Sentences with phrase «other claimed points»

I really like your idea of having the central base and other claimed points being open for takeover by the enemy.

Not exact matches

Actually, consistency will hobble you, claims Pfeffer, pointing to none other than «honest Abe» as an example.

Other states are now making similar claims, and Cuomo pointed to the importance of a healthy coastline to New York's economy.

The company has responded with statements saying that it's not as dependent on drug price increases as critics have claimed; it has also pointed out that while attention has focused on changes in list prices for drugs, those prices don't reflect the actual cost for insurers, governments and other group purchasers, which typically receive discounts that aren't publicly disclosed.

Many people pointed out that Roku has a powerful multi-service search function (the company claims to include more than 100 providers) while others highlighted useful third - party search options such as reelworld.com and canistream.it

«It doesn't want other claimants or the international community to know what it's claiming so it can change it at any point.»

So, you blame your mistake on the person who pointed it out to you by claiming that the person who pointed it out, and a whole bunch of others, has ADD?

If as you say you have talked to others who claim to be Atheist the way you describe it then they are IDIOTS who also don't understand Atheism and yes at that point since they are claiming «no God» to be true, then by all means call their point of view a «religion».

@fimeilleur actually i can back up the claims i make both personally and historically, one example Abraham, Machpelah (actual location of his tomb and remains along with 5 others in Israel right where they are supposed to be) Kedorlaomer king of Elam, (defeated by Abraham and recently discovered) it is said Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.More than that Abraham saw God and spoke with Him, not the god you are on about that men use to justify their evil intent, but the God who has created all things, the God that no one especially you can not contain.Ignorance is your choice but that will not negate the existence of God in any way.No one that i am aware of has all the answers at this point regarding spiritual things, evolution or evilution there are areas God has not yet revealed to mankind but every day more is discovered.I find it amazing that God is big enough to share discovery even with those who would reject Him.

If he would fulfill my need, and prove he exists, I would pay more attention to what other people claim he wants and does not want, but at this point, he seems as invisible and irrelevant as Santa Claus.

Yes, they must always apend «credible» and then they get to decide who is credible, just like they point fingers at each other and claim «he's not a True Christian.»

In other words, it may be true that «the owl of Minerva flies only at night,» but Kierkegaard suspects that the metaphor hides a profoundly dubious claim: that it is possible to reach a stable end - point of reflection from which Minerva's owl can take off, and to which it can later return.

Rosemary Ruether and other sympathetic but critical scholars have noted this point as observers of such groups; Goldenberg, Christ and Daly have made the claim from within their movement.

There's a difference between judging others (which leads to condemnation, unfair treatment, cursing, sin, etc) versus pointing out who's a false prophet (which prevents believers from following those who claim to be man of God).

Others claim that the decline of communism points toward the ultimate victory of the human spirit in what has been essentially a spiritual struggle.

MyMainMan, one other point I'd like to make: If you're going to support Sagan's claim that athiests must presume to have much more knowledge than the rest of us, then the exact same must apply to Theists (those who believe in God).

You tried to claim otherwise the other day, but you never actually had any argument, every point you tried to make was shot down because there was no logic or reason behind it, so you failed.

No other structure in the world can be called on to promise eternal salvation, and when such salvific claims are made in the name of some nation, race, social class, religion, or ideology, the church must fight such idolatry and blasphemy with all its means of persuasion, even to the point of martyrdom.

So in other words, Russ, just because of naturechaplain's characterization of the Hebrew God, you assumed he was characterizing the Jews as naive to the point where you claim his opinion requires «two opposite contingencies».

The point I wanted to make is that God invites His people to study His Word in depth, to use the minds that He gave us and renewed, to gradually discover the deep levels of His progressive revelation, and to compare the internal consistency of His message to claims from other religions which invariably crumble upon thoughtful analysis.

This article does point out that people claim others are committing blasphemy for what they themselves don't even understand.

For a whole complex of reasons, which are often difficult to point to, the United States historically claims a higher rate of infant deaths than other developed countries.

This remains a strong implication of the story of the quarrel between Lot (the father of the nations Moab and Ammon) and Abraham, and Lot's free choice of the land to the east and south of Canaan proper (13) The same motive partially underlies the repeated promise of the land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the pointed denial of the claims of others, for example Ishmael (the Ishmaelites) and Esau (the Edomites) as well as Moab and Ammon.

