Sentences with phrase «only person in question»

Each agency logs a soft inquiry on the file that only the person in question ever sees.

The only person in question was whether or not to start Ox, Podolski or Campbell.

Not exact matches

Going into a meeting without first letting people know about its scope will only result in sub-optimized decisions and endless questions that should've been answered beforehand.

The IRS launched the investigation in part because the price of bitcoin soared from $ 13 to over $ 1,100 during the years in question, and because only 802 people reported their bitcoin gains or losses in 2015 to the agency.

So why do we apparently get less interesting in person (a question asked not only by marketers but also frequently by online daters)?

They felt like a secret code only people in the finance industry understood and I started to ask questions.

SEAN HANNITY: My question is, are you concerned within the process of this, we did discover that a foreign national, Christopher Steele, was paid through Fusion GPS, used Russian sources that not only weren't verified, but were debunked — are you concerned that was paid for, to manipulate the American people in the lead - up to an election?

That will not only reveal what company representatives are saying about their companies, but it'll also reveal the kinds of questions that the analysts — the people in the know — are asking.

My question... is getting peoples insights into whether to diversify some more or something different altogether... there is simply so much time ahead of him, its hard to pin down a strategy, even the Vanguard Retirement 2065 is not far enough away to accommodate the time in front of him, he'll only be 56 by then, but I want to help him and set the strategy out before I shuffle off the mortal coil so he doesn't really need to think about pensions etc. as he grows up, comments / suggestions welcome... Cheers

This is the tendency of people to filter the information they run into in a way that they only process the «facts» that confirm their beliefs while ignoring anything that would question the «truth».

Looking at this discussion, the only question that keeps on popping up in my head is why do all these commentators really care about how other people live their lives.

There is a scripture in the new testament that says «God is the same yesterday, today, and forever» Mormons do nt spread lies about other churchs they say is you want to know if the church is true the only person you should ask is God himself and he will answer that question for you...

In many cases, the Bible can not be used at all, only physical evidence along with thought - provoking questions that hopefully leads a person to a right conclusion.

Only one theological position has ever resulted in the Romans 6:1 question, and it is the position which says that eternal life is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and that once a person has received eternal life in this way, it can never be lost.And when we realize the truth of this, it is incredibly liberating.

He removed my post within minutes, and emailed me vitrol, calling me a gossip and saying I was the only person in the world who questioned the beauty of his new marriage (I hadn't done that).

Irrelevant but personally changing question that I have found - In certain areas of the rain forests in South America there are tribes that have never seen a person from the outside world in thousands of years and have only in the last couple of years been discovered by aeroplanIn certain areas of the rain forests in South America there are tribes that have never seen a person from the outside world in thousands of years and have only in the last couple of years been discovered by aeroplanin South America there are tribes that have never seen a person from the outside world in thousands of years and have only in the last couple of years been discovered by aeroplanin thousands of years and have only in the last couple of years been discovered by aeroplanin the last couple of years been discovered by aeroplane.

Having spent the last ten years wrestling through some tough questions related to faith, heaven, hell, and salvation, I really appreciate the personal way in which Bell frames the conversation, asking the very questions I was so afraid to ask all those years and proclaiming the same hope I only dared believe — that God doesn't give up on people, that he is ever - loving, ever - redeeming, ever pursuing.

We may now ask this question: «If everything is to be understood only within the context of the whole, how are we to comprehend what happens in physics where people have so nicely and successfully analyzed the world into parts?»

When you've got terrorists all over the world declaring war on America and the West in the name of Islam, it's only natural that people will have questions.

Jeremy since we are talking about satan casting out satan heres a question for you.Have you ever wondered why Jesus helps satan at times or at least it appears that way.Mat 8:28 - 34 Why would he do that in the case of the demonic man the demons requested that Jesus cast them them into the pigs which he allowed it seems that not only did he help satan to have his way in destroying the pigs but destroyed the livelihood of the people in that area.You could argue at least it saved one man but is it acceptable to save one life but affect the lives of many?

How many children people should have, and how parents (and society) can ensure that only genetically fit children are born, have been enduring questions in American culture.

