Sentences with phrase «second argument of»

Present and explain the second argument of the supporting side;

Not exact matches

If they can reorient their arguments and persuade you a second time, that is exactly the type of person you need on the phones.

In the second group are existing cable and satellite companies, who will be making a number of arguments about why this opening up isn't necessary — including the argument that they are already opening up themselves and therefore don't need the FCC to barge in and wreck things.

In the end, this may well be a case where the corporations need to trust the experts, or the bulk of them, and at very least lend their weight to the argument in favour of giving the Summer Olympics a very serious second look.

Despite some arguments on Wednesday that the upward revision of growth in the second quarter would table the Federal Reserve's plan for another round of quantitative easing, Bill Gross of PIMCO says it will happen regardless.

As the American Conservative's Matt Purple wrote, «Conservatives objected that leveraging kids in policy arguments was a lousy tactic — until they found a kid of their own: Kyle Kashuv, just as bright and eloquent as his peers and a stout defender of the Second Amendment.»

Instead, it addressed the questions it proposed to the parties in June when it set down the case for an unusual second argument in September, those of whether Austin and McConnell should be overruled.

With that said, I would like to play the devil's advocate for a second vis - à - vis your arguments regarding actual GDP growth and the overall productivity of investment.

In support of this second point, the President has pointed to overall declines in total Post Office revenue (an argument analysts are quick to counter — revenue in the Post Office's shipping and packages segment continues to grow).

Indeed, in oral arguments on Sept. 23 in the second case before Judge Daniel Crabtree in the District of Kansas, attorneys for insurer Market Synergy argued Labor failed to prove the current state - based regulation of fixed - indexed annuities is broken, and that the judge should «hit the pause» button on including them in the rule.

The second concept necessary for the encyclical's argument is the common good: «To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity.»

The second ramification of Bonhoeffer's argument is that truth has to be learned.

Then comes a second statement which contains the same elements, but shifts the terms of the argument:

I appreciate, however, the second half of the passage, where Jesus makes an argument about resurrection.

Kirsten: There's an article in The New York Times about Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens basically making this argument that for the first 200 years of the country it was just accepted that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a well - regulated militia.

He makes the insightful remark that many of the arguments in favour ofallowing married priesthood put marriage in second place (Love Strong as Death, Ronald Walls, Gracewing, 2001, p. 290).

If sociologists have tended to center on the foregoing argument and to single out work as the basis of their assessment of our present inability to play authentically, theologians and philosophers have tended to: focus upon a second area: America's distorted value structure that has accepted as true the «mindscape» of technology 48 This is Theodore Roszak's phrase, and his discussion can perhaps serve as a helpful starting point.

Of these we will consider three: first, Altizer's view of the normative relation of faith and theology to the dominant cultural movement of the time; second, Altizer's approach to Christology; and third, the style of Altizer's thought and argumenOf these we will consider three: first, Altizer's view of the normative relation of faith and theology to the dominant cultural movement of the time; second, Altizer's approach to Christology; and third, the style of Altizer's thought and argumenof the normative relation of faith and theology to the dominant cultural movement of the time; second, Altizer's approach to Christology; and third, the style of Altizer's thought and argumenof faith and theology to the dominant cultural movement of the time; second, Altizer's approach to Christology; and third, the style of Altizer's thought and argumenof the time; second, Altizer's approach to Christology; and third, the style of Altizer's thought and argumenof Altizer's thought and argument.

By contrast the second kind of argument mounted under the banner of process hermeneutics supports a claim that such - and - such a tenet of process theology is «Biblical theology» in the sense of being compatible with what some Biblical texts say on a theological topic.

The second argument is that not only change but the being or preservation of entities requires causal explanation.

The second argument must be taken very seriously, for (as so often happens nowadays) it casts doubt on certain Christian beliefs, namely, that we must preach the gospel so that men may be converted; that the purpose of preaching the gospel is neither to reform society nor to increase justice, but simply to convert men to their Lord Jesus Christ.

The second sort of argument, designed to show that certain process doctrines are compatible with certain Biblical texts, was warranted by interpretations of certain Biblical texts that were hacked by exegetical studies.

