Sentences with phrase «same debate with»

Turns out he's been having the same debate with himself.

In fact, our good friend Paula Pant recently chimed in on this same debate with a variation of her own: You can afford anything, you just can't afford everything.

Not exact matches

Democrat presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton will sit down with the Tonight Show's Jimmy Fallon later this month on the same night her Republican counterparts spar in their next presidential debate, NBC announced Thursday.

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

In all debates there are two parties with two or more opposing sides of the same subject matter.

Even we can debate according to Scriptures and cross reference with the best manuscript available, the Word of God and Rhema Word of God is still being experienced and intepreted differently and uniquely by all of us though it could similar but not the same.

If you want to have a serious debate, you'll have to start engaging with the facts and arguments that have been presented rather than merely ignoring them and restating the same old arguments that you seem so desperate to believe.

We must familiarize ourselves with the nature of these debates lest we whitewash Christian history or, worse, commit the same injustices again.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

For them it was God in the back bedroom with a tube sock, but the end result is the same... As to who or what did the stroking is the real debate.

Their discomfort with cultural issues is reflected in their protests that matters such as partial - birth abortion, school prayer, or same - sex marriage are not proper items for political debate; they are rather «wedge issues» that conservatives illegitimately bring into the public arena in order to divide the nation (read: in order to cost Democrats votes).

About moderation: if we were in an auditorium with an audience and debating and I was moderating, I would do the same thing.

I do the same in politics with Republicans and Democrats, or any other debating group.

But Bill Nye couldn't stand on the same stage and debate with someone like Norman Geisler, Henry Morris or John Whitcomb.

The Tea Party in particular, with its belief in Jeffersonian ideas, has been responsible for re-introducing the Constitution into the public debate, a place that it has not held in the same way for over a century.

It was particularly helpful to read his description of monophyletism (several people from the same stock) in connection with the debate about monogenism or polygenism.

In the historical sciences, we can not, as in the natural sciences, achieve the clarity of observation that will enable all observers to describe the same phenomenon in the same way, but we can enter into debate with one another with regard to our findings and so strive for a consensus that will take us all further forward.

A group of people unite with the same beliefs, outreach to the community to convert others to atheism, and debate with other religions on why they are right... Sounds like a religion to me.

Biblical inerrancy is debated in America's largest denomination with the same vigor, and in almost the precise terms, that it was in the 1890s Charles Briggs trial.

The second act of the national debate over same - sex marriage began this week with a focus on religious liberty.

I am no Scholar but, I believe God has the power to change prophecy the way that he did with Hezekiah, his intentions for a perfect people in the beginning changed due to disobedience so who's to say our men or intended leadership has overall been disobedient, and many women have been forced to lead and in that leading women have been more obedient.We all need each other if my husband was a pastor and I'm his help mate if he for some reason can't teach or preach who else other than myself would be the closest to him.I don't believe GOD changes he's always the same but, he does have the power to make changes and he does not need our permission to do so, instead of debating back and forth over our version of the Bible we should be sure we have the Holy Spirit and real relationship with GOD because he will reveal to us his truths but, please know he's not the author of confusion

Your postings continually quote the same author (s), you articulate from a hermeneutic of suspicion, not giving acknowledgment of those that understand scripture from a hermeneutic of faith never mind engaging in discussion and debate with that hermeneutic.

I'm not creating any stir or being condescending, but just holding up a mirror a making a comment about how anyone who doesn't have the same perceptions as you can easily argue the opposite to you with an approach to discussion and debate of rhetoric that is not dissimilar to how you have commented.

Romans: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

This same prevailing attitude comes out strongly so often when discussing or debating anything with fundamentalists.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.»

For example, recent shows have discussed living as a Christian «in a neo-pagan culture,» a debate on the Church's view on same - sex attraction, and an episode about the importance of human exceptionalism (featuring an interview with yours truly).

As for the current intra-evangelical debate about Scripture, I will say only that inerrancy with the needed footnotes weighs in about the same as naked infallibility,» or so it seems to me.

What strikes me on rereading that exchange is how much their debate hinged on a proper interpretation of Milton, with Fish insisting on the same views now developed at fuller length in How Milton Works, and Neuhaus insisting that Milton would agree with his own assertion that «one's decision for a «first premise» is a reasoned decision.»

Publications, including this one, sometimes close particular lines of correspondence so as not to wear out the patience of the wider readership, because they are becoming effectively a private dialogue with the same few correspondents and the debate is going nowhere.

