Sentences with phrase «points by answering»

Today, you can earn another quick 1,000 Marriott points by answering from what yard line the extra point ball is snapped.

Today, you can earn another quick 1,000 Marriott points by answering how long a quarter is in an NFL game.

Today, you can earn another quick 1,000 Marriott points by answering what year the current instant - replay system began.

Today, you can earn another quick 1,000 Marriott points by answering what year the first NFL Pro Bowl was held.

Today, you can earn a quick 1,000 Marriott points by answering where the Pro Football Hall of Fame is located.

Marriott Rewards members easily earned 1,000 points by answering a simple question on Twitter.

Today, you can earn another quick 1,000 Marriott points by answering how high the crossbar is on an NFL goal post.

Participating students are required to complete 20 games on various levels of Live Mathletics, earning points by answering as many correct questions as possible alongside other competing students of the same age and ability level.

sharperoo: I have stated my point openly and invited both you and Richard Tol to contradict my point by answering questions which would reveal me to be wrong.

I have stated my point openly and invited both you and Richard Tol to contradict my point by answering questions which would reveal me to be wrong.

Not exact matches

So whether it's interacting with customers on Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, YouTube, Pinterest, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Google +, or its own blog, across all these touch points the company says it tries to answer every comment posted by customers and fans — whether it's retweeting customer tweets, replying to mentions, or following people.

By the time you're at this point, no one can know the answer for sure, and you'll probably get a quick yes.»

«As such, stressed out sales reps will all too often try to sell and negotiate at the same time by layering questions with value points, or worse, answering their own question on behalf of the prospect.»

The celeb can then choose to answer these questions by responding directly to the fan, at which point the fan will likely freak out on their Twitter page that Kim Kardashian just answered their query as to how she lost her baby weight (it was the Atkins diet).

Quick answer: no, as the European Central Bank, which has an inate fear of inflation, felt compelled on Thursday by the economic crisis in Europe to cut its benchmark interest rates by 0.25 percentage points, bringing the refinancing rate to a record low of 0.75 % and the overnight deposit rate to zero.

Fantastic answers by Draghi pointing to inconsistency of critics towards QE, either too small or too big.

By the time consumers are transferred to a call center agent, things have escalated to the point where chatbots have the answers...

The question is ridiculous, since yes, the religious leaders (Jews) had a hand in killing Jesus, but the conclusion that modern Jews are responsible is also ridiculous, as well as the insistence on retracting the question by the ADL, whose whole point is to prevent people from blaming modern Jews, not whether the answer is true or not.

@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.

I experience miracles and answered prayer none of which a skeptic will accept nor would I have accepted such accounts prior to that point when the Holy Spirit began to reveal a reality governed by what is not scientifically falsifiable.

The point is that Christians need so many answers, none of which is supported by any evidence at all, whereas the atheist only needs one answer for all of them: There is no God.

As I've pointed out, there have been instances in the past where people explained phenomena with spiritual answers, only to have those explanation later debunked by science.

First, atheists directly challenge their beliefs by pointing out the flaws in their reasoning and answers, and relentlessly pointing out there is no evidence to support any of their beliefs.

One can not answer the question of what constitutes the just society by pointing to socialism as such, while among capitalist societies there are varying approximations of justice.

Not to put too fine a point on matters, we do a tremendous disservice to the cause of justice by suggesting that those who have done the silencing have some right to expect any sort of deference when called upon to answer for their misdeeds.

Or at some point they may be faced by a question of great personal consequence that requires a yes - or - no, true - or - false, answer.

Hellbent... my point, apparently missed by you, is that, because you will ALWAYS chalk up answered prayer to coincidence, there is no reason to evaluate it from a scientific point.

Before answering by pointing to others — or to the workplace, the corporation, the school, the city, the class, the nation that needs to be challenged — we need to start with ourselves as we think about exposure and repentance.

