Sentences with phrase «understand your point here»

I don't understand your point here.

I don't think i understand your point here.

Every one's opinion would differ and have different opinions, so I don't understand your point here.

Please, I want you to understand a point here.

I don't understand your point here at all.

[Response: I don't understand your points here.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

@Sean OToole, I understand your point here, and all I wanted here was to give you a feedback of the feature that you have as part of the service.

Not exact matches

Creating a few pieces of content here and there might help someone understand a topic better, but they won't help you hit all of those touch points between your brand and your audience — and they won't help you build a meaningful relationship with it.

When Judas went back and try to give back the 30 silver coins he did so because he felt remorse, now there is a huge difference between remorse and repentance, which I don't have time to explain here, my point is let's not be ignorant of the Scriptures, we have to dig in real deep so that we can understand what it is trying to tell us.

One doesn't need a belief in «god» to understand the point you make here.

But though I will argue for this teleological view of nature and human nature from empirical premises and from reason, my purpose here is not to debate or attempt to prove this point, but rather to illustrate how some teleological understanding of nature and human nature is a necessary premise for the idea of environmental stewardship.

I understand you're new here but Salero I always off topic and that is all that was being pointed out... perhaps you'd like to get a room at the local asylum with Sally!

Whitehead did work out a complex theory of value, but my point here is only to indicate that Whitehead's way of understanding human beings as part of nature both requires that we extend the ethical discussion and gives us clues as to how to do this.

My concern here is that WTS and other Reformed institutions are elevating Calvin's theological interpretation of God to the point that it is understood to be a comprehensive explanation of God, the only «right» way of thinking about Him and worshipping Him.

Abraham resists the suggestion, partly out of disbelief, partly out of his attachment to his firstborn; but the reader is given to understand that, to overstate the point, Abraham is here with Ishmael undergoing basic training, as it were, just practicing to become the father of Isaac.

Regarding the third point: Shalom's objection here is, if I understand him, that Hartshorne invokes God to give «individuals... the desired quality of subjectivity.»

Indeed, the fundamental point here is that the strong appeal of the proposals being made by the new reformers is due to the fact that they cohere so well with the way in which we now understand political life and with the way in which we represent ourselves as moral agents.

Here's the basic point about religious freedom that people just don't understand.

I'm not sure I understood your last point, I operate under no such delusion, I will make no bones about the fact that if you choose to spend your life here without God, then you will do the very same in your eternity.

Interestingly enough, what is suggested here is the same point upon which we have already insisted: that life for human beings is a process of «becoming» and is not to be understood as an entirely completed and finished affair.

So as a Pastor I will mention a couple of points here to see if it will make a difference, while I fully understanding that for some it will not make the least bit of a dent.

This reply here is just what you wanted, not exactly as you wanted it, but really, it's all there... blast away... and understand that it's right... and God is there... and you reject no matter what is told to you... at any point in time, past, present or future... so it makes no difference who said it, or when you're told.

At no point is this challenge more overwhelming than in that radically new understanding of matter and the body itself which is incorporated here, just as nothing is more ultimately new than an enactment of the body itself in pure thinking.

Divine foreknowledge is understood to be divine foreordination, from our earthbound point of view.43 What is emerging here is the most explicit indication to date that God's power is perceived to be the only power.

Here we can best understand Whitehead's point by analogy with works of the imagination, since this fourth way calls upon the resources of conceptual possibility to heal the wounds inflicted by actuality.

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!

see what you have to understand about living in a real world — a world where god is just a story and not real — its a world based on scientific and physical laws that are proven to exist and their effects are measurable... us as humans, mere animals, hold no real power or control aside thru ingenuity which allows us to change our environment to suit us... stay with me here... at this point in human history we ceased to change to suit our environment and started changing it to suit us — thats destruction of the earth to suit one species — that should go over well...

Does it make sense to invent another person here when all the testimony points to Jesus, and when the Gospels paint a coherent picture of a man who lived and taught his powerful understanding of the love of God?

There is here a double credibility test: A proclamation that does not hold forth the promises of the justice of the kingdom to the poor of the earth is a caricature of the Gospel; but Christian participation in the struggles for justice which does not point towards the promises of the kingdom also makes a caricature of a Christian understanding of justice.

One inescapable point of debate here between liberals and evangelicals is their respective ways of understanding the Bible.

If love has a history then here is the point at which that history is shaped by a new understanding which claims to have its source in the history of Jesus.

My point here is that it blocks adequate understanding of community and therefore also of the common good.

Here Matthew points again to the work of Philo, whose views on sexuality reflect how it was understood in his time.

Which is, of course, one of the points we have to keep making about Pius XII, who had to make excruciating decisions about what to say and what not to say, because people would suffer and die if he said the wrong thing, but who receives from his critics no such understanding as Roosevelt receives here.

Do you understand that even if that were true its not the point here?

I think some of the commenters are missing a key point here... it is entirely possible, appropriate and correct to simultaneously accept the reality of God's existence AND understand that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I am very liberal about religion, and understand and agree with the point you are trying to make with irony here, but the statement above is also, I think, sadly, a legitimate way to interpret the gospels.

I understand James's point of view, I once raised it here.

And I can't understand the reaction from some of the fan's on here after the PSG game, You would think that we just got hammered and to be honest if there was any justice we should have of got completely smashed and for that reason I'm happy with the point we gained away to the best team in France.

And many casual fans will point to wins, but I think a lot of people around here understand that wins are a team stat.

«I understand,» Haber mused, «there is a guy here in New York who has got a lot of money and he is giving 2 to 1 that I won't get a total of 21 points in two games.»

There are a lot of comments here that just prove exactly what the writer of this article is trying to point out in that many fans of this club support it without understanding or believing in the club philosophy.

In some of the deals I've been in, I've been able to say «Arsene, I really need you involved here» and he does and he does it brilliantly, but he only gets involved at points in the system and I think that's possibly what the fans don't quite understand.»

I do nt really understand why Kev ia on here as he is always moaning and negative... Midkemma made a valid point that Sead os a left back / left - sided and was then subject to an onslaught by Kev Is there no moderation on this site?

It would be a shame if they go down because they are fantastically well organised, they press very well, they have a great solidarity, they are very fit and I understand now why they took points from the big teams here.

I do not understand what point you are making here because this is pretty obvious.

Mr Admin, you need to understand one point, without the people that comment here JustArsenal is dead.

Was not analyzing the Manchester ss and don't really care much there but from a footballing point of view and from the words of MR wenger I understand the logic I do nt read what the media thinks neither My comment above addresses the issues we face in comparison to the two previous seasons adding in our re enforcements The 22 million question «Are the Arsenal capable of achieving 85 point come next May???» I believed we were strong last year and said it here that the team was strong and together and used the very words that MR wenger used cohesion but as the season unfolded the cracks showed up at the very beginning when we lost to west ham and it got worse as we lost pole position and every thing around us came tumbling down by February last season here comes another important question did they know and understand what happened do they know what to do this term to avoid the very same faith well we wait and see Irregardless of what happens I will support Arsenal and will keep analyzing every match my way until May so Good luck Arsenal with your endeavors and hope you do well against Liverpool keep the fight on keep the heads up and give them a good beating

I came away with a thorough understanding of your point of view in a way that greatly enhanced the community here.