Sentences with phrase «point of my argument about»

Forgot to mention a crucial point of my argument about selling.

Not exact matches

Now, you may or may not find that to be a persuasive argument about the state of income inequality in Canada — as our own Chris MacDonald has pointed out, determining the fairness of CEO pay is more complicated than it seems.

«Retailers should brace for a backlash... The more people rely on these points and closer they are to value, the more an argument for lots of notice and some rules about convertibility sound sensible.»

In the last two years as the bull argument has been pummeled into reality by the surge in debt, the persistent failure of consumption growth to close the gap with GDP growth, and the sharp slowdown in overall growth, the mood abroad has turned increasingly bearish, to the point that many people are speaking about a China collapse and the horrible implications this will have for the rest of the world.

«Part of our Sector Weight thesis longer term has been the view that at some point, investors might start to care that a significant portion... of the company's gross profit pool was no longer growing, and so while investors largely care about Model 3 for the moment, that S / X continue to point toward these trends makes multiple expansion arguments more challenging,» analysts Elliot Arnson and Brad Erickson said in a Wednesday note.

but in attempting to make that large number seem problematic, you actually both defeated your other argument (about its irrelevance and lack of pervasiveness) while also unintentionally pointing out the very opposite of the point you were attempting to make — the primary unity underlying a vast & varied swath of people.

Of course they may end up disagreeing with Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine, and Barth about the moral significance of our being created male and female, but shouldn't they be a little less sanguine about it and a little more deferential, to the point of saying, «We believe the tradition made a grave mistake in its disallowance of gay partnerships, but at the same time we acknowledge our deep indebtedness to that tradition for giving us the theological and ethical vision to even make our argument for inclusion»Of course they may end up disagreeing with Bernard of Clairvaux, Augustine, and Barth about the moral significance of our being created male and female, but shouldn't they be a little less sanguine about it and a little more deferential, to the point of saying, «We believe the tradition made a grave mistake in its disallowance of gay partnerships, but at the same time we acknowledge our deep indebtedness to that tradition for giving us the theological and ethical vision to even make our argument for inclusion»of Clairvaux, Augustine, and Barth about the moral significance of our being created male and female, but shouldn't they be a little less sanguine about it and a little more deferential, to the point of saying, «We believe the tradition made a grave mistake in its disallowance of gay partnerships, but at the same time we acknowledge our deep indebtedness to that tradition for giving us the theological and ethical vision to even make our argument for inclusion»of our being created male and female, but shouldn't they be a little less sanguine about it and a little more deferential, to the point of saying, «We believe the tradition made a grave mistake in its disallowance of gay partnerships, but at the same time we acknowledge our deep indebtedness to that tradition for giving us the theological and ethical vision to even make our argument for inclusion»of saying, «We believe the tradition made a grave mistake in its disallowance of gay partnerships, but at the same time we acknowledge our deep indebtedness to that tradition for giving us the theological and ethical vision to even make our argument for inclusion»of gay partnerships, but at the same time we acknowledge our deep indebtedness to that tradition for giving us the theological and ethical vision to even make our argument for inclusion»?

At one level this is an abstruse argument about the finer points of theological anthropology.

Most Likely to Start an Argument Between You and Your Friends: Roger Olson with «Some Thoughts About Conversations / Debates Between Calvinists and Arminians» «It seems to me that most 5 point Calvinists I know seem bound and determined to believe anything they think the Bible says regardless of how horrific that may be.

It never ceases to amaze me the convoluted arguments an academic with a preconceived notion about a social issue will go to advance his point of view.

I have yet to see any proof of a god, and most of this nonsense is about their god, so at some point their arguments or lack of them will always have that one huge hole in them.

The argument about the relevance of the tithe to the modern Christ - followers really misses the point, though.

He's developing an argument about the significance of the doctrine of the resurrection by discussing the logical consequence of denying it (verses 12 - 19), going on a very typical Pauline digression almost as if he's overcome by joy at the positive truth and has to triumphantly proclaim it (verses 20 - 28) then finally returning to drive home the practical point again (verses 29 - 35).

More will be said in a moment about the implications of this situation, but first something more must be said about the argument to this point.

But of course, this argument misses the entire point of your disagreement with me about what happens to unfruitful branches.

Again, the point I would make about Gal 3:28 is not to see that as being about an argument for «equality» (for example women in leadership) but that it is possible to be part of the body of Christ for everyone and that you don't have to be male / Jew / free for that.

Here is the point: such an argument against utilitarianism stakes everything on a pre-philosophical intuition about the heinousness of murder.

At issue in the argument about reason was the question of its starting point.

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

What is happening here is a mashing together of texts to make the point about continuity between the then and now - the now, of course, related to those Christians who are in agreement with the arguments of Cyprian.

However we explain it, the God of all righteousness and love did make himself known with mighty, unprecedented power in Jesus — living, dying, risen — and arguments about the novelty of this or that element in his teaching do not touch the point at all.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

These include a fantastic sequence in which Scout and Jem and Dill play the main parts of a revivalist meeting that culminates in Dill's grandly appearing as nothing less than the Holy Ghost, but not before the children have a pointed argument about denominational differences — Methodist vs. Baptist — and related liturgical practices (how's that for dating the novel?).

