Sentences with phrase «understand your point there»

I understand the point there were many debt settlement entities that did not offer a well structured product or good customer service, but the criticism of those companies was not about the premise of debt settlement but the way they sold it and collected advanced fees.

I do understand your point there on the low fixed rate.

Not exact matches

They understand that there's no point in pursuing an opportunity halfway.

I can understand why there might be questions about something new that's different, but we've really tried to do it from the point of view of the publishers, and we believe that we can create an environments that's actually really great for the publishers, really great for the readers, and also really great for the advertisers.

Yes, he'd understood the science of DNA testing was incomplete, and that there was vigorous debate over the efficacy (and even potential downside) of population screening, and that it still wasn't clear if the process had reached the point where two different testing companies would even arrive at the same results.

If the first prototype brought in front of potential customers doesn't work, it means «you don't understand their pain point — there are five or 10 things you are not addressing,» Zenios says.

What it does mean, is that once kids are old enough to understand the finer points of language (and according to Bergen, that's probably younger than you imagine), there's no cause for guilt if you use (and they pick up) some less - than - demure language.

My understanding at this point is that there's almost an 18 % reduction in the county population, which is really good news.

I want to work with more people who understand that there's no point in hitting goals if you have no fun along the way.

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.

I just think there are a few things bond investors need to understand about longer maturity bonds, so I was pointing out the possible risks.

But, in light of the election and all those infrastructure goodies on the way, there is one point that needs to be clarified for folks to have a better understanding of the evolution of monetary policy based on the available information or things that can be safely inferred.

And there's analysis of key turning points in the development of the oil sands, crucial to understanding what is unfolding in Alberta.

So, as you can understand, there is no point in selecting RSI and stochastic.

The full truth is that I have nothing against trend lines, and yes I understand that there are «objective» methods out there detailing the «correct» method for choosing which two points to connect to draw a proper trend line (DeMark, Magee, I think Pring to name a few).

«A full reading of Bernstein's email reveals an important point ---- his assertion that, in the 1980s, we never denied the possible role of human activity as a cause for climate change, and he further makes clear that, at that point in time, there was a great deal of uncertainty and lack of understanding of climate change, even among leading scientists and experts,» said Keil, adding that today, Exxon «believes the risk of climate change is clear, and warrants action.»

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.

@fimilleur from time to time mankind experiences the presence of God, there have been and continue to be events that testify to the presence of Him.The multiple gods you continually point to have an unique difference from the God who first revealed His presence to ancient men i.e. the Hebrews.The particular gods you mention roman etc. are all man made and in many instances men themselves i.e. hercules, but even the ancient greeks realized the limitations of their understanding and included an «unknown» God in their worship structure.many cultures did likewise, having a glimpse of God but not the fullness of understanding that was given to the Jews.Whether or not «we» believe, does not alter the fact that God exists as an unique being, whether or not «we» acknowledge Him «we» will stand before Him.You do not choose to understand, but we are actually standing in His presence right now as He is much bigger than the doctrines and knowledge man ascribes to Him those things you find so questionable are the misconceptions and misrepresentations of God made by men throughout history.

All you haters that point to bad things as proof that there is no God don't understand that this is not heaven.

I understand your point, but even athiests admit there is some evidence for the bible and Christ, altough they do not believe in a god or that Christ was anyting more than an average man.

All biblical evidence points to the fact that there was an understanding about the nature of the earth and many other topics far beyond the secular understanding of the time.

Then you admit your illogical ranting about how there was an uproar when the Bible was published in other languages has nothing to do with my point about the absurdity of requiring people to read the Quran in Arabic in order to properly understand it.

You are making it needlessly hard, or are perhaps just plain too stupid to understand such a simple fact as: there's no point debunking myths that virtually no one and no one at all with any real clout believes in anyway, but MUCH point in debunking myths that large numbers of people, including powerful politicians, believe should be the guiding principles for the country's entire political culture and laws.

He makes the preliminary point very robustly, that there is no room in Catholic theology for any hiatus at all between our scientific understanding of the world, and our faith.

