Sentences with phrase «then make a ruling»

It's not like Blizzard was fine with gold farming until Chinese workers started doing it, and then made rules ex-post-facto to force the Chinese out of the market.

And then we make this rule.

Not exact matches

«If following a «company rule» is obviously ridiculous in a particular situation, such that it would make for a great Dilbert cartoon, then the rule should change.»

... If there are language improvements to make it clear that cities should be able to set ridership rules, then we are open to that.»

Yes (as his lawyer pointed out) people do make mistakes, and even a mayor can be forgiven for an incidental breach of a rule now and then.

Monday's advice: «Eat a dinner item in the morning» — and then reflect on how breaking the rules made you feel.

The President directed that if the Department makes an affirmative determination as to any of the above three considerations, or the Department concludes for any other reason, after appropriate review, that the Fiduciary Rule, PTEs, or both are inconsistent with the priority of the Administration «to empower Americans to make their own financial decisions, to facilitate their ability to save for retirement and build the individual wealth necessary to afford typical lifetime expenses, such as buying a home and paying for college, and to withstand unexpected financial emergencies,» then the Department shall publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the Fiduciary Rule, as appropriate and as consistent with Rule, PTEs, or both are inconsistent with the priority of the Administration «to empower Americans to make their own financial decisions, to facilitate their ability to save for retirement and build the individual wealth necessary to afford typical lifetime expenses, such as buying a home and paying for college, and to withstand unexpected financial emergencies,» then the Department shall publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the Fiduciary Rule, as appropriate and as consistent with rule rescinding or revising the Fiduciary Rule, as appropriate and as consistent with Rule, as appropriate and as consistent with law.

And it would then be obvious that to the extent the interests of the shareholders clash with those of «the community» — a community that, for all intents and purposes, includes the entire population of the developed world — it's the responsibility of the community's elected representatives in Congress to make rules that align those incentives.

Saxon said during his remarks at the IRI event that in his conversations with DOL officials, he's stressed that if the fiduciary redraft — which the DOL has now pushed to a January 2015 release date — expands the definition of fiduciary under ERISA, then the department «has to make the [rule's] exemptions workable.»

The 40 % rule says «make 40 % of the required move immediately, and then work off the remainder fairly quickly, taking opportunities the market gives you.»

He then called for new rules of the game in the international monetary system, a call that he has made before, and is gaining some traction.

If it's true that PS Fund 1 is a co-bidder, then its previous purchases were purchases made by the offering person, and so don't violate Rule 14e - 3.

But the details and rules have yet to be clarified and until then a tax law design today make taxes simpler has made it a lot more complicated and perhaps more costly for the government.

The Feds then set rules that give companies incentives to make contributions to the plan on behalf of employees.

If he grabbed her groin or breasts in wrestling he would be hear a chorus of boo's or if she lost she could blame it on grabbing the wrong area, and ultimately if changes and accommodations have to be made to the rules then it's not really equal is it.

«When a single person breaks the rules of the game,» Havel writes, «thus exposing it as a game, everything suddenly appears in another light and the whole crust seems then to be made of a tissue on the point of tearing and disintegrating uncontrollably.»

A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell - mouths mercy, and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!

We here in Yemen our Unity day celebration is on 22 May since 1990 to date but this time because of the troubles in the country related to changes we are threatened by the oppositions that they would make of it a bloody date marching towards the presidency to remove the president against the will of many who prefer having the president finish his legal ruling period rather than those coming to rule by coup rather than legal honest elections... Honestly what a mess we are in by those oppositions who what to take over what the youth have achieved and will be using those youth as their slaughter sheep for them to reach the ruling chair and then again when they both oppositions fight among them over it...

If believing historians can simply declare some event to be an exception to the usual modes of historical reasoning and then make up rules that apply only to that alleged exception, how can this strategy be limited to Christians?

If there is a God and there is just as much for as against, But lets say there is a God and he made everything Including you and He gets to make the rules because lets face it hes a lot bigger then you, So unfortunately he only wants those who believe in him based on the information given, Lets look at the facts based on the Book,, Some of his own angels turned on him and they see him every day... That had to hurt, So he decides With man he only wants those with the faith to believe based on His book and faith found thru the holy spirit, If you refuse to believe then he cant use you, cant trust you, so he will choose to toss you aside, Hey I understand It ai nt fair, Your important, Your Smart, But unfortunately hes bigger then you and he has the Juice, You either play by the rules or wait and see what not believing leads too.