Don't fall into CNN or Fox Network lies, they don't care about God or your eternal salvation, just posting something so Ungodly like this is so Bad, (listen... Get close to Christ the redeemer of mankind) don't get into foolish arguments like this, Hollywood and all media is just the tipping point of the iceberg of something more evil happening, and to believers: get your doctrine straight and don't defend the works of this man (Stephen King) he is not giving glory to God with his live and work, there's many men of God that need your support that really give glory to God.

It is not my intention to defend everything the encyclical tradition has had to say about sex and marriage but rather to point out that that tradition, especially in Arcanum Divinae, at least had the argument in the right ball park — namely, that what one says about sex is correlative to one's understanding of the nature of the family and what its function is for the preservation of good societies.

He then separated his argument about profits from the point of view that had led him to discover this truth.

Thing is (and I have no argument for your point) the Catholic Church doesn't get all balled up about the QUALITY of those nice clothes you're wearing.

Professor Ayala illustrates the very fashionable Catholic diffidence about the import of recent discoveries about the nature of the universe, whilst Clive Copus, who helpfully flags up the dominance of Ayala's school of thought at the Rome evolution conference last year, proposes the «Intelligent Design» (ID) argument that some parts of the universe point to God, and by implication that some don't do so nearly so well.

Although Hasker concludes this argument by pointing out that for it too «it is God who is responsible for the existence of creatures who have the freedom and power to bring about great evils,» I had explicitly said that «God is responsible for [the distinctively human forms of evil on our planet] in the sense of having encouraged the world in the direction that made these evils possible» (Process 75; cf. God 308 - 09).

The cause of this uneasiness becomes clearer if we question Ignatieff's argument at several points: the validity of the moral paradigm itself, the assumptions from which he proceeds, the inconsistencies in how he describes the limits to be observed in doing the «lesser evil,» and his conclusions about specific elements of the war on terror.

In a good number of internet discussions, you will find arguments about the use or non-use of EVOO in cooking that focus on the issue of smoke point.

That argument about the inflated prices of players and having a great chance of buying a flop, while losing a player that does pitch in with crucial goals, regardless of his defensive absence (even though in 2016/17 his defensive work has drastically improved) makes a point.

A lot of arguments are being made about what we need — and don't need — and lots of people have weighed in with good points.

While the recent form of the Under - 21s side might be a strong argument against that with a group of talented young players on show, the point he makes about the Italian, Spanish and French leagues providing an obvious spine of homegrown players in their respective All - Star teams is true.

As demonstrated above your points of argument were senseless, while you made false claims about what Wenger said.

If you want to make an argument against the Angels, it would invoke the regression of Matt Shoemaker and Kole Calhoun, and it would loudly point out that the slow decline of Jered Weaver, C.J. Wilson and / or Albert Pujols is about to evolve into sudden decline.

Also, the bulk of the argument in this section hinges on passing percentages, I would like to point to Statsbomb's excellent article about how pointless passing percentages are without proper context (8).

Further, it's gotten to the point where any comment made in support of an argument made by the right is labeled racist, etc., as if someone in a political position one doesn't share can never be right about anything (a problem shared by both those on the left and right).

I have heard the argument that it clearly is the case that no one knows, so what is the point of writing about it — which rather ignores the fact that something is going to happen, even if we have no idea what that something is.

Instead, realize that just because they are upset about a particular issue, and that does not mean that you are a «bad parent,» and — in many cases — having an... MORE argument about it will not bring them any closer to seeing your point of view.

«The argument is going to be about the final arbiter, and I do think there is a point that the European Court of Justice isn't the right mechanism and I gather there is some movement on that.

While I agree with your overall point that there is a value of differentiating arguments of principle and ultimate values from political strategy and tactics about how to make change happen, I am somewhat sceptical of the implication that a significant problem has been that modern political philosophy has been too pragmatic or applied.

We would all like it to operate differently, many of us have those feelings about the fundamental points about sovereignty and all those arguments.

The assertion about the huge financial involvement in my views is in order but may not be completely correct, as the argument was not only sophistry but antithetical to building a nation devoid of corruption and goes against the global warning on corruption as succulently pointed out.

After weeks of testimony about bank loans and allegations of securities - related fraud, the courtroom spectator section during prosecution arguments filled up once more — to the point where court security officers began sending spectators to an overflow courtroom.

Everybody would be angry about the drug dealer - the point I was trying to make is that the reciprocity argument applied to him is different in kind from that applied to someone for whom «unearned wealth» accumulates independent of the taxpayer.

So I wasn't being particularly critical of Shapps» argument or evidence about IVF services, but was pointing out that it depends on a willingness to reign in local variation.

At this point it's important to caveat the whole line of argument about Labour and its diminishing working class - ness (as Eric Joyce recently pointed out).

Physicists have argued about entanglement for decades; they offer all sorts of different points of view, explanations and arguments about what it means and what its consequences are for understanding the nature of physical reality.

At best, she casts a critical eye over arguments such as that about the role of forced intercourse in evolution, pointing to the fact that in many species the female acts as a gatekeeper to reproduction.