These serious, excellent, upright, deeply sensitive people who are still Christian from the very heart: they owe it to themselves to try for once the experiment of living for some length of time without Christianity; they owe it to their faith in this way for once to sojourn «in the wilderness» — if only to win for themselves the right to a voice on the question whether Christianity is necessary.»

It is also the only way to avert the execution of persons who did commit the crime in question, but did so under circumstances of mitigation or diminished capacity such that capital punishment would not normally have been imposed had the circumstances been more fully understood.

I sometimes get a blank stare in response to this question, for in the minds of the most people, there is only one Bible.

It is not my purpose to argue for the correctness of one or the other view of education, only to note that these are issues over which reasonable people may differ, and to question whether the State has a right to impose the first approach in the face of opposition from parents.

The question of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God is not only a question about Muslims but one about all peoples of whatever religious tradition who raise their hearts and hands in prayer to the Divine Other.

Richard Barnet and John Cavanagh, who judge this inchoate NGO uprising as presently «the only force we see that can break the global gridlock,» finish their important study with a judgment about its high stakes: «The great question of our age is whether people, acting with the spirit, energy, and urgency our collective crisis requires, can develop a democratic global consciousness rooted in authentic local communities.

If pressed, the persons who use phrases such as those just suggested will insist that the person in question is really the same person, only changed.

And here, I think, we come to a question that challenges the viability of a theology conceived as imaginative construction: Granted that religious symbols and frameworks function to orient people in the world, could they do so if we believed that this were their only meaning?

We had this discussion at church should we allow homosexuals in leadership i was the only one who spoke up and i had prayed during the week and confessed all my sin before the Lord i certainly had no right to condemn someone else for there sin.But the fact is that it needs addressing that was my question to the people presenting the proposal.Is homosexuality a sin the people taking the discussion would not address it as they knew scripturally that it was and clearly had no answer on dealing with that issue and tried to detour around it.

Sister Mary Corita chose to answer these questions with the words of William Sloane Coffin: «Because we love the world, we pray now, O [God], for grace to quarrel with it, O Thou whose lover's quarrel with the world is the history of the world... Lord, grant us grace to quarrel with the worship of success and power... to quarrel with all that profanes and trivializes [people] and separates them... number us, we beseech Thee, in the ranks of those who went forth from this place longing only for those things for which Thou dost make us long, [those] for whom the complexity of the issues only served to renew their zeal to deal with them, [those] who alleviated pain by sharing it; and [those] who were always willing to risk something big for something good... O God, take our minds and think through them, take our lips and speak through them.

So when Jesus says that we must be born of Water and Spirit, and if you believe and are baptized you will be saved, I agree with you that in a strict sense God does the saving and we need only immerse (baptize) ourselves in the grace he offers us, I believe that the statement Jesus made about marriage to be applicable, «Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate» and echo Peter's rhetorical question, «Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?

You people who quote scripture so freely and think you are the only ones who know it and have the keys to its interpretation and can never possibly be wrong, I ask you this one question, in how many verses of scripture did Jesus speak out against the self - righteous Pharisees and how many against gay people?

On the other hand, since the nonbeliever is by no means the only person excluded from the social and political order in which the traditional witness of faith is implicated, to think of theology as having to give answer to the questions of the nonperson is more likely to take account of all those to whom theology owes a serious response.

Just as in Bultmann's analysis the questions of belief and truth that theology now faces can be adequately answered only by way of radical demythologizing and existentialist interpretation, so it is now clear to me that what is required if theology is to deal satisfactorily with the issues of action and justice (which for many persons are even more urgent) is a theological method comprising thoroughgoing de-ideologizing and political interpretation.

I remember being in some church meetings way back when the pastors told the congregation, suspiciously in the absence of the people in questions, why certain people left, only to find out that things were actually much different.

The only question that remains is, will you remain on the sidelines — silent about the blatant racism all around — or will you join in leading the charge to end all the prejudice, and instead prize all of God's people?

I only hope that eventually they will also realize that one person's questions, answers, motives and journey do not have to replicated by every other person in order to be good and true.

When faced with the question of how to deal with violence, most people think there are only two options: either be violent in return, OR lay down and die as a pacifist.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same - sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite - sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same - sex married couples.

