidence is virtually unknown, it is probably best here to take this opportunity to publish it for the first time (much of it will appear in my forthcoming book Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy, though I discovered some of it too late for it to be included) rather than repeat old arguments.

Unlike old - time liberals who busied themselves with finding «contradictions» in the Bible, and unlike fundamentalists who busied themselves with trying to explain away those «contradictions», these Bible readers see a series of robust arguments among the many voices of scripture.

Thinking abilities disabled... check Lobotomy performed, just in case any reasoning faculties are still active... check «GOD H8S F.AGS» T - shirt... check Armed with 2000 year old arguments for invisible old men in the sky that have been refuted on countless occasions... check

Creationism means believing in a literal 6 day creation, believing that the words in the Bible were written in English and the term day was used (it wasn't but that's another argument), and a young 6000 — 10000 year old Earth.

In recent years as I have gotten older I have started investigating all religions so as to understand the different arguments.

The old routine of finding a verse that you like and using it in any given instance to validate your argument.

Like an old chinese saying that states: «In order to have power in an argument, you must first not violate any laws yourself&raquIn order to have power in an argument, you must first not violate any laws yourself&raquin an argument, you must first not violate any laws yourself»

i am sorry J.W but i don't believe there is a god of any kind... if there was a god, why would such a so called all powerful being allow for the treatment of its creation by its creation... the argument of free will is an old and tired one... if the existence was true and the laws put in place to honor such a creature were equally upheld by god then i would have been punished a long long time ago and so would have the majority of people... believer or not!

Indeed, an argument could be made that at no time since the First Great Awakening have so many churches of disparate denominational, theological and stylistic approaches been so united in terms of their music: one can now walk into old - line Pentecostal churches, small - town evangelical congregations, mall - like suburban megachurches, and many a mainline Protestant sanctuary across the country on any given Sunday morning and hear the same hymns and choruses done in approximately the same musical styles, with similar settings and instrumentation.

Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 14.5 billion years old.

Not only should we not delete the Old Testament, we should not use the tools of biblical criticism to delete any passage in either Testament that does not suit our argument.

hey... stop using reality to show up the believers... thats not fair... you are only allowed to use 2000 year old do c uments and interpret them in a manner that bolsters your argument.

Writing near the end of his life, he wrote that «the old argument from design in....

I sometimes find myself in the comic position of publicly debating liberal Catholics and suddenly realizing that they are consorting with the old liberal Protestant strumpets of my seedy past, while I am setting forth their own traditional arguments from their magisterium.

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

I had forgotten about the old Ad Hominen argument, learned back in my college years as something to be avoided during debate.

In a Christianity Today article entitled «A New Day for Apologetics,» reporter Troy Anderson writes that «people young and old are flocking to hear - and be changed by - winsome arguments for the Christian faith.»

I'll never forget sitting in the living room of a family from my old church, engaged in a heated argument with several straight, married couples about whether or not one could be both a follower of Jesus and gay.

The reader, who understands this, will also understand that our argument has no interest in nor is affected by marginal and non-typicalcases (as, for instance, the older man who marries and may not be capable of actual insemination).

(Jeremiah 15:15) Moreover, the saving efficacy of good lives in a community had been an implicit corollary of the old sense of social solidarity, as is picturesquely evidenced in Yahweh's consent to Abraham's argument that if there were even ten good men in Sodom it should not be destroyed.

If everyone is a sinner from birth onwards, by your own argument all the infants slaughtered in the Old Testament ethnic cleansings went straight to hell ------------------- — No, because although salvation is an act of God, we are also required to make a choice.

One should know that the Holy Quran has many sections of the Torah (Old Testament) and the Bible (New Testament) incorporated in It and if «THOU SHALT NOT KILL» is claerly there, no amount of argument and justification allows one to kill.

Other indications of evolution are too numerous to actually list in full, but a few might be the clear genetic distinction between Neanderthals and modern man; the overlapping features of hominid and pre-hominid fossil forms; the progressive order of the fossil record (that is, first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds; contradicting the Genesis order and all flood models); the phylogenetic relationships between extant and extinct species (including distributions of parasitic genetic elements like Endogenous Retroviruses); the real time observations of speciation in the lab and in the wild; the real time observations of novel functionality in the lab and wild (both genetic, Lenski's E. coli, and organsimal, the Pod Mrcaru lizards); the observation of convergent evolution defeating arguments of common component creationism (new world v. old world vultures for instance); and... well... I guess you get the picture.

@Theo If everyone is a sinner from birth onwards, by your own argument all the infants slaughtered in the Old Testament ethnic cleansings went straight to hell.

Same as: Children should not be thought right from wrong until they are old enough to make decisions (and I do not mean this in a religious argument) but its the same logic.

The paradox created by attempting to weave together the great contradictions in God's portrayal through the old and new testaments, coupled with the firm assertion that God «never changes», creates a dizzying level of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize what seems to me to be an irrational argument.

With the older orthodoxy it is possible to disagree, as in having an argument.

- the cultural relativity argument which assumes that «the Bible is an old book from a different culture, so we can't take it seriously in the modern world.»

With characteristic British understatement and with admirable humor (intentional or not), the ghost of the argument for objectivity was firmly laid in the clipped accents of Professor A. S. Peake of the preceding generation of Old Testament scholars, in address to the tale of the flood:

Paul, in establishing the universal guilt of both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 3:1, 9), quotes from the Old Testament to give weight to his arguments, not to charge each individual of the human race in particular with every indictment, nor to teach the inability of the unregenerate man to believe on Jesus Christ.

As for the ones I don't respect (as in the ones who can only call names like a 5 year old but never have a substantive argument), I'd rather that they didn't..

Hartshorne does not tell us what his third argument is, other than that it «is a revision of the old cosmological argument» and «is closely related to the ontological [one], but starts from the idea of reality in general.»

Additionally, this ID / creationist argument fails in light of clear examples of common forms with discrete evolutionary lineages and accompanying discrete genetic const - itutions (e.g. new world v. old world vultures, etc).