When the High Court did not rule in favor of the family, the Evanses made an appeal which was also lost and then taken to the Supreme Court.

The Punjab was then under the rule of the Sikhs who made life impossible for the Muslims there.

This is especially obvious if you view religion as essentially a source of ethical rules for human behaviour rather than theological truths about God and make the techie assumption that content equals rules; then, if all your churches come up with the same rules, they must all be based on the same content, and thus they must ultimately all be the same.

He doesn't make the rules clear, and then tortures people when they don't follow them.

This «son» was then put to death so this god would not get mad and uncreate the beings he created for breaking the rules that he made as well.

However the NIV inserts a word not in the Greek, so 4:6 reads «this is why the Gospel was preached even to those who are now dead...» The translators admit the «now» is not in the Greek but say that they put it there to make clear that the passage doesn't refer to post mortem opportunity which they claim is ruled out by Hebrews 9:27 «it is appointed unto to man once to die and then comes judgement».

Along the way I became a Catholic and then an oblate of the community — a lay member who promises to, as much as possible, make use of the same framework for life that the monks do: the Rule, frequent Eucharist, daily devotions, the incorporation of silence.

My goal is to make readers first laugh, and then think, about the ways in which we invoke the phrase «biblical womanhood,» because I believe both the Bible and womanhood are more complex than a list of rules and acceptable roles.

But if Christians allow death to rule in the realm of physicality, then ultimately the doctrine of creation is in jeopardy — the doctrine that God remains the good creator who loves the world that God has made and who is not going to abandon it.

If god makes the rules, and god creates people as they are, then condemns those who behave as they created them to behave, then he's at fault.

The «christian view» goes something like this, «there is a benevolent sky daddy who made some arbitrary rules that include condoning slavery and stoning unruly children to death, and if I don't follow these rules, I burn in hell for all eternity... unless I ask for forgiveness at some point before I die, then all is forgiven and I live in heaven for all eternity, even if I'm a baby rapist!».

To me, that makes more sense than an invisible supernatural being in the sky magically poofing the Universe into existence and then dictating rules and regulation that would either be obeyed, or result in eternal torture if you didn't.

God is the «mightiest» and he makes the rules and then gets to break them.

It was only then that the Conservative Movement took upon itself the authority to make legal rulings on its own.

If their own made up rule gets in the way of having fun then they just change the rule and call it a spiritual awakening, or what ever they want to call it.

Then people (usually those in power) made up a bunch of rules about what this man / woman experienced and called it their religion and judged (hated / killed) other people that do not believe their religion.

then The Bible talks about a group of people who he made a promise with That was Based on those rules.

In other words, if it can be shown that it is contingent that anything at all exists, then not only will the particular effort Hartshorne has made be refuted, but any further attempts would be ruled out a priori.

Rules of war worked then about as well as now when it is the control of atomic weapons that is the desired goal of those who would make war more humane.

If Jesus» commands are rules, then the Gospel amounts to the Torah 2.0, and Jesus only made matters worse for us by raising the bar.

Engles» approach to building design promotes the «hedonistic sustainability» that God has commissioned for mankind since the beginning: «Then God said, «Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.»»

The rule of thumb is «assume literal, but if literal makes no sense, then it's figurative.»

It's your right to choose not to live in a community with an HOA; it is not your right to move into one and then demand that an exception be made because you don't like the rules.

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

@sirhuxley: so if we all agree that all religious books are man made whether with good intentions or of trying to rule others then the age of earth would not have to match (within 6 days) the creation of humans and we would not really be objecting to a God!?

Christinsanity is the first to make a rule about some silly c r a p that has nothing to do with them, and then the first to bend the rules when it fits their purpose.

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.

It's easy to put each other in a box or make a little rule book for ourselves about what Good Christian Women Do and Look Like and then even sub boxes below that about Schooling and Discipline and Food and so on.

I guess under Judge Martin's brilliant legal analysis, if the gun - toting, bible - beatin» Christians of his county find his ruling «offensive» they can just bring their pitchforks and remove him from the bench, and then in any subsequent prosecution all evidence will be thrown out and Judge Martin can be called a «doofus» for making a ruling that offends them.

Commissioners vote, adopt legislation, make rules, and then return home with no continuing responsibility for the actions they have taken.