Canon 8 of the Council of Nicea, whose interpretation constitutes the heart of Cereti's argument, does indeed condemn those who do not permit a second marriage.

So this is the second argument against the Calvinistic interpretation of Genesis 12:1 - 3.

It's the lying and deception that can destroy trust in these situations more than almost anything else, and the second episode even makes it a point to try and get that across through slapstick humor, until it ditches that initial argument altogether and starts becoming a wacky comedy in full with all of the usual trappings.

Second, turning it into a pan-sexual epidemic justified «safe sex» programs in schools and elsewhere, providing an argument for the distribution of condoms and other measures implicitly normalizing sexual promiscuity.

In short, the first sort of argument is supportive of the second.

A second line of argument against the presence of any contingent element in God stems from the doctrine that God is Being.

Just as every entity requires an explanation of its being in terms of an efficient cause of being (the second argument), so also it requires an explanation in terms of final cause or purpose.

Second, because it was a request not a command, Abraham was free to refuse, and his refusal did not require any argument about the justice or injustice of the matter.

On this second argument, general adherence to any such ethic prevents maximization of the good.

The central chapter on the Second Premise (K 65 - 140) contains: (i) a refutation of the attempted application of Cantor's transfinite mathematics to the domain of extramental reality, (ii) two philosophical arguments which attempt to show the conceptual absurdity of the notion of an infinite past of finite actualities, and (iii) two arguments from physics (concerning Big Bang and Thermodynamic theory, respectively) which attempt to show that probably the natural universe had an absolute beginning a finite time ago.

Now, assume with me for a second that God exists (I firmly believe He does) for the sake of argument.

But in the second passage, the heat of argument elicits [Hume's] real conviction — everybody's real conviction — that visual sensations arise «by the eyes.»

As Barry has pointed out, however, this second argument admits of a ready reply.

It is this fact which, as in the early church so now, has been a powerful force in moving people toward the acceptance of the second part of the argument, namely, that there must be an authoritative church which will adjudicate finally, absolutely, and even infallibly on which interpretations should be seen as resulting from the Spirit's illumination and which should not.

He finds these values as well in the handiwork of «insurrectionists» from Daniel Shays to John Brown to Timothy McVeigh, and in the arguments of neo-republican legal scholars such as Amar, Sanford Levinson and David Williams, who find a mandate for revolutionary resistance to oppressive government in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Second, everything you've said here is a declaration of faith, rather than a substantial argument.

The first and most obvious is that what he has to say captures so well the essence of the revisionist argument, and second it makes clear that the argument of the revisionists is the same whether they are speaking of heterosexual or homosexual relations.

To the second argument above (that there's no mechanism for turning a study of privilege into something helpful), I believe Christians have such a mechanism.

«A Critique of the «Second Argument,»» 341, 348 - 353.

The second thing wrong with Rabbi Petuchowski's argument is that it libels Jews when it claims that they harbor «Jewish animosity» toward «public celebration of the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth.»

The second basic component of Berger's argument is that something called «everyday reality» is paramount.

Of course unrealized potentialities also follow from the first argument, and contingency from the second; for these notions are strictly correlative.

Nor do I find any other cogent arguments in Hartshorne against the attributes of the second group, though I will not be able to argue this last point in detail.

But the great objection to the argument advanced by Dr. Dodd is (1) the probability that Luke — that is, the author of Acts — had seen and used the Gospel of Mark before writing these early chapters of his «second volume»; if so, he would naturally have the pattern of Mark still in mind.

Second, Michigan, you just used the «God of the Gaps» argument multiple times in your post.

There are several arguments that can be advanced against this position: first, that there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is true.

Second, Mr. Dembski rests a great part of his argument on showing that the «physical» and the «spiritual» can not overlap.

We concluded that there are several reasons that could be used to support an argument for choosing Jesus as our compass, for granting him a sacred role as meaning - giver: first, we are not aware of any especially good alternatives; second, his ability to serve in this role has been confirmed in many faithful lives; and third, in choosing him we align ourselves with a compass which is in the public domain, and as such our interpretation is subject to the correction of tradition and public debate.