My point was there were quite a few politicians who didn't understand that the law could be used to help religions THEY don't like.

I agree with not going trying to change the world as in change to people by telling them they are wrong and I am right (IF I have understood your point of view) but I guess I'm not so convinced when it comes to society, and just accepting what ever **** is in there or anywhere.

At least, it tells me that they at least have the mental faculties to understand that numbers, facts, science, and proof aren't on their side, there's no point in disputing it, but there's also no point in trying to change their mind.

The point is, many atheists recognize that there is more out there than we understand and can explain by reason.

You've highlighted an important point about scripture: There is no way to understand what it means unless you can understand what it meant to the people who wrote it.

I'm not saying that when you'll do this you'll become an atheist (though personally I believe if you truely do think about it, that you will become one soon enough) there are a few people on this board (like JW) who has thought long and hard about god and rationalized it enough to still be a believer and make some sense, but fred, I will not be even remotely swayed to understand your point if you only use the bible as your bullhorn.

If this writer was such a non-believer then why doesn't she realize that there are rational, realistic reasons for not being an alcoholic and wouldn't need to use some «higher power» as a crutch to understand that when you do anything to the point where it physically damages your body then it's time to realize that you've taken it too far?

I'm sorry, Daniel; if you can't understand what Jesus said, there's no point in my telling you anything.

There would otherwise be no point even attempting to communicate; it would be like speaking a different language and expecting to be understood.

First, each of them has perfect self - knowledge and unlimited understanding of the other two persons; there are, accordingly, no points of disagreement between them as a result of ignorance or simple misunderstanding of one another's intentions.

But I pointed out that there was new evidence — from biblical studies and from various empirical studies in the human sciences, especially psychology and sociology — that completely undermined the traditional understanding of homosexuality as a chosen and changeable state.

Yes there are passages that point out what Jesus would do but the OT folks did not fully understand the implications.

If our different understandings of the truth made no difference, there would be no point in dialogue.

In the West, human freedom has not, of course, always been understood in terms of individual autonomy (cf. the thought of St. Augustine and John Calvin on this point); and there is some evidence that the modern individualistic understanding of freedom is fundamentally responsible for some of our present cultural difficulties.

If you can't understand my explanation above and see that as an attempt at discrediting, without pointing out where exactly it's wrong, then there isn't much more I can do, other than hope one day you'll learn something.

Jeffrey Burton Russell points out that among historians of science «there's a strong debate going on between those who understand that the development of science is basically a Western European phenomenon, and that this is because of its Christian or Judeo - Christian roots, and those who maintain that religion blocked the progress of science until the 18th and 19th centuries, and that [science has] to struggle against religion.

To your last point, when I said choice is an illusion, I wasn't referring that it is impossible to make that choice, but rather that there is a «right» choice and a «wrong» choice, the «right» one being that you worship god, regardless of how weird some of the rituals might be, making you a little more than a robot, acting out a script your given, we're just slightly better because we can justify why we're acting out a command, but it takes years to understand that justification, in the beginning, you do these rituals because you're given a script and if you don't want to do it, tough.

Even if the philosophical argument does not entirely persuade, we should not therefore conclude that there is no point to Taylor's insistence that we can be selves only by understanding ourselves in relation to some defining community.

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 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 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.

I think I cd safely assume that there is some unknowability in yr understanding of God (mystery), that you accept and believe a gospel narrative (discovery) and yr engaged in how you treat others (Spirit) The point of the model is not being the same, but recognizing sameness.

You state «Even so, most people understand that these references are legitimate»; I'd point out that most scholars, instead, recognize that the Testimonium Flavianum was not written by Josephus, but is a forged insertion into his writings placed there long after Josephus» death.

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.

You know — I am not there — but sometimes when I discuss this with people of the faith and they struggle to understand even your basic points — I could see the road there.

Yet at the crucial point of Jesus» own understanding of the kingdom, there is still no agreement among competent scholars.

There is a time to share, but I understand your point and Jake Plummer's.

Point is that there are millions of things we do not understand for we are limited by time and other resources.