@ME II: My point is simply that you fail to abide by that which you wish others to do when making claims about the Bible.

and now — for the THIRD time — I point out to you that I gave multiple categories for atheistic belief (which I NEVER claimed were exhaustive, but you are rightly deducing that I am pressing out many other forms of atheism as illogical or a form of cognitive dissonance).

My point is simply that you fail to abide by that which you wish others to do when making claims about the Bible.

This month, Christianity magazine reports on Todd Bentley, attacked by some for his exotic claims of angelic visitations and for his forceful and loud style, while others point to an extraordinary sense of God's presence when he preaches...

While some might think at this point that a strenuous argument that Whitehead does not understand Bergson on certain key points is ipso facto damaging to the other claim I am defending (that Bergson's «influence» on Whitehead was very significant).

Or the secularist may argue that we believe in God because we want to claim Divine sanction for our worldly interests and desires, and points to the allied and German soldiers in World War I singing hymns as they tried to kill each other, and the religious believer shakes his head sadly and admits that many Christians have done this from the beginning.

Yet argument over those points has clouded other scriptural claims about Mary.

Among its many other problems, the Politico story claimed that the Carson campaign had admitted that his story of applying to West Point was «fabricated.»

Though many Calvinists argue that double predestination is the only logical conclusion to the Calvinist position on God's election of some (but not all) to receive eternal life, I am not going to belabor the point or try to refute the idea since most Calvinists claim that they do not teach or believe it... (for more on reprobation and double predestination I recommend this book: Vance: The Other Side of Calvinism, pp, 250 - 333).

Indeed, in a world of many points of view, there is a deep philosophical problem involved in trying to defend the claim that one point of view is right and all others wrong when fundamental beliefs and values are involved.

I just feel the need, from time to time, to point out to you and other believers, as they make truth claims, that I think they are actually faith claims.

The claim that one can get all this by starting with such an openness to other points of view may seem surprising, and perhaps altogether incredible.

The point is, other religions can not touch in the remotest sense the historicity and actual truth claims of the Bible, so we are not complete fools for believing the good news.!

It is true that there are some other points where differences remain, contrary to the claims of the Joint Declaration.

I have heard people claim theory as fact over and over again, to the point where they ridicule any other position..

If you can't verify the truth of your claim, there's no point in letting others hear the claim, because they will not understand what you are talking about.

Your statement begs the question... Why put up a billboard in order to claim a «non belief» and in the process point specifically to others who do?

After all, Whitehead apparently does not radically diverge from the Einsteinian point of view, but rather emphasizes one assumption of Einstein's and claims that it logically supersedes his other, resulting in a shift away from Einstein's operationist definition of simultaneity to Whitehead's «empirical - realist» definition.

To point out the unrecognized similarity of Leclerc's «new» proposals of 1972 and the position espoused by Hartshorne at least since 1936 is, on the one hand, to claim originality for Hartshorne and, on the other, to indicate that the independent and thorough work of Leclerc adds to the credibility of Hartshorne's speculations.

As for your other point; if someone does claim to be a Christian, and is rich, they are indeed commanded to give of their own money.

And to add to the confusion, Wills claims to admire two Catholics above all others: St. Augustine and Cardinal Newman, even though Wills» own pontifications on sex differ entirely from Augustine's views, and his lucubrations on development bear no resemblance to Newman's own painstaking historical analysis, which would point out to Wills that false doctrines can not be said to «develop.»

My point was entirely this - that the PCA (and others) are «right to object» to claims that this is a bona fide Reformed move.

On the other hand, I've busted you for lying about three dozen times, shown how you have no idea what a «false dichotomy» is, and pointed out the stupidity of your claims..

Jesus does not support his demand for love by referring to the value of other men as human beings, and love of enemies is not the high point of universal love of humanity, but the high point of overcoming of self, the surrender of one's own claim.

In a world where the religious spend a signficant amount of time pointing out the sins of others while claiming that they are in relationship with the One who has set the moral standards... and then a significant number of them commit one of the most heinous of crimes against children and have leaders spend significant effort at covering it up...

In other words, religion can, for the purpose of these theories, in principle be either reconstructed or abolished and seen as pointing to a more comprehensive theoretical system.4 By locating religion in a larger explanatory context it gives «its public claim to validity a purely relative value».5

So canned and promiscuous a characterization does precisely what progressives such as Mrs. Clinton claim the bigots do: generalize and demonize others to the point of dehumanization.