This only happens occasionally in the book but prevents the reader sharing in the deeper revelation and love of God that is occurring at that point in salvation history, especially in light of the New Testament, and raises the question that if the person in Scripture who is experiencing this unique relationship with God didn't really understand God, then how can we?

When a question is raised which for most people demands careful thought and responsible personal decision, people like that will very often simply quote a passage from the Scriptures, frequently in no way directly relevant to the matter under discussion and when relevant only valuable in the context of another age and under other conditions than those which are ours today.

The more the glorious reign of God on earth was believed in and the more vividly its splendors were imagined, the more surely the question of individual destiny was pushed to the fore: Should the beneficiaries of this divine consummation be only the fortunate persons who happened to be alive on the surface of the earth when the great day arrived?

Not only does Robert Chisholm explain the biblical text in a way that makes sense and reveals the cultural, historical, and grammatical contexts of Judges and Ruth, he also deals with modern questions that the text address, such as the issues of female leadership, the consequences of spiritual compromise, and the often bewildering actions of God in relation to His people on earth.

Gil you have asked some very good questions why does bad things happen in the world i personally do nt know God did nt explain to Job either why he had to suffer.What i do know is that God desires that none of us should perish but that all would have eternal life in him through Jesus Christ.This world will one day pass away and the real world will be reborn so our focus as christians is on whats to come and being a witness in the here and now.Both good and bad happens to either the righteous or the sinner so what are we to make of that.What we do know is that God will set all things right at the appointed time the wicked will be judged and the righteous will be rewarded for there faith isnt that enough reason for us to believe.Free will is only a reality if we can choose between good and bad but our hearts are deceitfully wicked we naturally are inclined toward sin that is another reason whyt we need to be saved from ourselves so what are we to do.For me Christ died and rose again that is a fact witnessed by over 500 people that were alive at the time and was recorded by historians how many other religious leaders do you know that did that or did the miracles that Jesus did.As far as the bible is concerned much of the archelogical evidence has proven to be correct and many of prophetic words spoken many hundreds of years ago have come to pass including both the birth and the death of Jesus.Interested in what philosophy you are believing in if other than a faith in Jesus Christ so how does that philosophy give you the assurance that you are saved.Its really simple with christianity we just have to believe in Jesus Christ.brentnz

secondly he was not the only one in the church who was a «non believer» many others do not «believe» as well as myself and yet non of us saw a problem with something that was being done out of respect and unison for the majority not for just one person opinion, and last, no one ever said he «had» to pray the only command was to bow your head and stare at the ground counting how many toes you had for all we carried, do what you want if choose not to pray but just bow your head in uniformity not cry about it blow it up and change the way events happen — if you have and complaints or questions please FEEL FREE to contact me [email protected]

And he should learn to do this not only to defend the Christian position, but to understand and stand with his people as they take their place in the world, even though standing with them will sometimes have to be out of his weakness and lack of answers for the profound questions they are raising.

This practice is somewhat better, since the questions and answers benefit everyone who just heard the sermon, but often, only the bravest people will ask a question or make a comment, and sometimes, people become very long - winded when they get a microphone in their hands, and in a large - group setting, it is difficult to keep their comment from turning into a second sermon.

These questions present no special difficulty if one's philosophical stance is external to the human knowers one is considering as subjects; if, in other words, one speaks of knowers only in the third person.

Questions such as whether the language of «faith» has any authority in a scientific age, or whether mind and life are reducible to atoms and molecules, whether only the tangible is real, whether the human person is anything more than a complex physico - chemical mechanism, whether we are free or determined, whether there is any «objective» truth to the symbols and myths of religion — all of these questions are asked at all only because what is fundamentally at issue is whether there is an ultimate context that gives meaning to cosmic process and significance to our lives in thisQuestions such as whether the language of «faith» has any authority in a scientific age, or whether mind and life are reducible to atoms and molecules, whether only the tangible is real, whether the human person is anything more than a complex physico - chemical mechanism, whether we are free or determined, whether there is any «objective» truth to the symbols and myths of religion — all of these questions are asked at all only because what is fundamentally at issue is whether there is an ultimate context that gives meaning to cosmic process and significance to our lives in thisquestions are asked at all only because what is fundamentally at issue is whether there is an ultimate context that gives meaning to cosmic process and significance to our lives in this process.