Here is a great point by point answer to Mr. Nye: http://www.youroriginsmatter.com/conversations/view/What+Does+the+%22Science+Guy%22+Have+to+Say+About+Evolution%3F/53

Now, as Nagel argues, this is not the sort of question that you can answer by looking at a few examples (bats for Nagel, Christians for us) and pointing and saying, «Well, being a bat (or a Christian) is like this.»

While we must still admit that nature reveals to us only the answers to questions selectively focused by our interpretive structures, we may reaffirm that we are still in her leading strings, to reverse Kant's point, because reality is the first motive for the natural process of thinking as well as the final measure of its results.

I'd answer by pointing to Andrew Sullivan, who, like me, is somewhat torn between the Oakeshottian - Hobbesian view of the state and a view more like that of Ron Paul by way of Locke.

In John 3:11 - 13 we get the second main point of the discourse: that an answer to the question about Jesus will not be given by scanning the heavens, but by attending to the human words and deeds of the one standing before you, the Son of man - that is, this concrete earthly man.

’16 These words point back to the way in which Jesus began to answer man's basic cry by what he taught during his earthly ministry.

However, her point does not answer the issue of continuing cover - up by the church hierarchy.

Santorum had a strikingly weird answer on «Don't ask, don't tell,» but his big point that the military shouldn't be governed by social engineering seem to have resonated.

This is important because I believe (as I think Flo pointed out), that in a way, the entire rest of the Bible was written to provide an answer for the questions raised by the book of Job.

In answer tothey not him.There is no place in the book, the Bible, that says the planet is only 6000 years old, it is the word of God, just because the Bible has been misinterpreted by men and women over the years does not make it (the Bible) a work of fiction.The Bible has been proven to be more accurate and unchanged than any other text of antiquity.Case in point Kedorlaomer.

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

Paul enjoyed pointing out that one had only to read the cover to get the answer to the question posed by the title.

This answer begins with an affirmation of the pre-existence of Jesus: When Jesus ascended to the Father after his resurrection (for by the end of the first century, or soon afterward, resurrection and exaltation, originally one event, have been distinguished from each other [It hardly needs to be pointed out that there is no ascension in Paul.

Within a local area, numbers of churches will tacitly accept an ecumenical answer by simply pointing out that «signing» for the deaf is carried on at one or more specific churches in the city, and deaf members in a church where such signing is not practiced are in effect invited to the church where it is, even though that church may be of another denomination.

Since we are spending a lot time discussing the finer points of beating a slave, and subsequent penalties for the master, I assume that we are by that one and the answer is yes.

Now, in their letter, Collins and Walls again offer no answer to Newman's question, but only reinforce their appeal to consensus by pointing out that Nicaea has been «defended over and over again by great theologians and biblical scholars down the centuries.»

Luke reports it, pertinently for content if somewhat awkwardly from the point of view of style, as told by Jesus in answer to the evasive question «Who is my neighbor?»

The answer then is that the identity of a line consists in an unbroken continuity of points, but that none of its properties is determined until certain of its points are actually fixed, e.g., by specifying numbers or laying down certain conditions for a geometrical construction.

Having engaged in far too many seemingly endless and usually fruitless discussions about the word «inerrancy,» I am both convicted and encouraged by McKnight's reminder here that «having the right view [of the Bible] isn't the point of the Bible... We must begin an entirely new conversation that gets us beyond the right view of the Bible to one that seeks to answer this question, «What is our relationship to the God of the Bible?»

Because this is the sole ideal that has the solidity once owned by Catholicism and the flexibility that this was never able to have, the only one that can always face the future and does not claim to determine it in any particular and contingent form, the only one that can resist criticism and represent for human society the point around which, in its frequent upheavals, in its continual oscillations, equilibrium is perpetually restored, so that when the question is heard whether liberty will enjoy what is known as the future, the answer must be that it has something better still: it has eternity.29

The Confession was answered courteously point by point.

Wow, I respond by telling you I respect your faith even though your answers don't address my points.