I have exactly the same problem with both units, which only get used once or twice a week at the most, debating whether to buy a new container or just scrap it and get a more expensive blender

if only wenger read blogs, he would see how arsenal fans are committed to the club, every day we debate the same things and come up with the same solutions... Wenger has a plan, let him play it out, patience fellow gooners!

Repeat Wenger out all you like, funny how repeating the same phrase over and over is a sign of low intelligence, people with higher intelligence prefer a debate, not to be told something over and over.

I thought people here were debating about two or three seasons back why he should be our top striker.When I thought the Monaco match was the icing on the cake to show how average he was it seems just like Wenger we» will never learn our lesson.Now people our okay with him being a super sub which is debatable.Giroud was a super sub in games last season because he wasn't played when he was supposed to.He's not your ideal super sub because he very hardly creates but rather requires people to create for him.Most of the time super subs are the one's who tend to create the chances and open up spaces in the opposition defence.West ham are ready to pay and hence we should demand more from them.We can then use the money from his sale on far better players.Given the same seasons, time and chances a lot of average strikers can do better than what he did.This is because Arsenal create a lot of chances and it just needs someone who can finish.Goodbye!.

I have said many times that our fanbase has been turned upside down over the manager debate and have tried to explain why in the same way you have done with your post.

guys i cant believe Laurent Koscielny, is the same height as vamerlyn i taught he was taller how the hell could wenger buy a defender the same height as the one we have when the nature of english football requires u to have good height at the back to prevent aerial bombardment as in the past and of course physical problems with the likes of stoke and chelsea have wenger not learn from five trophyless seasons i cant believe this and still debating if to buy a new defender i must say i had optimism for the new season but after seeing this i think we are a dead horse again hell if this is the case then cesc should bolt and go to barca wenger nothing personal but i think ur an absolute idiot............

And, I'm finding that I like that shift with my own kids; at 18 and 21, they are much more fun to talk to (whether they feel the same way about me is still open to debate!)

I agree with some of the same points you are making and the debate part.

At the same time, a debate is heating up about possible health risks, with more state and local governments getting involved.

And I know you will get plenty of thoughts on the stroller issue (I'm still debating the exact same blender question with you, so I'll keep watching that convo).

Since the early 1990s, government policy on maternity care in England has moved towards policies designed to give women with straightforward pregnancies a choice of settings for birth.1 2 In this context, freestanding midwifery units, midwifery units located in the same building or on the same site as an obstetric unit (hereafter referred to as alongside midwifery units), and home birth services have increasingly become relevant to the configuration of maternity services under consideration in England.3 The relative benefits and risks of birth in these alternative settings have been widely debated in recent years.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lower rates of obstetric interventions and other positive maternal outcomes have been consistently found in planned births at home and in midwifery units, but clear conclusions regarding perinatal outcome have been lacking.

The debate over how to respond to the growing research linking brain trauma to injuries sustained in sports has spread to Europe, with many of the same dynamics seen in recent years as the issue gained momentum in the United States.

So maybe I don't feel the emotional engagement with the debates because my situation is still so unusual that I don't compare myself to others in the same position.

Could the Republicans do exactly the same to Sen. Murphy, and every other Democrat who speaks out, thus effectively bringing an end to debate and preventing a filibuster, with their simple majority?

And as has been widely discussed, CNN is still vetting the questions, so there's always a chance that we'll end up with the same Washington - consensus questions that dominate the regular debates.

Likewise with «binders full of women,» a phrase that 20 years ago, when the same handful of white men analyzed presidential debates on TV news, may have passed by essentially unnoticed actually had a lasting impact.

«We want to point out that in any discussion with our partners we have to start from a fundamental constitutional principle, the same in the US and Romania, according to which the debates, decisions and votes in the Parliament take place in the name of the sovereignty of the people and can not be the object of any form of pressure,» reads the quoted communiqué issued by the heads of the two Chambers.

It has attempted to accommodate a fast - evolving secular culture by compromising with it, while at the same time failing to adapt and modernise its own leadership structures to be more relevant and effective in both contemporary public debate and in attracting new members.

«I have always lived my life with dignity, integrity and honesty; and I can say without hesitation that I brought those same characteristics everyday when I proposed bills, passed legislation, debated public policy, and fought tooth and nail to protect western New York on the floor of the New York State Senate for the past 38 years.»